BCCG Inc.’s Post

On September 15, 2024, the Government of Pakistan introduced a series of constitutional amendments Bill under the title "Constitution (Twenty-Sixth Amendment Act, 2024). Among the proposed changes, Article 9A stands out positively by stating: “(9A. Clean and Healthy Environment – Every person shall be entitled to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.” However, the amendment also includes significant changes to the judiciary. For instance, it suggests replacing the term “Supreme Court” with “Federal Constitutional Court” in Article 17, Clause 2. Additionally, the proposed Article 175A aims to overhaul the entire judicial structure of Pakistan. The proposed amendment is designed to weaken the independence of the judiciary by giving the government greater influence over the appointment of judges. By raising the retirement age to sixty-eight, the amendment allows the government to keep their preferred judges in place for a longer period. This effectively creates a "Federal Constitutional Court" that operates under the government's control. Additionally, the amendment centralizes the power to appoint judges to the High Court and Supreme Court, making these appointments increasingly subject to government influence. Rather than a genuine reform, this move appears to be an attempt to manipulate the judicial system to benefit the government's own interests. If this Amendment Bill is passed, it would violate constitutional principles and undermine the impartiality and fairness that are essential to our legal system.

In Canada 🇨🇦 parliament is on hold right now 🇨🇦😳 Rights of the House as a Collectivity As a collectivity, the House of Commons has a certain number of rights which it claims or which have been accorded to it by statute. For example, the House claims the right to institute inquiries into any matter, to require the attendance of witnesses, and to order the production of documents. The Parliament of Canada Act260 confers the right to administer oaths to witnesses. The rights and powers of the House as a collectivity may be categorized as follows: the regulation of its own internal affairs; the authority to maintain the attendance and service of its Members; the power to discipline; the right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers; the right to administer oaths to witnesses appearing before it; and the right to publish papers without recourse to the courts relating to the content. The two most dominant rights or powers are the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs and the power to discipline. Regulation of Internal Affairs The exclusive right of the House of Commons to regulate its own internal affairs refers to its control of its laws Police forces also may not enter the precinct to investigate the commission of an offence without permission from the Speaker. Cases have arisen where representatives of outside police forces have wanted to enter the Parliamentary Precinct for purposes of making an arrest, conducting an interrogation or executing a search warrant within the terms of the Criminal Code. The Speaker has the authority, on behalf of the House, to grant or deny outside police 👮♀️ forces permission to enter the precinct, and oblige police to seek this permission prior to conducting their business.

BILL WATCH 30-2024 - PVO Amendment Bill Progress Report As we reported in Bill Watch 29/2024, the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill completed its Committee Stage in the National Assembly on Tuesday. Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs were all adopted by the Committee, while amendments proposed by opposition Members were almost all rejected. The Bill is now with the Parliamentary Legal Committee for its opinion on the constitutionality of the Bill as amended. If, as expected, the PLC issues a non-adverse report, the Bill will be read for the third time (largely a formality) before being sent to the Senate. In this Bill Watch we shall outline the amendments that have been made to the Bill, but before doing so we should outline the history of the Bill so far. https://lnkd.in/dn22iyhR

An interesting development in the admin law/tribunals space in Ontario! "...Bill 179, the Fewer Backlogs and Less Partisan Tribunals Act, would create an independent body, the Adjudicative Tribunals Justice Council. The council would monitor tribunal appointments, operations, and severance policies with approval, reporting, and investigative powers." #paralegal #justiceadmin #law #justice #adminlaw #tribunal

The public of New Zealand should be very concerned that no legislation exists to regulate judges & no legislation exists for the public to protect themselves from New Zealand Parliament stripping their rights. The issues with the treaty of waitangi are bigger than “maori values” - The judicial system of New Zealand is said to be bound by 7 random but “fundamental” pieces of legislation deemed as the: “unwritten constitution” (by design for the courts and parliament in NZ to feign ambiguity instead of combining all documents into one location and calling it “the constitution”)  As no legislation exists to regulate judges, (realistically it doesn’t matter what the law says judges can and will distort at their own will for their own convenience and the public is largely powerless to protect themselves from that as no external regulating bodies exist) and no legislation exists to preserve fundamental legislation which should be expanded with the times (such as technology advances) NOT restricted or revoked which has serious implications for the nullify of precedent decisions some judges have ruled in the past with progressive and legally sound decisions- including Peter Ellis post mortem conviction quashing. The treaty of waitangi adds human values and mana, social commitment and ethical conduct into legislation that parliament and the Courts of New Zealand | Ngā Kōti o Aotearoa MUST consider in all decisions and law making. To remove this or significantly strip the core values of this legislation will only serve to further dehumanise people and their rights before the courts.  Clearly there is an agenda and this Bill is obstructing other legislation being rolled through… the public (regardless of race) should be worried. https://lnkd.in/gmYjwb_W Credit to these 42 KCs who have spoken!

