By DARLINGTON CHILUBAWHEN law becomes a service to self, it immediately ceases to command the authority of consent from those it is meant to serve. Consequently, having a disconnected judicial system can be dangerous and regressive to the nation. This is why constitutions and legal texts in general partly anchor on two seemingly simple tenets, namely, the presumption of innocence and guarantee of judicial independence. The first is a presumption of fair and equal trial before the courts while the second affirms an absence of conflict by the judiciary in its operations. These two principles are both a declaration of intent by the judiciary as they are of self-exoneration. For record, the previous two articles briefly compared sovereignty and executive power of selected countries as held in their respective constitutions. This third part will restrict itself to the comparison of judicial authority insofar as the foundational power of that respective judicial system refers. Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Japan, the United States […]
A BRIEF COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (PART 3)
