Shortcomings of judicial review and human rights protection in Zambia
Chama, Chishala G.
MetadataShow full item record
Maladministration by public bodies is a vice that is ever present in all societies. One remedy or tool to fight this vice is judicial review, which is a public law remedy, by which an individual can challenge the legality of decisions, determinations, orders or even omissions of persons or bodies performing public functions. A number of criticisms have been leveled judicial review leading to calls for reform in order to adequately address mal administration and particularly to reform judicial review into an effective tool for human rights protection. This research will consider whether these criticisms are justified. The essay considers a number of shortcomings of judicial review in the Zambian context and highlights the shortcomings of this public law remedy in the protection of human rights. Ways to address these shortcomings are suggested after which proposals for reform are made. Chapter One is an overview of judicial review. It considers the nature of judicial review, the grounds for review and the law governing judicial review. Chapter Two then discusses the concept of legitimate expectation as a ground for judicial review and the limits or controls on judicial review in Zambia, particularly the concept of justiciability and exclusion of review by statutes. Chapter Three will consider the shortcomings of the concept of judicial review and the judicial review procedure, while Chapter Four will examine judicial review as a means of human rights protection and the shortcomings of judicial review as a means of human rights protection. Proposals will then be made to reform judicial review. Finally, Chapter Five will contain the conclusions and recommendations.
- Law