Ok lets summarise what law and circus can be so that we all on one page. A member of parliament deliberates a law and its passed to effect that a Mayor will be ceremony figure and preside over meetings etc. The law provides for administration by a director, am executive one at that. So Mayor gives impression he is being failed etc, whatever that meant. So, he dodges work and doesnt effect his roles for which a motion to censure arises. Seeing how by strict interpretation he would be asked to explain why he should not be censured, he starts politics, riots and strange marriages with certain unruly characters. Well, enter Tribunal proceedings and his lordship assembles a big legal team and a bus full of defences, evidence and witnesses. Tribunal finds there is case to answer aka sufficient grounds for censure on account of failure to perform ceremonies. The Council censures him. He tries to prevent all that by going for Judicial review, a rather complicated game, because for that review, you are asking Court to address an administrative process as having been flawed, unfair or did not follow established procedure or law. He seeks an injunction that is served after the event aka censure. Courts, lawyers know, do not issue orders go vain. We will not go into detail of how the interim order etc was procured or manufactured to say the least. Whats more interesting, a court, not being the one that is hearing the judicial review, reinstates him. One would Imagine, the Court reviewing, would have been the one faulting the tribunal process and not the censure per say, orders would then follow as to the failed role of the tribunal and that the process was null and void and should be redone. Be it as it may, a Justice overturns a matter and a crowd runs to a whole supreme Court! Am Tired, will continue after a pain killer!
Posted on: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 14:20:26 +0000