It should be a no-brainer . . . the constitutional rights of citizens must always supersede any inconvenience to those whose job it is to serve the people. But following last week's announcement by the government that there would be no review of the Dail constituencies in advance of next year's general election, you really have to wonder.

By refusing to publish the advice of the attorney general on this issue, the government is leaving itself open to the charge that its decision to maintain the status quo is more about its own election plans and less about the best interests of democracy. And, instead of highlighting this very serious point, the main opposition party, Fine Gael, is happy to back the government, presumably because it also doesn't want to upset its plans for next year's general election.

Speaking on Morning Ireland on Thursday, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said it was "clear" that the constituencies could only be redrawn based on final census figures (they won't be available until next March, whereas the preliminary figures were published last July).

Utter rubbish. It is certainly not "clear" that the preliminary figures cannot be used. The constitution makes no distinction between final and preliminary figures, the CSO has said there will be little or no difference between the preliminary and final figures, and the 1948 general election was fought on constituencies drawn up on the basis of preliminary figures . . . just weeks before the election.

What is "clear" is that article 16.2.3 of the constitution's requirement for equality of representation will be seriously breached if the general election is fought based on the current constituencies.

Preliminary figures showed close to half the Dail constituencies will be beyond acceptable limits of over- or under-representation, and that 20% of the population lives in constituencies that are under-represented. Two examples illustrate the point in a way that not even Fianna Fail or Fine Gael can ignore. Dublin West, a three-seater, has a population almost 1,500 larger than the four-seat constituency of Cork North-Central. Fourseat Dublin North has a greater population than the five-seat constituencies of CavanMonaghan, Dublin South, Dun Laoghaire and Limerick East.

The government cannot say it has not been warned about this problem. Based on research by political analyst Odran Flynn, the Sunday Tribune has been pointing out for the past two years the very serious risk that the current Dail constituencies will be deemed unconstitutional because of government failure to take account of the massive population growth.

The government response was to dismiss such concerns, but the publication of the preliminary census figures in July confirmed the extent of the problem and could no longer be ignored. Attorney general Rory Brady clearly signalled at that day's cabinet meeting that the concerns could not be readily dismissed and that further investigation was warranted.

Just why it took the best part of two months to carry out that crucial investigation is only the first of many questions to spring to mind following Wednesday's announcement by the government that no boundary review would be required. Those of a cynical disposition might argue the government was happy to long-finger the issue, thereby reducing the window of opportunity for somebody to take a Supreme Court challenge against the constituencies. But perhaps this is unfair.

Some of the very sketchy explanations given by Roche last week are also highly questionable. Where is this "whole series of case law" that he speaks of? The 1997 Electoral Act that he is putting so much emphasis on also looks like a complete red herring. Sure, it may say that constituencies should be based on final census figures, but it is the constitution that is at issue here and the constitutionality of that legislation has never been tested.

Finally, Roche is just plain wrong when he says that in the 2002 census, there was a difference of 3,700 in one local area between the preliminary and final figures. Nowhere was the difference even close to that amount.

Despite the complexity of this issue, it all boils down to one simple question.

When the constitution refers to the "last preceding census, " does that mean that only the final figures will suffice for drawing up constituencies? Or, can preliminary figures . . . deemed highly accurate by the CSO . . . be used when those figures show significant breaches of the constitution's requirement of equality of representation in the existing constituencies?

A simple question but, alas, no simple answer, and don't believe anybody who tells you otherwise.

The reality is that nobody . . . not Dick Roche, not the AG, not Fine Gael, not the Sunday Tribune . . . knows the answer to the question. Only the Supreme Court is capable of giving a definitive and truly independent verdict on this vital constitutional question. The integrity of the constitution and our democracy demands that the court be given a chance to rule on it. However, the fear is that with the general election only eight months away . . . and bearing in mind the time required to revise the constituencies . . . time is fast running out for a Supreme Court challenge.