The Limits of the Lockean Doctrine of Judicial Restraint and Democracy in Nigeria: Evidence from the Supreme Court of Nigeria (Published)
This paper interrogates the limits of the Lockean doctrine of judicial restraint within Nigeria’s contemporary constitutional democracy and governance, drawing evidence from Nigeria’s Supreme Court jurisprudence. It seeks to analyse the Supreme Court’s decisions to assess the extent to which judicial practice in Nigeria’s democracy aligns with or deviates from the Lockean doctrine of judicial restraint. The paper is anchored in Lockean Fiduciary Theory and Hirschl’s Juristocracy Theory, using a qualitative doctrinal methodology and secondary literature. Findings reveal that the Supreme Court oscillates between judicial restraint and judicial activism. The paper argues that the mixed jurisprudential records raise serious concerns for democratic accountability and expose the structural and contextual limits of Lockean judicial restraint in Nigeria’s democratic landscape. It concludes that the sustainability of Lockean judicial restraint in the interest of constitutionalism and democracy in Nigeria requires, among others, depoliticization of the Supreme Court and radical judicial reforms.
Keywords: Judicial Activism, Juristocracy, Lockean judicial restraint, Supreme Court jurisprudence, constitutional democracy, fiduciary theory
Rule of Law and Good Governance in Bangladesh: Does Judicial Control Matter? (Review Completed - Accepted)
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the role of judicial activism as an instrument of judicial control in establishing rule of law and its impact on good governance in Bangladesh. Judicial activism is one of the effective and proactive mechanisms in protecting various aspects of human rights such as- fundamental rights, equal rights of human being, life, liberty and properties, equal opportunity of employment, rights of sound environment and overall protection of public or national interest. All those are the basis of rule of law and good governance of a country. The major findings of the paper are: rule of law is one of the most crucial elements of good governance and judiciary is a very vital institution of government to establish rule of law in a country. Judicial activism is such an approach, where, there is no need to file a writ by the affected person directly. Any legally conscious person or organization has the right to writ on behalf of affected rights or public interest. It has also found that the role of NGOs or human rights defender organizations is crucial for adjudicating public interest litigation to promote and protect individual rights as well as to uphold the spirit of rule of law. In Bangladesh, most of the PIL cases are filled by human rights defenders organizations (e.g.: BELA, BLAST and ASK) and some other NGOs. Apart from this, delay and log jam of cases is another crucial problem of Bangladesh judiciary which appears in few cases of this paper. This is one of the major impediments of fair and speedy justice delivery, which ultimately creates room for more corruption and violation of human rights in Bangladesh
Keywords: Bangladesh, Governance, Human Rights, Judicial Activism, NGOs and Accountability of Government, Public Interest Litigation, Rule Of Law