A perspective of the contemporary role of judges in the Zimbabwe

Abstract

Law is a system constituted by legal institutions such as the courts and the legislature and a systematic arrangement of rules. Legal systems exist because of the law’s claim to authority over how people should act. Legal systems have the following distinguishing characteristics: (i) the underpinning philosophy of the legal system towards the resolution of disputes, (ii) the sources of law whether judicial precedent, statute, authoritative customary norms and, (iii) the role of the judge/adjudicating authority. In a civil law system, the legislature is primary and all law is made by the legislature and mostly codified. The role of the judge is to interpret it and the system in its purest sense, allows no room for judges to make law. Judicial interpretations of codes are not binding on future courts. On the other hand, in a common system, judges make law through judicial precedent. Zimbabwe has historically adhered to the common law tradition. Its superior courts have ruthlessly demanded adherence to the twin principles of judicial precedence and stare decisis. In this research the writer set out to investigate nuances of the legal system in contemporary Zimbabwe in light of the constitutional dispensation ushered in by the 2013 constitution of Zimbabwe. The writer detected growing jurisprudence in Zimbabwe which gives prominence to the supremacy of the constitution. Increasingly, more and more judges are churning out judgments which underpin the supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law. There are however some decisions which betray hesitation to assert constitutional supremacy. The researcher concludes by recommending the strengthening of the constitutional safeguards for the individual and collective independence of judges to enable them to function without fear and favour