Separation of powers and the political question doctrine in South Africa : a comparative analysis

• Main Author: Mhango, Mtendeweka Owen
• Other Authors: Okpaluba, Mathew Chuks
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2018
• Subjects: Separation of powers; Political question doctrine; Judicial review; Political questions; Policy questions; Classical political question doctrine; Prudential political question doctrine; Constitutional Court; Judiciary; Executive; 347.1206; Constitutional law > Africa; Judiciary > Africa; Political questions and judicial power > Africa; Judicial power > Africa; Judicial review of administrative acts > Africa; Constitutional courts > Africa; Judicial independence > Africa; Administrative responsibility > Africa; Separation of powers > Africa
• Online Access: Mhango, Mtendeweka Owen (2018) Separation of powers and the political question doctrine in South Africa : a comparative analysis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/24238>; http://hdl.handle.net/10500/24238

Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 outlines the scope of judicial authority as encompassing the resolution of any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law. The courts in South Africa have developed several justiciability canons that restrain when courts may adjudicate disputes, such as standing, mootness, ripeness, and the prevention of advisory opinions. These justiciability canons emanate from constitutional considerations such as respect for separation of powers and the proper role and scope of judicial review in a constitutional democracy. This study focuses on another justiciability canon - the political question doctrine. This doctrine arises from the principle of separation of powers and, in the main, provides that certain questions of constitutional law are allocated to the discretion of the elected branches of government for resolution. As a result, such questions are non-justiciable and require the judiciary to abstain from deciding them because not doing so intrudes into the functions of the elected branches of government. The underlying theme is that such questions must find resolution in the political process. Through a comparative lens, the study examines the origins and current application of the political question doctrine in selected countries with a view to obtain lessons therefrom. It examines the origins of the doctrine, by placing particular emphasis on the early application of the doctrine by the US Supreme Court. The study also examines the modern application of the doctrine in the constitutional jurisprudence of several countries, including Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria. It advances the view that while the doctrine exists in the South African jurisprudence, the Constitutional Court should articulate and develop it into a clear doctrine taking into account lessons from those countries. The study offers some recommendations in this regard. The study submits that the political question doctrine is an appropriate legal mechanism through which the South African judiciary can address the recent problem of the proliferation of cases brought to the courts that raise non-justiciable political questions and threaten to delegitimize the role of the courts in a democracy. === Public, Constitutional and International Law === LL. D.