By Aabigayle McIntosh

The Court of Appeal has delivered a significant legal setback to  St Peter MP Asot Michael, dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Speaker of the House, Sir Gerald Watt KC, regarding his suspension from Parliament.

The appeal, which Michael lodged to contest his suspension for conduct deemed unbecoming during a parliamentary session, was struck out on procedural grounds.

Williams J, the presiding judge, ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to review decisions concerning internal parliamentary matters.

This decision came after counsel representing Sir Gerald Watt KC successfully argued that the appeal was invalid because it lacked prior leave from the court, a requisite for jurisdiction-related challenges.

The Court of Appeal agreed with this argument, concluding that the appeal was an incurable nullity.

This ruling indicates that judicial oversight over parliamentary decisions is limited, emphasizing the separation of powers and reinforcing the Speaker’s authority to manage parliamentary conduct.

Setback for Asot Michael

Michael’s efforts to challenge his suspension, which has spanned three parliamentary sessions, have encountered a legal dead end.

This outcome not only represents a setback for Mr. Michael but also underlines the boundaries within which the judiciary can intervene in parliamentary proceedings.

A Precedent for Parliamentary Autonomy

The ruling also serves as a precedent, delineating the boundaries of legal recourse in matters relating to parliamentary governance.

It reinforces the careful balance between the branches of government and underscores the autonomy of parliamentary procedures from judicial interference.