Oliver Barker-Vormawor has offered a clear-eyed perspective on the Attorney General’s (AG) position and the wider constitutional implications over payments made toward the National Cathedral.
“I have seen the bad press surrounding the AG saying that payments made towards the National Cathedral were legally appropriated. Here are my initial thoughts,” Barker-Vormawor begins.
He first addresses the perceived duty of the AG in legal disputes involving the State.
“The AG is not required constitutionally to always oppose every action against the State ooo.
“The Constitution says the AG is a nominal defendant, not a compulsory adversary, bound to contest every claim irrespective of its merit or the demands of justice.”
Barker-Vormawor argues that the National Cathedral matter fits this framework.
“Where Bad PR looms for the Republic, wiseness requires that you look both sides before crossing the Road,” he notes, emphasizing the need for prudence in matters attracting public scrutiny.
He points to practices in other jurisdictions as a model. “Indeed, in jurisdictions such as South Africa, it is routine for the State to file what is known as a ‘Notice to Abide,’ signalling that it does not intend to oppose an application where it accepts that the reliefs sought are proper in law or that the issues raised are of public importance warranting judicial clarification.”
For Barker-Vormawor, such a posture reflects a mature understanding of the State’s role in constitutional litigation.
“This reflects a mature conception of the State’s role in constitutional litigation, that the Government is not merely a mechanical objector,” he explains.
He concludes with a cautionary note on public interpretation.
“People need to be careful not to conflate constitutional law questions regarding whether statutory approval was given by the controller of the Public Purse, Parliament, through a valid appropriation legislation, with questions of crime regarding how the legally justified appropriations were spent.”
