A man who claimed women cannot constitutionally run for the office of President and, therefore, that the 1997 presidential election was unconstitutional, had his challenge dismissed on grounds of delay at the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan accepted arguments on behalf of the Attorney General and by Mr Peter Greene, returning officer for the presidential election, that the challenge by Mr James Howe should be struck out as frivolous and vexatious as it was not brought within a specified time of the presidential election. However, he said he was making no judgment on the substantive issue raised by Mr Howe, of Glenamoy Lawn, Mayfield, Cork.
Four of the five candidates in the October 30th, 1997, presidential election were women and the successful candidate was Fianna Fail's Prof Mary McAleese.
Two days before the election, Mr Howe applied for an injunction to stop the women participating but his application was refused by the then President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello.
Mr Howe claimed there was no provision for women candidates in the presidential election. He argued that Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution, which deal specifically with the office of the President, all contain the words "He", "His" and "Him" and that there was no reference to women.
In an affidavit in which he described himself as a gentleman, writer and guardian of the Constitution, Mr Howe said Mr Derek Nally, the only male candidate in the 1997 election, was the only one to qualify as the President-elect.
In court yesterday, Ms Nuala Butler, for the AG and Mr Greene, said Mr Howe had a specific period after the declaration of the election outcome to lodge a complaint but had not done so. The current proceedings were well out of time. The election had taken place and the result was certified in accordance with law. Time had elapsed within which any legal challenge could be made.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan told Mr Howe there was a time limit within which a challenge to the election could be made. His hands were tied by this legal constraint. He was not saying anything about the substantive issue. Because it had not been pursued in the period permitted, he would accede to the State's motion to have the proceedings struck out.