LONDON • British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament is a political issue and not a matter for judges, a lawyer for Mr Johnson said yesterday as he sought to persuade the Supreme Court that the five-week shutdown was lawful.
Mr Johnson had asked Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament from Sept 10 till Oct 14, prompting accusations from opponents that he wanted to silence the legislature in the run-up to Britain's exit from the European Union on Oct 31.
The Supreme Court, Britain's top judicial body, began three days of hearings on Tuesday to decide whether Mr Johnson's advice to the Queen regarding the suspension was unlawful.
A ruling against him would be a major embarrassment, as he has no majority in Parliament, and could see lawmakers returning early, with more time to try to influence his Brexit plans.
Mr Johnson's lawyer James Eadie told the court he would produce a written document today outlining what Mr Johnson would do if he lost. Another government lawyer said on Tuesday that if Mr Johnson lost the case, he could recall Parliament earlier than planned.
Outlining Mr Johnson's case, Mr Eadie said the ability to prorogue Parliament was a matter of politics or "high policy" which was non-justiciable, meaning it was not something on which judges could rule.
It was a matter for Parliament to hold the government to account, not the courts, Mr Eadie added, arguing that lawmakers could take action themselves, such as holding a vote of no-confidence in the government if they wished.
The question of justiciability is likely to be key to which way the Supreme Court goes. A ruling is expected tomorrow at the earliest.
Mr Eadie said the suggestion that Mr Johnson "was operating on the basis that Parliament was intended to be stymied" was untenable, referring to minutes of a Cabinet meeting and memos from Mr Johnson and one of his top aides which indicated the reasoning was to prepare a new legislative agenda.
Lawyers for opposition lawmakers and anti-Brexit campaigners behind the legal challenge say the real motive was to thwart Parliament's efforts to stop him from leading the country out of the EU on Oct 31 without an agreed divorce deal.
They have told the apex court it was "remarkable" Mr Johnson had not provided a witness statement spelling out his reasons for the prorogation, an omission even the judges queried.
"No one has come forward from your side to say this is true ... the whole truth, nothing but the truth or partly true," Judge Nicholas Wilson said to Mr Eadie.
The lawyer replied that the memos provided were sufficient.
Mr David Pannick, the lawyer for activist Gina Miller, one of those behind the legal action, told the court on Tuesday that no other prime minister had abused the power to prorogue Parliament in this way in 50 years.
The Prime Minister has denied misleading the Queen.
REUTERS
