A journalist has said that a unionist said that a traditional ruler said that the King said that he could not sack the Prime Minister for ‘incompetence’ (2005 Constitution, s 68(1)(a)) until the Prime Minister had ‘done something unconstitutional’ (HERE). ‘Incompetence’ in this instance is to be distinguished from ‘infirmity of body or mind’ (s 68(1)(f)). The meaning to be taken from the article is (I think) that the PM has to have materially breached the 2005 Constitution. If this is His Majesty’s view, it is a noteworthy interpretation of a section which reads as follows:
“68(1) The office of the Prime Minister shall become vacant where –
(a) The King revokes the appointment for incompetence”
Interpreting this to mean that the PM has to have materially breached the Constitution is a very restrictive interpretation of the section. Of course, His Majesty’s view may be entirely different from what was quoted by someone quoting someone who was in turn quoting someone else. Even if they were direct quotes.
