BASL disgruntled by denial of oral right of reply... refuses to make written submissions

The Bar Association has formally informed the Supreme Court that it will not submit post-hearing written submissions in a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Judicature Amendment Bill, citing a number of procedural concerns raised during the hearing.

In a motion filed before the Supreme Court, the Bar Association drew attention to the court’s decision not to constitute a Full Court comprising all judges of the Supreme Court, despite a request made by the petitioners before the proceedings commenced.

The petitioners had sought a Full Court hearing amid concerns over potential conflicts of interest and possible perceptions of bias involving members of the bench, including the Chief Justice.

Counsel appearing for most of the other petitioners had supported the request. However, the bench declined to empanel a Full Court without providing reasons for the decision, according to the motion.

The Bar Association also raised concerns over the denial of what it described as the petitioners’ oral right of reply.

According to the motion, after the Solicitor General concluded submissions on behalf of the State at around 5.30 p.m. yesterday, counsel for the petitioners sought an opportunity to respond orally to the arguments presented.

That request was not granted. Instead, the court directed the parties to make their further submissions in writing.

The motion states that this prevented the petitioners from directly addressing the arguments advanced by the Solicitor General, as well as responding orally to matters raised by the judges during the proceedings.

The Bar Association maintained that the opportunity to make an oral reply was necessary to properly address the State’s submissions and respond to issues that arose during the hearing.

In view of these concerns, the Bar Association has now formally notified the Supreme Court that it will not tender post-hearing written submissions in the matter.

The move comes as the Supreme Court considers the constitutional challenges surrounding the proposed amendments to the country’s judicial framework.