Dismissal of Prime Minister

Issue: Whether the Governor or Head of State has the power to dismiss Prime Minister/Chief Minister?

Limitation: The Federal Constitution gives no power to monarch/head of state to dismiss a Prime Minister unless there has been a vote of no confidence passed against him in the lower house (Dewan Rakyat).

Provision in Federal Constitution: Art. 43(4) If the PM ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House of Representatives, then, unless at his request the YDPA dissolves the Parliament, the PM shall tender the resignation of the Cabinet.

Art. 43(5) Subject to Clause (4), Ministers other than the PM shall hold office during the pleasure of the YDPA, unless appointment of any Minister shall have been revoked by the YDPA on the advice of the PM but any Minister may resign his office.

The question of how a PM ceases to command the confidence of the majority in the House stated by Art. 43(4) came up for considerations in several cases.

Case referred:

Adegbenro v Akintola [1963] 3 All ER 544

The case arose over the political crisis in Western Nigeria that led to the removal of Chief Akintola by the Governor in 1961 purportedly under the constitutional power to do so if it appears to him that the premier no longer commands the support of a majority of the members of the House of Assembly. Acting on the basis of a letter signed by 66 of the 124 Assembly members that stated they no longer support Chief Akintola, the governor removed Akintola and replaced him with Chief Adegbenro.

There are two issues be referred to court:

1)

Can the Governor validly exercise power to remove the Premier from office without prior decision or resolution on the floor of the House of Assembly showing that the Premier no longer commands the support of a majority of the House?
Can the Governor validly exercise power to remove the Premier from office on the basis of any materials or information extraneous to the proceedings of House of Assembly?

2)

The Federal Supreme Court held that the removal was unconstitutional since it was not carried out after a vote on the floor of the House as required by a convention of the British constitution.

Case appealed to Privy Council

Viscount Radcliffe held: Appeal allowed, held by Supreme Court should be reversed and declared that the answer to the first and second issue is affirmative.

-FIN-