Justice Minister Naomi Long won't be drawn on whether she supports Irish legal action against UK

When asked by the News Letter whether she supported the Irish legal action against the UK, the justice minister said: “The decision to take an inter-state case against the Act is not a matter for the Department of Justice.”

The News Letter reported differences on the issue between key figures in the Alliance Party at the end of last year, prompting Mrs Long to take to social media to accuse the newspaper of ‘making up’ a story of a split. The newspaper had asked Mrs Long if she supported the Irish government's legal action and if she agreed with Eoin Tennyson that the move is "welcome and sadly necessary".

Despite not answering the question directly at the time, the Alliance leader said on social media: “No need [for the News Letter] to ask in the first place. @StephenFarryMP and @EoinTennyson are elected representatives of the @allianceparty and speak on our behalf. I know it might be an odd concept, but when they state our position, that is our position”.

But it remains unclear whether the Alliance leader – now justice minister – personally supports Ireland’s inter-state legal case against the British government.

DUP Chair of the Justice Committee Joanne Bunting MLA said, “People deserve to know where the Justice Minister stands on this issue and she should answer direct questions that are put to her.

“The Republic of Ireland has been quick to criticise the United Kingdom yet took no action to pursue terrorists who sought safe haven within their own territory. Whilst the UK is moving ahead with an inquiry into the Omagh bombing, the Republic is not reciprocating with the kind of cross-border action the families have long called for.

"Anyone supporting action by the Irish Government would need to justify their silence on these issues.”

TUV leader Jim Allister said: “One would have thought that the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland would have a view on our sovereign government being taken to court by a foreign government. The fact that she doesn’t is indicative of a party which increasingly adopts anti-Unionist positions on a range of issues.”

In December, Ireland took the case under the European Convention on Human Rights. Irish deputy Prime Minister Michael Martin said the UK had “acted unilaterally” in bringing the domestic legislation. He said: "Serious reservations about this legislation have also been raised by a number of international observers, including the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights”. The Republic has no direct say in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland under Strand One of the Belfast Agreement, but is often consulted on a range of matters by the British government.

The justice minister also told the News Letter that her department will proceed in a “lawful manner” with implementing the legislation which will give conditional amnesties to people involved in Troubles-related killings.

When the Legacy Act became law, there was no local government at Stormont. The justice department will have a key role in implementation of the act – which is opposed by all of Northern Ireland’s main political parties. Much of the act is covered by justice powers devolved to Northern Ireland – and questions have been raised about the constitutional implications of its implementation here without the consent of local institutions.

In her previous stint as justice minister, Mrs Long described the law as an “egregious interference with the Northern Ireland justice system”.

In response to a question from the News Letter about whether she would commit to upholding the department's legal responsibilities under the legacy act, Justice Minister Naomi Long said: “I have previously made clear my concerns about the approach to dealing with the legacy of the past now being adopted by the UK Government.

"The Department of Justice and its agencies will proceed in line with legal advice/guidance and in a lawful manner, as would be expected”.

It is unclear whether the department or indeed the whole executive – which is composed of parties which are publicly opposed the the law – will attempt to legally disrupt its implementation.