A CASE ATTEMPTING to stop the presidential election on the basis that the nomination process for the presidency is unconstitutional has been thrown out of court.

Niall Byrne took a case against the Tánaiste, the Minister for Housing and the Attorney General, arguing that a direction by Simon Harris to Fine Gael local councillors not to vote for independent candidates was unconstitutional.

In September Fine Gael instructed its councillors across the country to oppose the nomination of Independent candidates for the presidential election. 

In his submissions, Byrne said this caused independent candidates such as Maria Steen to be “withheld or blocked from nomination despite strong public demand for democratic representation”.

Byrne said Article 12.4, which sets out the nomination process for presidency, is “inherently undemocratic” as it goes against the people’s right to choose their own government.

He offered to assume the role of President of Ireland until a referendum could be held to amend the constitution and also sought a declaration that he is the only validly nominated candidate and is therefore elected.

‘Political directive’

Judge Cregan threw out Byrne’s argument as he said that the instruction given by the leader of Fine Gael was a political directive which was not subject to trial in a court of law.

He also said that the argument that the nomination process is unconstitutional is “doomed to failure” as it argues certain articles of the Constitution are unconstitutional, which must be legally rejected.

According to Cregan, the provisions of the constitution must be read harmoniously so it cannot be argued that Article 12.4 is contrary to Articles 1, 3 or 5.

He said the entire election did not need to be cancelled and re-held as the nomination process was decided by the people of Ireland by referendum in 1937.

Cregan added that Byrne was not duly elected as president as he had not fulfilled the constitutional requirements to be elected.

In his judgment Cregan the plaintiff’s “real case” was hoping to result in an amendment of the constitution by means of a referendum, something the judge said cannot be achieved through the courts.