Theoreticals
1. Its Liberation Day. The Ministry of Radio has released a show talking about why this day is important. Praetor files a criminal complaint because radio shows are non-essential government business. Dreadton points out that Non-essential government business is undefined and that an essential government function is educating the population about the reasons behind Memorial Days. Where would you go to seek guidance on what is essential or non-essential?
The obvious starting point is wording of the law itself. “Non-essential” has a fairly obvious meaning as something that is not necessary, but I do think that has limitations when applied to our region, as in a strict sense, one could argue that almost nothing is necessary, so I think one would have to look more widely than just the word “non-essential”.
The one activity the law specifically identifies to halt is votes of the Regional Assembly, which accords with and codifies what was once the practice of the Speaker around regional holidays. That specification provides information on other activities, for instance, it could be taken as suggesting election votes need not halt, as the law could easily require votes in general to stop and as halting election votes has not been practice (at least as far as I recall). However, it is fairly far removed from the example.
I would also take into account other legal obligations of the regional government. Where something is required by some other law, it would follow, to my mind, that is not non-essential for the purposes of the law on holidays. For example, the requirements to give effect to criminal sentences. But, again, these factors do not arise here.
Beyond the strict provisions of the law, the purpose of the law should be taken into account when deciding its meaning. This is especially so where, as here, the law does actually state the object of memorial days. That being so, I think that the need to preserve and honour important events would be relevant to take into account when deciding what is non-essential, as to do otherwise would defeat the object of the law.
I may consider the discussions of the Assembly on the law, as noted by the Court’s decision
on RA Membership Requirements for Candidates, as it does seem to me there is ambiguity, but for this particular case I don’t think those discussions are helpful, as the Assembly didn’t discuss this point. Additionally, were there previous decisions of the Court on the meaning of the law in question or of “non-essential” in other contexts, I would consult them, but I don’t think are any decisions on this point.
So, the answer has a fairly wide range in the circumstances, as to where I might look for guidance. I would think, for this particular question, I would be most guided by the law’s object.
2. A citizen opens a thread to change the standing procedures to require a 24 hour period between the opening of debate and a vote, except when an emergency is declared. The thread is closed by the Speaker. He states that such a discussion is not in the interest of the region. The citizen files a R4R. He states that the Speaker violated the rules, as limiting the power of the Speaker is in the interest of the region. The speaker states he has broad leeway in controlling debate. He also points out that the Citizen has been critical of him in the past and this is just an attempt to harm him politically. The Speaker continues to end debate on any attempt to change the rules or laws that would limit his power. Finally, a recall motion is published to remove the Speaker. The Speaker closes debate on the recall in the interest of the region. What legal avenues are left for the Citizens of the Region?
The starting point, when looking at any issue around the Speaker’s actions in the Assembly is to consider the decision taken in the Constitution to give the Speaker the power to administer the rules of the Assembly and to use their discretion where those rules are lacking. The Court, over a number of decisions (most recently its decision
on the Speaker’s Power to Schedule Votes), has emphasised the broad nature of this discretion, that it extends to deciding on ambiguities within the rules, and that control of it is primarily for the Assembly.
However, that is not to say it is without limit, the Speaker cannot defy clear rules and, moreover, the Court has indicated that certain decisions within the Speaker’s discretion could be called into question if they are for illegitimate purposes. The situation set out is (I suspect not accidentally) almost exactly the kind of situation that the Court has envisioned as being one where discretionary decisions could be subject to interference from the Court. Notably, the Speaker has also sought to block the avenues where political control of their decisions can be exercised, which is plainly of relevance.
It would seem to me, therefore, that it would be possible for the Speaker’s decisions to be challenged successfully in the review brought. Additionally, it is arguable that the Speaker could be criminally liable for breach of their oath of office, for instance preventing their own removal from office could be characterised as a biased and abusive exercise of their power, and so they could be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct
EDIT: It would also be open to citizens simply to wait for the next election and vote the Speaker out, but I have addressed my answer to more immediate solutions.
EDIT2: added “think” to the paragraph on the objects of memorial days.
