(NDP) claimed that the Court of Justice responded prematurely and fiercely to the draft amendments. The chairman of parliament, Ashwin Adhin, plans on meeting with the judiciary to explain certain issues. The faction of the NDP made it clear that it is not impressed by the tone and the stance of the judiciary. MP Raymond Sapoen (NDP) made it clear that the letter from the court that was served to parliament was out of proportion because it looked more like a threat than a warning. The Public Prosecutor’s Office’s and other sections of the judiciary’s support to this letter did not contribute to the efforts aimed at restoring the harmony. MP Sapoen explained that the objections that were expressed by the Court of Justice cannot be found in an amendment that was officially presented to parliament which is why he deemed the response of the Court of Justice prematurely and inappropriate. He pointed out that the judiciary should have waited for the proposals to be officially presented to parliament before objecting to them. “We are all branches of the government and we must not act like we are godly powers,” said MP Sapoen. MP Ebu Jones (NDP) who also supported Sapoen’s statement explained that there must be a clear distinction between draft proposals that are discussed informally and formally. He pointed out that institutes that are tasked with legal procedures and issues should process the facts carefully. Informal discussions or possible amendments must not be treated like final proposals. “One would expect branches where facts and circumstances are important for reaching a verdict to double check the facts.”