Petitioners withdraw from filing written submissions on 22nd Amendment Bill
04-Sep-2026.
Petitioners challenging the 22nd Amendment Bill to the Constitution have made submissions before the Supreme Court regarding the denial of an opportunity to respond orally during the hearing of their petitions.
Following the hearing, the petitioners withdrew from making written submissions and informed the Supreme Court of their decision through a motion.
The Attorney General and the Attorney General’s Department have been named as respondents in the motion.
The petitioners had requested that a full bench of judges be appointed to hear the petitions. Their request was that all judges of the Supreme Court should sit on the bench.
They had also pointed out that such an arrangement would help avoid conflicts of interest between the Chief Justice and the other judges and would prevent allegations that only selected judges had been appointed to hear the case.
The lawyers representing the other petitioners supported the request. However, the bench rejected the request without giving any reasons.
Against this backdrop, consideration of the petition continued until 10.30 p.m. on September 1. The hearing resumed at 10 a.m. on September 2.
During the hearing, submissions were initially made on behalf of the petitioners. This was because the Solicitor General appearing for the Government had informed court that he would make his submissions only after the petitioners had completed theirs.
Thereafter, intervening petitioners supporting the Bill were given an opportunity to make their submissions.
At that stage, the bench advised that time should be managed appropriately, as the petitioners, intervening petitioners and the Solicitor General were all required to make submissions.
The Solicitor General, who made submissions in support of the Amendment Bill, presented his arguments last.
He made these submissions despite the petitioners not having been provided with any policy-related document concerning the Bill.
The Solicitor General concluded his submissions at around 5.30 p.m. on September 2. Thereafter, lawyers representing the petitioners requested that they be given an opportunity to respond orally.
However, the court rejected the request.
