Skip to content

London defends before the Supreme Court that it is not up to the judges to assess the suspension of Parliament

September 18, 2019

LONDON, Sep 18 (Reuters / EP) –

The decision of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to suspend Parliament is a political issue and it is not up to the judges, he has defended the lawyer of the 'premier' on Wednesday in his attempt to persuade the Supreme Court that the postponement for five weeks Parliamentary sessions are legal.

Johnson asked Isabel II to suspend Parliament between September 10 and October 14, which was seen by the opposition as an attempt to silence deputies in the absence of weeks before the deadline for Brexit, on 31 October.

During his speech, Johnson's lawyer, James Eadie, has argued that the ability to suspend Parliament is a political or “high policy” issue that is not judicable, that is, on which it is not appropriate for judges to rule .

According to the lawyer, it is up to the deputies to hold the Government accountable and not to the courts, so parliamentarians can hold a motion of censure against the Government if they wish. “These are political judgments,” he said.

The Supreme ruling is not expected before this Friday as soon. Johnson, who is not appearing in person before the Supreme Court, has said he needed the suspension to be able to present a new legislative agenda, while his detractors argue that what he seeks is to prevent Parliament from stopping the United Kingdom from leaving the EU without agreement.

A lawyer for businesswoman and activist Gina Miller, one of the people who has filed legal action against the suspension, told the court on Tuesday that no other prime minister had abused the power to suspend Parliament in this way in the last 50 years. .

In his opinion, there is strong evidence that Johnson wanted to silence Parliament because he considered it an obstacle and said it is “remarkable” that the prime minister had not offered a statement as a witness stating his reasons for the suspension.

The Supreme Court already ruled against the Government in a similar constitutional case in 2017, also presented by Miller, when he said that the ministers could not start the formal process of leaving the EU for two years without Parliament's approval.

At the beginning of the hearing on Tuesday, the president of the court, Brenda Hale, said the current case is a legal issue and would not have a direct impact on when and how Brexit occurs.