Case: Pending Aero Nox v. Ministry of State (2026) CV 14
- Thread starter Aero
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2025
- Messages
- 209
- Thread Author
- #22
Opening Statement
Your Honour,
On January 27th of this year, Plaintiff received, as a Member of Parliament, a query from the Minister of State to perform a Parliamentary audit. Plaintiff was taken aback by this query and asked the Minister to clarify which Act of Parliament gave them the authority to perform Parliamentary audits. The Minister's response? "The fact that I'm MoS minister?" Given his response was a question, it seems the Minister wasn't sure himself whether he possessed the Constitutional authority to perform Parliamentary audits. He later added that "It's been in the ministry policies for month[...]."
Nowhere in our body of law is the Ministry of State granted the ability to perform Parliamentary audits. Nowhere in our body of law is the Executive granted the ability to perform Parliamentary audits. Now, the Defense argues that while Parliamentary audits are no specified, the Ministry of State does have general auditing, surveying, and oversight powers. Let's review, for a moment, Section 11 of the Governing Structure Act:
As we can see here, there is absolutely no mention of the Ministry of State having the power to audit anything, let alone Parliament. So, we have to ask. From where does the Defense's assertion come? Could it be from the Open Governance Act? Surely that can't be since Section 1.a of that Act clearly states that "The Ministry of State shall conduct monthly audits of all Ministries to evaluate internal operations, workplace environments, and ministerial performance." This Act only grants to Ministry of State to audit Ministries, not Parliament.
Where does this leave us? With the Defense's claim that Ministries are empowered to create and manage their own programs. Which brings us to the crux of our issue and the legal questions at hand.
Does the Executive possess the right to grant itself responsibilities not defined in law?
To answer this question, we must look to the Constitution.
Article 2 of the Constitution lays out four facts of value to our legal question:
1. There are three distinct and co-equal branches of government.
2. The Parliament shall have the authority to makes laws.
3. The Executive shall have the authority to execute the law.
4. The Executive derives its power directly from the Parliament.
Here, Article 4 of the Constitution states that Cabinet Portfolios may be established through law and that the person appointed to head a portfolio shall hole the title of Minister of (Portfolio's name).
So let's put it all together.
The Minister of State is a person appointed to head the State portfolio. The State portfolio is established in the Governing Structure Act which does not include any mention of Parliamentary audits. In fact, Parliamentary audits are not defined anywhere in our body of law. The Minister of State is part of the Executive, and thus derives his power directly from the Parliament. The Minister, as a member of the Executive, only has the authority to execute the law.
So we ask again. Does the Executive possess the right to grant itself responsibilities not defined in law? The answer is clearly no. The Constitution only grants the Executive the authority to execute the law. By asserting the ability to give itself responsibilities not defined in law, the Executive is usurping the Parliament's Constitutional authority. They are blatantly making a power grab and threatening the balance of our three co-equal branches of government.
Today, we respectfully ask this Court to intervene. We seek the immediate cessation of all activities by the Ministry of State, and the Executive, that are not defined by law, particularly these unconstitutional Parliamentary audits. We trust that you will find our arguments compelling and grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Thank you, Your Honour.
Your Honour,
On January 27th of this year, Plaintiff received, as a Member of Parliament, a query from the Minister of State to perform a Parliamentary audit. Plaintiff was taken aback by this query and asked the Minister to clarify which Act of Parliament gave them the authority to perform Parliamentary audits. The Minister's response? "The fact that I'm MoS minister?" Given his response was a question, it seems the Minister wasn't sure himself whether he possessed the Constitutional authority to perform Parliamentary audits. He later added that "It's been in the ministry policies for month[...]."
Nowhere in our body of law is the Ministry of State granted the ability to perform Parliamentary audits. Nowhere in our body of law is the Executive granted the ability to perform Parliamentary audits. Now, the Defense argues that while Parliamentary audits are no specified, the Ministry of State does have general auditing, surveying, and oversight powers. Let's review, for a moment, Section 11 of the Governing Structure Act:
As we can see here, there is absolutely no mention of the Ministry of State having the power to audit anything, let alone Parliament. So, we have to ask. From where does the Defense's assertion come? Could it be from the Open Governance Act? Surely that can't be since Section 1.a of that Act clearly states that "The Ministry of State shall conduct monthly audits of all Ministries to evaluate internal operations, workplace environments, and ministerial performance." This Act only grants to Ministry of State to audit Ministries, not Parliament.
Where does this leave us? With the Defense's claim that Ministries are empowered to create and manage their own programs. Which brings us to the crux of our issue and the legal questions at hand.
Does the Executive possess the right to grant itself responsibilities not defined in law?
To answer this question, we must look to the Constitution.
Article 2 of the Constitution lays out four facts of value to our legal question:
1. There are three distinct and co-equal branches of government.
2. The Parliament shall have the authority to makes laws.
3. The Executive shall have the authority to execute the law.
4. The Executive derives its power directly from the Parliament.
Here, Article 4 of the Constitution states that Cabinet Portfolios may be established through law and that the person appointed to head a portfolio shall hole the title of Minister of (Portfolio's name).
So let's put it all together.
The Minister of State is a person appointed to head the State portfolio. The State portfolio is established in the Governing Structure Act which does not include any mention of Parliamentary audits. In fact, Parliamentary audits are not defined anywhere in our body of law. The Minister of State is part of the Executive, and thus derives his power directly from the Parliament. The Minister, as a member of the Executive, only has the authority to execute the law.
So we ask again. Does the Executive possess the right to grant itself responsibilities not defined in law? The answer is clearly no. The Constitution only grants the Executive the authority to execute the law. By asserting the ability to give itself responsibilities not defined in law, the Executive is usurping the Parliament's Constitutional authority. They are blatantly making a power grab and threatening the balance of our three co-equal branches of government.
Today, we respectfully ask this Court to intervene. We seek the immediate cessation of all activities by the Ministry of State, and the Executive, that are not defined by law, particularly these unconstitutional Parliamentary audits. We trust that you will find our arguments compelling and grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Thank you, Your Honour.