Jean Thomas, Public Rights, Private Relations
Jean Thomas, Public Rights, Private Relations
Authors Brian Sang YK
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: None
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 185 – 189
Abstract
None
The Right of Access to Information in the Kenyan Constitution: An Indirect Denial of Other Fundamental Rights to Non-citizens?
The Right of Access to Information in the Kenyan Constitution: An Indirect Denial of Other Fundamental Rights to Non-citizens?
Authors Ndivhuwo Ishmel Moleya
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: None
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 155 – 184
Abstract
This article analyses the right of access to information under article 35(1) of the Constitution of Kenya. In particular, it questions the reasonableness and justifiability of the right of access to information as conceptualised. It argues that the manner in which the provision is couched does not resonate with the broader values and principles that the Constitution represents. In particular, it argues that the provision is couched in a manner that inhibits the enforcement of other fundamental rights that the Constitution confers to non-citizens. It illustrates the point by analysing the relationship between randomly selected fundamental rights and the right of access to information. The article also analyses the provision in relation to international legal instruments governing the right of access to information and illustrates that the provision is inconsistent with such mechanisms, which are directly applicable in Kenya by virtue of articles 2(5) and 2(6) of the Constitution. The provision on the right to access information is further analysed as a so-called limitation clause, by juxtaposing it with article 24 of the Constitution, in order to establish whether it limits non-citizens’ right of access to information in a reasonable and justifiable manner. The article finally suggests that the provision should be amended to expand its ambit to include non-citizens.
Proscription of Floor Crossing in Nigeria: The Limits of the Constitution and the Supreme Court
Proscription of Floor Crossing in Nigeria: The Limits of the Constitution and the Supreme Court
Authors Gabriel O Arishe
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: None
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 126 – 154
Abstract
Constitutions in Africa are not only a means for constituting and constraining political power, but also a mechanism for enabling societal transformation. Precisely because of this, constitutions in Africa set a framework for transformative constitutionalism. Properly placed constitutionally to play this transformative role, but figure less both in constitutional practice and in scholarship, are principles referred to as Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSPs). Drawing lessons from both comparative constitutional law and a close investigation of constitutions in Africa, this article argues that putting DPSPs at the service of constitutionalism advances the experiment of transformative constitutionalism. In addition, it plays a potential important role in responding to some of the challenges of constitutionalism related to the multiparty political system, the judiciary and substantive justice. DPSPs advance transformative constitutionalism because their substantive content and procedures of implementation are animated by forward-looking transformative ethos. They have the potential to address these challenges as they, first, create minimum standards in the substantive formulation of political-party programmes and implementation strategies. Secondly, they empower and legitimise the judiciary in the functioning of constitutional democracy. Thirdly, they provide substantive justice to the majority through the implementation of socio-economic rights, both in the democratic and judicial processes.
Procedural Technicalities in the Resolution of Election Disputes by the Supreme Court of Kenya
Procedural Technicalities in the Resolution of Election Disputes by the Supreme Court of Kenya
Authors Berihun Adugna Gebeye
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Tutorial Fellow, School of Law-University of Nairobi
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 99 – 125
Abstract
Constitutions in Africa are not only a means for constituting and constraining political power, but also a mechanism for enabling societal transformation. Precisely because of this, constitutions in Africa set a framework for transformative constitutionalism. Properly placed constitutionally to play this transformative role, but figure less both in constitutional practice and in scholarship, are principles referred to as Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSPs). Drawing lessons from both comparative constitutional law and a close investigation of constitutions in Africa, this article argues that putting DPSPs at the service of constitutionalism advances the experiment of transformative constitutionalism. In addition, it plays a potential important role in responding to some of the challenges of constitutionalism related to the multiparty political system, the judiciary and substantive justice. DPSPs advance transformative constitutionalism because their substantive content and procedures of implementation are animated by forward-looking transformative ethos. They have the potential to address these challenges as they, first, create minimum standards in the substantive formulation of political-party programmes and implementation strategies. Secondly, they empower and legitimise the judiciary in the functioning of constitutional democracy. Thirdly, they provide substantive justice to the majority through the implementation of socio-economic rights, both in the democratic and judicial processes.
Human Rights and Family-Policy Issues Under Kenya’s Marriage Act of 2014
Human Rights and Family-Policy Issues Under Kenya’s Marriage Act of 2014
Authors Michael Nyongesa Wabwile
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Egerton University; Executive Director of the Association of Child and Family Lawyers of Kenya
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 67 – 98
Abstract
With the enactment and coming into force of Kenya’s Marriage Act of 2014 and subsequent case law in this regard, it is necessary to explore the implications of this legislation for the enjoyment of civil liberties and human rights. The Marriage Act traverses wide territory, from the basic standards for establishing marital status, matrimonial responsibilities, termination of marriage and post-divorce settlements. It also engages themes in constitutional law. This article illustrates the complexity of rights claims in marriage law in a pluralist Kenyan society. This is foreseeable, because human rights are essentially contested political values, which societies deliberate on and agree to implement. Thus, there are competing visions of equal rights of spouses at the time of contracting marriage and the entrenched cultural practices of bride price. Courts have attempted to interpret the legal implications of equal rights in polygamous marriage, while the basis for post-divorce adult maintenance is contentious. Recent cases suggest that some critical aspects of contested rights issues, such as equal rights in marriage and plural marriages, remain unsettled. Moreover, the constitutional promise of ‘recognition and protection of the family’ cannot be addressed by the restricted scope of the Marriage Act. For families outside marriage, the gaps in legislation represent uncertainty regarding the ideal policy response, especially due to the reluctance to impose formal legal regulation on non-formal family structures. By dissecting competing value propositions of rights claims, the article demonstrates why the struggle for family rights should continue in the arena of interpretational communities. These include the courts, professional associations, experts, civil-society organisations and legislative bodies.
