Paper short abstract:

This paper analyzes the relationship between the judiciary and legislature in sub-Saharan Africa through comparative analysis of Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda since the transition to multipartyism.

Paper long abstract:

It is now more than twenty years since the transition to multipartyism and the expansion of judicial review in sub-Saharan Africa. Much of the literature on African politics focuses on executive hegemony and downplays the role of the other two branches of government. Although the legislature and judiciary tend to be dominated by the executive, it is also important to study them directly in relation to one another. While formal constitutional change has signaled an end to the era parliamentary sovereignty, the willingness of legislatures to respect this has been sporadic at best. A de facto political culture that mistakenly privileges parliamentary sovereignty lingers far beyond its sell-by-date. This paper assesses the relationship between the judiciary and legislature in Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda since 1994. Through analysis of important judicial review cases and original fieldwork, this paper asks: Can the courts execute their role as guardian of the separation of powers and constitutional arbiter in an environment characterized by parliamentary disrespect and a political culture of misinformation? Additionally, this paper will analyze the ways in which the constitutional and supreme courts have sought to simultaneously educate and chastise members of parliament and the general public in regards to respect for separation of powers and constitutional supremacy. Finally, looking forward, this paper will evaluate the possibility of moving away from an adversarial relationship to the emergence of a constructive dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary.