ipl-logo

Judicial Review Process

1061 Words5 Pages

“With the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution, Ghana has made a departure from an understanding of judicial review as practiced in England and Wales.” Discuss this assertion with reference to any relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Judicial review is the means by which the courts control the exercise of governmental power by ensuring that public bodies which exercise law-making power or adjudicatory powers are kept within the confines of the power conferred . Judicial review is concerned with whether the law has been correctly applied, and the right procedures have been followed. In Ghana, judicial review can been implemented upon request by a citizen of the country. It can be a fast, effective and powerful way to convince a public body …show more content…

They argued that although it claimed to have consulted the people of Canada it had not consulted them and therefore should not have been passed. The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing they could do once the Act was passed, it was too late.” This case shows the sovereignty of the parliament, the judicial council does not interfere without acts already passed by the parliament. Judicial review is not effective in England and wales likewise the judicial council of Ghana before 1992 were not sovereign the judges were too scared to confront the executive and legislative arms of government, this can be seen in RE:Akoto case, where the judges said they have no jurisdiction in decided the case. But after the 1992 constitution of Ghana, the constitution gave the judges power to review decisions made by the parliament and invalidate actions or acts that were not inconsistence with the …show more content…

In the UK the exercise of the power of judicial review over administrative bodies is discretionary. It is optional and not used all the time but in the coming of 1992 constitution Ghana under article 23 of the 1992 Constitution, stated clearly that administrative bodies and administrative officials shall act fairly and reasonable and comply with the requirements imposed on them by law and persons aggrieved by the exercise of such acts and decisions shall have the right to seek redress before a court of law. Making it mandatory for admistrative bodies to be reasonable and fair in the administration of its duties.
In England and wales, there is

Show More
Related

  • The Role Of Checks And Balances In The Federalist Papers 10 And 51

    354 Words  | 2 Pages

    but instead, they are regulating and protecting the citizens. Federalist paper No. 51 discusses the need for checks and balances because bias exists and it is instinct to protect what we know making separation of powers necessary. Anne Adams, Basic Administrative Law for Paralegals, 6 (4th ed. 2010). “Originally, administrative agencies were created

    Read More

  • Dbq Judicial Review

    310 Words  | 2 Pages

    The judicial review strengthens the constitutional principle of checks and balances. In the 1789 judiciary act and Judiciary act of 1801 had the right to allow the writs of mandamus. Meaning that they court should have power and including the fact that they are forced to do something. John Marshall weakened the power of the supreme court by getting rid of the power. However he did improve the branch by creating the judicial review.

    Read More

  • What Changes Did Jefferson Try To Make In The Relationship Between Government And The People

    350 Words  | 2 Pages

    1. What changes did Jefferson try to make in the relationship between government and the people? Thomas Jefferson tried to make drastic changes in the government. The biggest thing that Jefferson tried to do was make equal opinions among the people and the Government. He also made sure that the people were elected as officials and had a say in the Government.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Marbury V Madsion

    789 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Supreme Court can just run the show. In the event that the official (otherwise known as Presidential limb) does not do the decision, then the decision is to no impact. The contention against legal audit is that it is not unequivocally expressed in the Constitution. This is a power that was made by Marshall's Court. Furthermore, the official and administrative extensions likewise have a Constitutional obligation to maintain the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Ways In Which Supporters Of The Constitution Dbq

    829 Words  | 4 Pages

    The opinion of the majority was that “certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth” (Document

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton Pros And Cons

    599 Words  | 3 Pages

    What sets the judicial branch apart from the others is the inability to execute the laws and carry out their own decisions made in the high court. Just as it is the executives place to enforce the laws and the legislation to construct laws, it is the responsibility of the courts to determine if the Constitution has been

    Read More

  • Judicial Crisis Dbq

    797 Words  | 4 Pages

    In the year 1803, an ambivalent, undetermined principle lingered within the governing minds. The government and its “justified” Constitution were thought to be fully explained, until a notion occurred that would bring individuals to question the authority and their limit for empowerment. To end his days as president, John Adams named fifty-eight people from his political party to be federal judges, filing positions created by the Judiciary Act of 1800, under the frequently listed Organic Act. His secretary John Marshall delivered and sealed most of the commissions, however seventeen of them had not yet been delivered before Adams’s departure in 1801. On top of that, Thomas Jefferson refused to appoint those seventeen people because they were

    Read More

  • Historical Significance Of The Canadian Constitution Act Of 1982

    1580 Words  | 7 Pages

    Because of the Charter, the role of the courts had been raised. This allowed the judges to make social and legal changes through the interpretation of the Charter’s meaning. There is a lot of criticism on this issue, because many people believe that all the power is in the hand of the judicial branch and the Parliament and Legislature don’t have much authority ("The Courts and Parliament: Balancing the Roles"). This was a very significant change in our nation’s legal history because before the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, the federal and provincial governments were allowed to infringe on Canadian Rights and freedoms. However, when the Charter was put in place, it prevented them to do

    Read More

  • Federalism Dbq Essay

    834 Words  | 4 Pages

    In times of struggle for an organized and protective government, fifty five delegates were called to ratify the amendments. The Unites States was a brand new, independent nation, but it was not at all prospering. War debt and the inability of congress to tax led to the realization that the government needed to be reformed. While it was not their original intention, these delegates ultimately created the Constitution of the United States of America. However, the constant fear of one man or group obtaining too much power still loomed.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Review Paper

    682 Words  | 3 Pages

    Process of American Government Test Review (please complete review in BOLD or different color text) 1) What are the primary steps in how a bill becomes a law (identify each step in order)? What role does each branch play in the process? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Emily Murphy's Case: A Defining Moment For Canada

    1526 Words  | 7 Pages

    7)"The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions." Henrietta Muir Edwards and others (Appeal No. 121 of 1928) v The Attorney General of Canada (Canada) [1929] UKPC 86 (18 October 1929). Accessed May 25, 2017.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Selection Methods

    462 Words  | 2 Pages

    When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.

    Read More

  • The Benefits Of The Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms

    1219 Words  | 5 Pages

    Before the Charter, many people may argue that Canada was a free and democratic country. Canadians had the freedom of expression, equality and the principles of fundamental justice. What changed with the creation of the Charter was that rights and freedoms were given constitutional status, and judges were given the power to strike down laws that infringed on them. In 1982, most Canadians agreed that the introduction of the Charter was going to monumental. But on the contrary, over 30 years later, numerous laws have been struck down by interpretation of the charter and remedial techniques that have been developed by courts.

    Read More

  • Examining Wednesbury's Unreasonableness In Public Decision Making

    1460 Words  | 6 Pages

    In all areas of law reasonableness tends to play a fundamental role including reasonably foreseeability, the reasonable man, beyond reasonable doubt and reasonable force to name a few. The concept of reasonableness in public decision making is no different and has developed, expanded and retracted in various jurisdictions over the past century. In public decision making, reasonableness particularly relates to judicial review, and the actions, events or otherwise which lead a public body to arrive at a particular decision rather the decision itself. It is of great importance that reasonableness is applied to public bodies in order to control the exercise of power and to prevent arbitrary and unfair decisions. In this essay, we will examine

    Read More

  • Role Of Judiciary In Malaysia

    1103 Words  | 5 Pages

    Malaysian judiciary refers to the Malaysian court system. It is an independent body separate from the legislative and executive arms of government. The role of courts is to ensure the law and order are followed, that justice is done, and criminals are punished. The head of the judiciary is the Chief Justice.

    Read More

More about Judicial Review Process

Open Document