(CN) – Legal fights to stop British Prime Minister Boris Johnson from suspending the House of Commons on the eve of the United Kingdom's departure date from the European Union will play out next week at courts in Edinburgh, London and Belfast.
On Friday, former Conservative Prime Minister John Major joined a legal challenge against Johnson in London. Meanwhile, lawyers in the Scottish challenge are seeking to get Johnson to submit an affidavit about his decision to suspend Parliament.
The legal challenges suffered an initial setback on Friday after Scottish judge Raymond Doherty of the Court of Session in Edinburgh rejected a request to issue an emergency injunction to stop the suspension of Parliament.
Instead, Doherty decided to push up the date of a full hearing to Tuesday because the matter was so urgent. He said holding a full hearing on Tuesday will allow more time for appeals before Parliament is suspended, which could happen as early as Sept. 9.
“There’s an urgency to this,” the judge said. “Any delay of any sort is potentially fundamentally prejudicial, not simply to the interests of the petitioners but to the country as a whole.”
The case in Scotland was brought by 75 anti-Brexit members of Parliament, including members of the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson. Both the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the U.K.'s departure from the EU. A majority of Scots voted against leaving the EU in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
They argue in a petition that Johnson's decision to suspend Parliament, which was granted Wednesday by Queen Elizabeth II, was unlawful because it restricts Parliament's ability to hold Johnson's government to account and “frustrates the will of Parliament.”
Jo Maugham, a lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Friday's ruling was not a setback and “just kicks the can a few days down the road.” Maugham and his crowdfunded Good Law Project have been involved in a number of legal fights over Brexit.
The plaintiffs' lawyers also asked Doherty to allow them to require the prime minister to provide a sworn affidavit under oath to explain why he chose to suspend Parliament.
Outside court, Joanna Cherry, a SNP parliamentarian and lead plaintiffs' lawyer, challenged Johnson to explain why he asked the queen to suspend Parliament, which is also known as prorogation.
“[If] he believes that he has a good case for prorogation, he should have the guts to swear an affidavit,” Cherry told The Guardian newspaper.
A spokesperson for Johnson denied that suspending Parliament prevents parliamentarians “from scrutinizing our withdrawal from the EU.” Johnson has argued that the five-week suspension will give Parliament “ample time” to debate Brexit before Oct. 31, the date the prime minister has promised to exit the EU with or without a deal.
In court on Thursday, the government's lawyer, Roddy Dunlop, argued that a decision to suspend Parliament was an act performed by the queen and not a matter for the courts to consider, the BBC reported.