Judicial review in cases concerning the constitutionality of the presidential statutory powers.

Abstract

The research traces and analyses the Zimbabwean jurisprudence in cases dealing with the constitutionality of the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act. It identifies five Zimbabwean cases which dealt with the constitutionality of the Act. In the cases, the courts held that the Presidential Powers (Temporary Measures) Act is constitutional or they avoided dealing with its constitutionality by invoking technicalities. The study aims to look at the appropriate standards of judicial review in cases dealing with the lawfulness of the Presidential statutory powers. It desires to discuss the settled judicial review standards that are used to review the constitutionality of the Presidential statutory powers in jurisdictions of best practice. The research also targets to analyse the theoretical foundations underlying judicial reasoning. It seeks to critically review how the Zimbabwean judiciary has interpreted the Constitution when adjudicating cases dealing with the legitimacy of the Presidential statutory powers. It is the aim of the research to discuss the ideal approaches to interpreting the Constitution in cases dealing with the constitutionality of the Presidential statutory powers. There is what is called the “non-delegation doctrine”. The study also seeks to discuss the theoretical foundations of the doctrine and its intent