<B>Where is it stipulated that the government has to organise a by-election within 240 days after an MP’s resignation?</B>

This stands under the Representation of the People’s Act Regulation 1987 known as the GN 16/87. It states that, after the President has received “written notice” of the MP’s resignation, the vacancy has to be filled within 240 days. “The President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, shall not later than 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy – issue a writ of election for the purpose of filling the vacancy; by notice to the Commission appoint the day on which if it becomes necessary to adjourn the election for the taking of a poll, the poll is to be taken (…) The date of election appointed under paragraph (2) (b) shall be not less than 15 days nor more than 60 days after the day on which the writ is issued and the day on which a poll is to be taken shall not be less than 15 days nor more than 90 days after the day on which the nomination of candidates for the election is received.”

<B>Would an amendment to this regulation be in accordance with the law?</B>

The government can amend this regulation – nothing can prevent it from doing so - but it cannot extend the period indefinitely. It has to remain reasonable. But it is hard to say when a period starts to be unreasonable. Each person may have his/her opinion on the issue. If such an extension violates the spirit of law and the very concept of democracy, then it shouldn’t take place. Legally, the point can be discussed.

In my opinion, the 240 days’ deadline is already a reasonable period. Going beyond it would mean that a seat would remain vacant in Parliament for more than three quarters of a year. Wouldn’t this mean that electors would be deprived of the right to be represented adequately as they would have no representative of their constituency for a long time? Let’s go even further, the electoral system is made to ensure that each component of our society is represented in Parliament. As soon as there is a vacancy, one of the components is discarded.

<B>Do you think that such an amendment is justified in these circumstances?</B>

In my opinion, there is no need to amend the regulation or anything else. But some conditions have to be fulfilled. The government should see if it can present its budget by April – nothing in law prevents from bringing the presentation forward – in order to dissolve Parliament and hold general elections before the 240 days are up. After this budget presentation, the government has six months to withdraw money from the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of meeting expenditure.

If the government doesn’t follow this route and presents the budget in June or July, then it will have to amend the Constitution to prolong Parliament. Article 57 (2) says, “Parliament, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date of the first sitting of the Assembly after any general election and shall then stand dissolved.” If the Constitution is amended by political whim, the government takes the risk of any citizen going to the Supreme Court to challenge the amendment.