16
amended by the paragraphs of S.5(1) and (2) referred to are of a constitutional nature; it follows, therefore, that, if the Colonial Office view is sound in law (I don't think it has ever been tested in the courts), those paragraphs are ultra vires to the extent that they purport to provide for disqualification for membership of the Executive and Legislative Councils and for the vacation of seats thereon. In practice I doubt whether an occasion for challenging their validity would ever arise since it is unlikely that it would ever be desired to appoint to either Council a person convicted of an offence under S.3 or S.4 and if a member of either Council were so convicted it seems certain that his membership of the Council would in any case be terminated either by the signification of His Majesty's pleasure to that effect or in one of the ways specially provided for by the Letters Patent or Royal Instructions (see Letters Patent, Articles V and VI and Royal Instructions, Clause XVII). You may think, therefore, that it is hardly worth while amending the definitions in the Ordinance to meet my criticisms but I thought I had better draw your attention to the fact that for the reasons, and to the extent, stated the paragraphs in question may be ultra vires.
3. I notice that S.5 goes further than S.2 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, in that it makes employees of the Crown subject to disqualification for public office, dismissal from their appointments and deprivation of pension at the discretion of a court or magistrate. I see no legal objection, of course, to extending these provisions to Crown employees and no doubt
the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.