Politics of Confusion-- The Illegality of sacking the appointed government

[Sophist]

:confused:

[Sophist]

Dear Sirs, I had just listened to your programme about the "sacking" of the appointed government of Somalia by it's legislative body. May I kindly draw to your attention that what has transpired in Nairobi is a demonstration of ludicrous nature of so called Somali politician—an oxymoron term one might argue.

 

 

The appointed government headed by Prof Ghedi has yet to be disapproved legally. The argument that the incumbent government has violated the constitution is rather laughable and any first year law student would point out such fallacy!!! the legal loophole is clearler than the SUN. Perhaps, the standing legal matter is rather too sophisticated for Somali parliamentarians to grasp. They indeed are in a state of confusion about is the nature of the constitution- a document which has not been passed through the parliament thusly remaining Proposed legislation. The appointed government can argue their case effortlessly if they pursue this line of argument.

 

Since the constitution itself has not been ratified, it is not the law of the land. It remains to be a proposed constitution—or more aptly customarily “lawâ€.

[NASSIR]

^^ I haven't completely understood your point on legal parlance.

 

 

However, i think the following explicit summary will help clear the ambiguity of our disagreements.

 

I also agree with Sophist.

 

 

Summoning and dissolving the legislature A head of state is often empowered to summon and dissolve the legislature. In most parliamentary systems, this is done on the advice of the prime minister or cabinet. In some parliamentary systems, and in some presidential systems, the head of state may on their own initiative do so. Some states, however, have fixed term parliaments, with no option of bringing forward elections. In other systems there are fixed terms, but the head of state retains authority to dissolve the legislature in certain circumstances (e.g. Article II, Section 3, of the US Constitution). Where a prime minister has lost the confidence of parliament, some states allow the head of state to refuse a parliamentary dissolution, where one is requested, forcing the prime minister's resignation.

[NASSIR]

Make necessary brain adjustment and reread the content of that brief outline to grasp my point. I and Sophist are on the same path in terms of the legality of parliamentarians to "sack" the prime minister. You said, if i understood your point, the parliamentarians were within the legal right to dismiss the P.M, which nullifies his authority as P.M, whereas I and sophist disagreed with such grave confusion on the legality of dismissing the Prime minister. Thus, i thought, the above explicit outline might help clarify your confussion and others as well.

[NASSIR]

Tolstey, i will in shallah respond to your request.

 

 

For now, legal loopholes about the irrationality of parliamentarians is the false accusation that the Prime minister violated Article 49.0 of the Transitional Federal Charter of Somali Republic. Read here.

 

Article 49.0 states that the P.M must 1-possess political leadership and experience, 2- be citizen of Somalia, 3-be 40 years of age. Access the link for Transitional Federal Charter of Somali Republic

[Sophist]

Salaams,

 

It seems there is much needed clarification on the above points; a legal quagmire one might venture to say. I shall without much murkiness write the refutation of what my fellow who is carrying the name of that highly esteemed novelist, namely Mr Tolstoy. In Simple words, this is what the issue is.

 

My fellow, the question which begs to be responded first is what is the source of Somali Law? And if that is answered, the then we shall pass to the other more crucial point and that is what is Law in Somalia, in other words WHO makes the law?

 

In Britain where we have a Common Law the answer to the first would be both parliament and judiciary (even though for the past decade judges had been shying away prescribing laws which are not passed by the parliament). In contrast, the source of law in Somalia is the Parliament thusly making it also the only institution which can pass a law.

 

My fellow the charter is nothing but a social contract between the former delegates of the conference that is what it is. It had served its purpose and as such when parliament came to existence, that charter had become null and void because of the establishment of a national federal parliament. What the parliament ought to have done was to pass the charter thus making it the law. But my fellow as things stand now, the charter is not a legal document but indeed a proposed legislation and it shall remain so until it passes through parliament.

 

There is no confusion at all; the matter is rather straight forward.

[Gediid]

^^^^So Sophist if I go by what you have written above the charter having not being passed by the Parliament is really no longer the law.Markaas if thats not the law then people elected on the principles of that charter and their subsequent actions are all NULL n VOID........unless of course somewhere along all this confusion it has been ratified into law by the assembly :confused:

[Sophist]

The charter is not null and void as it is! but it isn't law, it is a legal document in the sense it is a propossed legislation. The parliament is ex post facto legal entity thusly making the charter what it is merely a propossed legislation.

[Sophist]

Perhaps the confusion stems from your part my learned friend. Perhaps the “ex post facto legal entity†phrase had thrown you off the course; such is a lamentable after effect for I initially not had intended for such a result. Merely, the phrase is utilized here in its Latin meaning.

 

Tolstoy wrote “However that does not mean the federal charter is null and void as document; all it needs is parliamentary act of approval to make it a "Law" in statute sense of legality.â€

 

Uuh, indeed, you seem to agree with what I have postulated in my initial post. Anyhow, time won’t permit me to write more than these few lines, so perhaps you can hear the issue in detail this evening on Focus of Africa where I have discussed the matter extensively—that is if they air it this evening! Perhaps my long legal polemics would be rather taxing.