Attorney-General v Mustafa Ibrahim

• Jurisdiction: Chipre
• Date: 10 November 1964
• Court: Supreme Court (Cyprus)

Cyprus, Supreme Court.

(Vassiliades J., Triantafyllides J. and Josephides J.)

The Attorney-General of the Republic

and

Mustafa Ibrahim and Others

States as international persons In general Continuity of States Armed rebellion and insurrection Assertion of authority and control by insurgents over areas of State territory Presence of UN forces Non-functioning of courts established by constitution Whether doctrine of necessity justifies departure from provisions of constitution The law of Cyprus

Summary: The facts.During the period of civil strife between the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus, the respondents (who were Turkish Cypriots) were arrested in April 1964 and charged with carrying on a warlike undertaking against a section of the people in Cyprus, with endeavouring to overthrow the Government by armed force, and with carrying rifles and ammunition, contrary to various provisions of the law of Cyprus. At the preliminary inquiry held by a District Judge in the District Court of Kyrenia the respondents were, on 1 August 1964, committed for trial at the next Assizes, due to be held in October 1964, and were granted bail (on certain conditions). The Attorney-General appealed against the order for bail.

The appeal was made to the Supreme Court set up under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 1964 (Law No. 33 of 1964). This Law had been passed when the Supreme Constitutional Court (established under Article 133 of the Constitution of Cyprus) and the High Court of Justice (established under Article 153 of the Constitution) ceased to function in, respectively, August 1963 and June 1964.

At the material times, namely in July 1964 (when Law No. 33 of 1964 was passed) and on 1 August 1964 (when the order for bail now under appeal was made) there was in Cyprus an armed rebellion and insurrection against the established Government of the Republic.

For the respondents it was argued (a) that, even if the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 1964 was constitutionally valid, a quorum of three judges had no jurisdiction to deal with constitutional questions, and (b) that the Law was unconstitutional in matters going to its root and was, therefore, a complete nullity.

Held: The appeal was upheld. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Constitution of Cyprus, the doctrine of necessity applied in order to enable essential services of the State, in particular the administration of justice, to continue to function and to...