It is no secret that winning a money suit against the government does not guarantee that you will ever get paid. The High Court recently expressed its displeasure by saying that the government has a "tendency to delay settling decrees, postpone the settlement thereof or outright refusal to pay." Though we may be saddened by this fact, the causes of this behaviour can only be understood by revisiting Kenya's legislative history and remembering the following: 1. Though we speak of the government as an impersonal monolith, it is actually run by flesh and blood human beings who take advantage of the imperfections of the law - as any logical person would. Therefore, the refusal to settle decrees is not a mere lapse of judgment, it is a response to the existing incentives and protections that the law (the Government Proceedings Act) has provided. 2. The Government Proceedings Act was copied from the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 of England by replacing all references to the word “Crown” with the word “Government”. At common law, the monarch is immune from all suits and actions at law, and is only bound by legislation by express mention or clear implication. By extension, no proceeding is maintainable against the monarch in person, the courts are his own and they have no jurisdiction over the monarch. Therefore, it is no surprise that the Government Proceedings Act prohibits any order against the Kenyan government for satisfaction of decrees just like the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947 prohibits similar orders against the Crown. 3. By creating the Government Proceedings Act, Kenya replicated the powers, prerogatives, and privileges that belonged to the Crown in England. This legislation by imitation entrenched the belief that Kenyan government officials possessed the attributes of the Crown thus making them behave as though the Courts and the laws are a nuisance that should follow their commands. 4. Even after adopting a new Constitution in 2010 explaining that authority is delegated by the people to the government, the government still refuses to settle decrees with the subtle indication that the Government Proceedings Act overrides the Constitution. 5. Old habits die hard and the government is not the public interest personified. Government is composed of people and they will protect their own interests no matter how much we may wish that they should take care of the public interest. Public interest, who knows what that means anyway?

The House of Commons is gridlocked. MPs are debating a privilege motion and could continue to do so for weeks. No other legislative business can take place while the motion is before the House. Privilege motions take precedence over all other business because they deal with something foundational to the functioning of the House: parliamentary privilege.  What is parliamentary privilege? Broadly, it refers to the protections and powers necessary for legislatures collectively and members individually to fulfill their democratic roles. Collectively, it includes: > instituting inquiries, demanding papers and calling witnesses > disciplinary powers—over members and over anyone found in contempt > regulating internal affairs and service of members Individually, it includes: > exemption from jury duty and from being subpoenaed to attend court > freedom from obstruction, interference and intimidation > freedom of speech The exercise of these powers and protections is informed by Speaker's rulings and parliamentary practice, but also by the courts. At law, parliamentary privilege forms part of the constitution and exists to protect the legislature's core democratic functions. The contours of parliamentary privilege are defined by determining what privileges, powers and immunities are necessary for legislatures and their members to carry out their core functions of legislating, deliberating and holding the government to account. Many recent cases touch on parliamentary privilege, including most recently Canada (AG) v Power, 2024 SCC 26, dealing with the availability of damages for unconstitutional legislation.  If you're interested in learning more about parliamentary privilege, the Canadian Study of Parliament Group is holding a conference on the topic on November 15, in Ottawa and online. Registration closes in three weeks—on November 13—don't miss out! See link in comments. I've also dropped a link in the comments to a more thorough overview of privilege on the House of Commons website.

Centre likely to bring in bill in Parliament, to curb Wakf Board powers https://lnkd.in/drBYvSyW #WakfBoardBill, #Parliament, #LegislativeUpdate, #GovernmentBill, #WakfBoardReform, #PolicyChange, #BillInParliament, #WakfBoardPowers, #LegalReform, #PoliticalNews

I disagree with Honourable Dr Kwabena Donkor for allegedly asserting that the current Supreme Court is prioritising partisan politics than the law.Article 1(2) of the 1992 constitution makes it clear of us practicing constitutional rule and making the law Supreme.Article 130(1) makes it clear of the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution whenever it is challenged.In GBA v Attorney General,it was made clear of this country practising constitutional rule and not parliamentary rule as done in Britain.If you look at 1969,1979 and current 1992 constitutions,it was vividly clear and carefully made of us practising constitutional rule.The judges have sworn to help us in the delivery of Justice.Executive and the legislature are partisan so we wanted a neutral arm in the execution of justice and we did find judges helping us if you look at the arms of government.There are laid down procedures as to how delivery of justice should be done.If you send your case and you lose,you have another chance of passing through the process until there is finality of your case.The problem here to me is the President appointing Chief Justice and Justice of Superior court of judicature.The judiciary per my thinking should be totally independent without the President appointing them but should have their own processes of appointing judges and Chief Justice This in a way would somehow bring matters down a bit.Regarding parliament being masters of their own rules,if you look at article 93(2) of the 1992 constitution,it is clear of parliament being under the Constitution.A decided case most attimes used is Tuffuor v Attorney General where it was said the judiciary cannot poke their nose into what goes in parliament.But in J H Mensah v Attorney General as regards procedural,the Supreme Court ruled that parliament should do as ascribed by the constitution about maintained ministers and new ministers.I think we should look at it like political question and all will depend on the Supreme Court in their ruling BA,MA,PGDE,LLB.