Interpreting the Power of the Kenyan Senate to Oversee National Revenue Allocated to the County Governments: Building a Constitutionally Tenable Approach
Interpreting the Power of the Kenyan Senate to Oversee National Revenue Allocated to the County Governments: Building a Constitutionally Tenable Approach
Authors Conrad M Bosire
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Katiba Institute, Nairobi
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 35 – 66
Abstract
Article 96(3) of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya provides that the Senate can exercise oversight over the national revenue allocated to county governments. However, the meaning and the implication of the constitutional provision is not clear. This is due to the fact that county assemblies, established as one of the alternate organs, sharing in governance authority in a separation-of-power framework, have the primary role of oversight over the county executives. However, a plain reading of article 96(3) of the Constitution suggests that the Senate may play a similar or shared role with regard to the county assemblies. Courts, scholars and the Senate itself have interpreted this provision in various ways. Despite the varied interpretative approach, the Constitution prescribes how its provisions should be interpreted and constructed. Using the constitutional interpretation tools espoused under the Constitution, and through an evaluation of comparable literature and practices, the article proposes an ideal interpretative approach that can be utilised to provide an appropriate clarification of the scope and extent of the power of the Senate to oversee national revenue allocated to county governments.
The Potential Role of Directive Principles of State Policies for Transformative Constitutionalism in Africa
The Potential Role of Directive Principles of State Policies for Transformative Constitutionalism in Africa
Authors Berihun Adugna Gebeye
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: None
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2017, p. 1 – 34
Abstract
Constitutions in Africa are not only a means for constituting and constraining political power, but also a mechanism for enabling societal transformation. Precisely because of this, constitutions in Africa set a framework for transformative constitutionalism. Properly placed constitutionally to play this transformative role, but figure less both in constitutional practice and in scholarship, are principles referred to as Directive Principles of State Policies (DPSPs). Drawing lessons from both comparative constitutional law and a close investigation of constitutions in Africa, this article argues that putting DPSPs at the service of constitutionalism advances the experiment of transformative constitutionalism. In addition, it plays a potential important role in responding to some of the challenges of constitutionalism related to the multiparty political system, the judiciary and substantive justice. DPSPs advance transformative constitutionalism because their substantive content and procedures of implementation are animated by forward-looking transformative ethos. They have the potential to address these challenges as they, first, create minimum standards in the substantive formulation of political-party programmes and implementation strategies. Secondly, they empower and legitimise the judiciary in the functioning of constitutional democracy. Thirdly, they provide substantive justice to the majority through the implementation of socio-economic rights, both in the democratic and judicial processes.
Mark Tushnet, Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law (2nd edition, Edward Elgar 2018)
Mark Tushnet, Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law (2nd edition, Edward Elgar 2018)
Authors Brenda A Kiberenge
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Senior Legal Officer, Kenya School of Law, and Advocate of the High Court of Kenya
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2018, p. 137 – 146
Abstract
None
The Political Question Doctrine and Justiciability of Rights in Kenya in the Post-2010 Constitution Period
The Political Question Doctrine and Justiciability of Rights in Kenya in the Post-2010 Constitution Period
Authors Teddy JO Musiga
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Assistant Law Reporter/Legal Researcher at the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) and Advocate of the High Court of Kenya
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2018, p. 115 – 136
Abstract
This article examines the place of the political question doctrine in Kenya through two broad limbs. First, it interrogates the question of whether there is a difference between political and constitutional questions, with a view of establishing whether there is a dichotomy between the two issues under the 2010 Constitution. Secondly, it generally scrutinises how the concepts of justiciability and judicial review power relate to the political question doctrine under the Constitution. To demonstrate instances where the political question doctrine has been invoked in the past, or may be invoked in the future, the article makes reference to examples from cases touching on general constitutional litigation, both before and after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
Extraterritorial Scope of Constitutional Rights: Instructive Insights from Comparative and International Law
Extraterritorial Scope of Constitutional Rights: Instructive Insights from Comparative and International Law
Authors Brian Sang YK
ISSN: 2521-5434
Affiliations: Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Egerton University, Kenya
Source: Africa Journal of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2018, p. 71 – 114
Abstract
The scope of constitutional rights was traditionally confined to a state’s territory. Founded on ideas of sovereign equality, it was held that there exists, under both municipal and international law, a presumption against the extraterritorial effect of constitutional rights. But this historic view is now outmoded. Recent case law from national courts indicates a growing tendency to assert legal accountability for human rights violations arising from extraterritorial state action. Yet courts in Africa, excluding South Africa, seldom broach the issue. In addition, whereas supra-national courts are receptive to extraterritorial claims, their national counterparts are more circumspect in approach. Even where they uphold the extraterritorial reach of constitutional rights, national courts often give oblique and contradictory rationales for it. Since national practice on the issue is fragmentary and unsettled, this article contends that international law can promote a more principled and coherent approach by elaborating a unified basis, grounded on international human rights norms, for the extraterritoriality of constitutional rights. Its comparative review of the constitutional jurisprudence of South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States indicates that grounds exist for the emergence of a convergent concept of jurisdiction, transcending the particularities of national or treaty law. The article concludes with a proposal on how best such an extraterritoriality consensus can practically be consolidated, and an exposition of its benefits for African states.