By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

action rather than to decline to take it. (5) His decision was expressly madesubject to any advice which might be given by Treasury counsel. (6) He hasdisavowed any intention to act in defiance of an order of the court or to holdhimself above the law, a disavowal which I fully accept. (7) He has expressedsincre regret if he acted wrongly, as undoubtedly he did.Nolan LJ regarded Mr Baker as being in contempt because heInterfered with the administration of justice by completing the removal from thecourt’s jurisdiction and protection of a litigant who was brining proceedingsagainst him. (See (1992) 4 All Er 97 at 146, (1992) 1 QB 270 at 314).Injunctions and the Crown.Mr Kentridge placed at the forefront of his argument the issue as to whether thecourts have jurisdiction to make coencive orders against the Crown or ministersof the Crown. It was appropriate for him to do so for at least two reasons. First,and more importantly, because whether the courts have or do not reasons. First,and more impoirtantly, because whether the courts have or do not have such aconrcive jurisdiction would be a strong indicator as to whether the courts had thejurisdicition to make a finding of contempt. If there were no power to makeconercive orders, then the need to rely on the law of contempt for the purpose ofenforcidng the orders would rarely arise. The second reason is that, on the factsof this case, the issue is highly significant in determining the satus of the orderwhich Garland I made and which it is alleged Mr Baker breached. If that order558