Supreme Court appeal opens in row over super junior ministers attending at cabinet

The Supreme Court began hearing an appeal on Wednesday regarding the attendance of super junior ministers at cabinet meetings. Two opposition lawmakers argue that allowing these officials to participate in government deliberations violates the Constitution. The case centers on whether Article 28 of Bunreacht na hÉireann restricts the government strictly to fifteen members appointed by the President on the nomination of Dáil Éireann. Pa Daly, a Sinn Féin TD for Kerry, and Paul Murphy, a People Before Profit-Solidarity TD for Dublin South West, filed separate but similar legal challenges. A three-judge High Court panel dismissed both claims in December. The panel included Court President David Barniville along with judges Siobhán Phelan and Conleth Brady. The lower court ruled that no constitutional provision was breached by the attendance and participation of junior ministers. However, the High Court awarded the two TDs fifty percent of their legal costs against the State, citing the importance, novelty, and complexity of the constitutional issues involved. Senior counsel John Rogers opened Murphy’s appeal before a seven-judge Supreme Court bench. Representing Murphy alongside Paul Gunning and Molly Higgins, Rogers stated that the Constitution clearly defines the government as the fifteen members accountable to Dáil Éireann. Super junior ministers, appointed by the government on the taoiseach’s nomination, are not subject to this accountability. Rogers argued that the current arrangement constitutes an arrogation of power. He noted that while the taoiseach formally invites these ministers to attend, the practice has become formalized, granting them authority to debate topics and assist in formulating policy. Rogers described this influence as having an attrition effect on the effectiveness of the people’s government. When questioned by the judges about the presence of other non-ministerial figures such as the chief whip, attorney general, and secretary general, Rogers characterized their attendance as a functional necessity. Feichín McDonagh, representing Daly with Brendan Hennessy and John Biggins, argued that a crucial distinction exists between inviting individuals to brief cabinet meetings and allowing them to participate in reaching consensus decisions. McDonagh submitted that evidence shows government decisions are currently made by fifteen ministers and four super junior ministers through consensus, rather than by fifteen ministers merely influenced by four. He identified this participation in consensus-building as the dividing line in the case. The judges posed questions to McDonagh regarding how the court could police the boundary between briefing sessions and active participation in decision-making. Murphy told reporters prior to the hearing that the current practice breaches the Constitution. He stated that if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, the government would face a challenge requiring it to stop bringing super junior ministers into cabinet proceedings. Both appellants are also contesting the costs orders from the High Court, arguing they are entitled to full reimbursement. The government accepted during earlier proceedings that super junior ministers are involved in decision-making at cabinet without a specific constitutional basis. The Supreme Court continues its examination of the legal boundaries surrounding ministerial attendance and voting rights within the executive branch.