Your honors,
I come to you today to submit a Legal Question as per Article 4 of the Judicial Act. As a current member of the South Pacific, I have standing to submit such a question in accordance with Article 4, Section 2 of the Judicial Act. This will essentially be a repost of the previous case submission that was declined for not including and referencing provisions of law to interpret. This one consists of those provisions, as well as my interpretations of the law as the petitioner.
My question is: Does an appointment (as identified in the various provisions of law below) made by an appointer (such as the Prime Minister) become official upon nomination to or upon confirmation by the Assembly?
For context, Former Prime Minister @lordnwahs surprised the region by suddenly resigning last month. While the resignation itself is not the main focus of this legal question, it has, in my opinion, raised the question of whether their pending nomination of @ConcreteSlab to the Admiralty was invalidated.
Just before the beginning of the current Cabinet term, the then-incoming Prime Minister was met with an unforeseen roadblock when the Chair of the Assembly, @BlockBuster2K43, ruled that the incoming Prime Minister did not have the statutory authority to officially make nominations/appointments as they were not yet Prime Minister. In this case, the region waited a few days for the issue to resolve itself. However, the issue appears to have arisen again in a reverse format.
There exist several provisions within the law dealing with appointments made by appointers:
- Article V.2.a of the Charter, which concerns the Prime Minister appointing a cabinet
- Article IX.3-5 of the Charter, which concerns nominations to the Council on Regional Security
- Article X.2 of the Charter, which concerns appointments to the Admiralty
- Article 1.5 of the Judicial Act, which concerns a Prime Minister naming a High Court Justice
- Article 1.3 of the Military Code, which concerns appointments to the Admiralty
- Article 1.2 of the Citizenship Act, which concerns the Prime Minister appointing citizens to the Citizenship Committee
- Article 1.2 of the World Assembly Act, which concerns the Prime Minister appointing an OWL Director
- Any other appointment provisions within our laws that I may have missed.
In all of these cases, the appointer (generally the Prime Minister) submits their appointee to the Assembly for a confirmation vote. The Chair of the Assembly, I believe, stated the obvious when they ruled that the then-incoming Prime Minister did not have the statutory authority to make such an appointment as they were not in office.
In this reverse case, the confirmation vote had not concluded, and the Prime Minister’s statutory authority to make nominations (and maintain pending nominations) had already ceased; thus, the nominee was not confirmed for the role for which they were appointed. In the real world, appointments not confirmed before the end of a term of office expire and require reappointment. It makes sense that that same practice extends here.
In conclusion, since the Prime Minister resigned before the conclusion and certification of the nomination vote by the Chair of the Assembly, the nomination was thus invalidated, regardless of the final vote in the Assembly. To answer the question I asked directly: If an appointer leaves office prior to their appointments being confirmed by the Assembly, then those appointments expire.
I thank the Court for its time and make myself available to answer any necessary clarifications or questions.