Our View: No thought given to who would be in charge

WHILE the political parties were engaged in the customary horse-trading over the presidency of the newly-elected House of Representatives, retired deputy and lawyer Andreas Angelides raised a constitutional point to which little thought had been given. Since President Christofias’ departure for Australia on Monday and until his return to the island early next week, there would be nobody to exercise executive power.

According to the constitution, in the absence of the president, the presidential duties are performed by the president of the House. At present there is no such official because the legislature dissolved itself on April 21 and will convene again on June 2 in order to elect a House president. And as Angelides pointed out, in a newspaper article, there was no provision in the constitution for the president of the dissolved House to perform presidential duties.

In short, if there is a pressing need for an urgent decision to be taken by the executive, it cannot be done. While it is highly unlikely such a need would arise, the possibility cannot be ruled out altogether. So should the president have tried to re-schedule his trip Down Under, so there would be no power void? Not according to the opinion given to the government by the Attorney General’s office, which felt that in urgent and exceptional, unforeseen circumstances the outgoing House president could be called on to rubber-stamp decisions.

Of course legal opinions, irrespective of who gives them, are not always correct. The issue needs to be thought through properly after all legal opinions were considered, in relation to the relevant provisions of the constitution.