If Article 35 allows the President to effectively suspend the Constution, then this is a matter of great interest and grave concern. But article 35 has not had that effect in the past, has it? Could CBK have hidden behind article 35 and extend her term in office? I doubt it. Then, what makes the CC specially vulnerable to article 35, and what legal remedy exists for that problem? This is surely a most interesting and important legal conundrum in which we should take interest.

My two cents is this: If it is not possible to move the Courts to issue a writ of mandamus on the President (forcing him to to appoint the CC), because of article 35, it should at least be possible to ask the Courts to declare the unilateral appointments made by the President to be null and void; as the said appointments can now be demonstrated to have taken place in a manner that is in violation of a stipulation in the Constitution.

In my humble opinion, such a declaration does not need to fall foul of article 35. And, the request for such a declaration could fail only on the basis of a legal counter argument demonstrating that the unilateral appointments by the President (willfully circumventing the CC) are NOT a violation of the Constitution.

If such a counter-argument exists, then I would like to hear it. What’s more, it might be time to test and contest that argument in the Courts.

Am I mistaken? I look forward to a response.