Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) President Stephen Thiru has expressed concern over the failure to give lawyers representing the petitioners an opportunity to respond during the hearing of petitions against the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Thiru, who attended the Supreme Court hearing as an observer, said it was unfortunate that the petitioners’ lawyers were asked to submit their responses in writing instead of being allowed to respond orally.
He said lawyers are normally given an opportunity to respond orally, especially in important constitutional cases.
Thiru also questioned why a Full Bench of judges was not appointed to hear the case.
He said such important constitutional matters are normally heard by a larger bench, and that he had learned that a request for a Full Bench had been rejected.
“This raises the question of why a Full Bench was not appointed for such an important case,” he said.
However, Thiru said he would not comment on the merits of the arguments presented by either side, as that was not the role of the CLA.
He stressed that the independence of the judiciary is a very important principle and must be protected.
“If any action has been taken that could affect the independence of the judiciary, it should be addressed. If doubts about judicial independence continue, there is little benefit in arguing about the legal issues,” he said.