Opposition MPs called British Prime Minister Boris Johnson the "father of lies" at the Supreme courtroom on September 18. This was in reference to Johnson's decision that led to the shutdown of the parliament days before the Brexit deadline on October 31.

A direct abuse of power?

Within a period of three days of strong squabbles on whether the British PM's reason given to the Queen to allow for the shutdown was illegal or not, the courtroom in Britain with the highest authority said that his transfer was damaging the sense of parliamentary democracy.

The legal representatives of 75 members of parliament who contested Boris's decision stated that he had unethically used his power by shutting down the parliament for 35 days until October 14 that was dangerously close to the Brexit deadline on October 31. 

Advocate, Aidan O'Neill said that the entire parliament is being shut down by the pioneer of lies and asked the presiding judges to give a ruling that the decision taken is illegal and direct abuse of power. 

In his defense, Johnson said that the reason behind the shutdown was to table a brand new session with a new agenda but the people in his opposition said that it was a trick played to silence them with respect to his plan of leaving the European Union with or without a deal.

Read: Boris Johnson Faces EU Lawmakers And UK Apex Court's Ire For 'no-deal'

The courtroom with supreme authority is listening to arguments towards two contradicting courtroom choices. Although, the highest civil courtroom in Scotland found out that the shutdown was not legal but the courtroom in Britain stated that it was an issue that did not need the intervention of the judges.

'Suspension based on a political motive'

Barrister, James Eadie, stated that if the member of parliament's wanted some more time then they would get the chance to contest their arguments before Johnson adjourned their sitting on September 10.

Eadie added that the parliament had already given out legal rules on the act of discontinuation of a session of parliament but there was no enactment related to the concerned case so Britain's courtroom took the right decision in stating that the government did not have any place in interfering in the matter. 

Read: David Cameron Slams UK PM Boris Johnson, Alleges Hypocrisy On Brexit

Eadie further added that any decision to discontinue the parliament was completely based on a political motive because it included handling the government's agenda, restricting the debate and taking a decision on when will it be allowed to finish a parliamentary sitting. 

The barrister further argued that proper paperwork had been submitted which gave evidence that the decision to shut down the parliament was to table a new agenda but his arguments were countered by Aidan O'Neill.

Read: Britain Removes 'European Union' From Its Passport Covers

Read: France’s EU Minister Takes A Dig At Britain, Names Her Cat 'Brexit'. Here’s Her Reason