I don’t know what the agreement (or almost agreement or non-agreement) over elections will do to the issue before the Constitutional Court but it is interesting that two judges a couple of weeks made comments in a hearing that the issue of the president’s ukaze was a political question. (A place to start for info. on political questions is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question-- a place to start only mind you.)
Defining it as a political question would be a way to duck the whole issue, which is probably what some want to do. By that reasoning, however, any constitutional issue would be a political question. But here the question is does the president have the power under the Constitution to dismiss Parliament. It goes to whether he has the power in the first place.
But it just might be a way for some judges caught in the crossfire to avoid the entire problem. We could say what we think about it a lot more pointedly, but let’s just put it this way: to duck the issue in this manner will not add to the reputation of these judges or to the reputation of the court. It would be too transparent.
It’s a pity really. That court could have been a respected institution what with the way it handled itself during the OR. They could have been the one institution left standing with any credibility right now. But with all the tinkering, all the allegations of corruption leveled at it and the dodging and weaving they seem to be doing, any credibility it had has disappeared. They now have none. Just add one more to the list.