CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE IN AFRICA: An Examination of Constitutional Positivism, Fundamental Law and Rights in Ghana and Nigeria

This work explores the idea of constitutional justice in Africa with a focus on constitutional interpretation in Ghana and Nigeria. The objective is to develop a theory of constitutional interpretation based upon a conception of law that allows the existing constitutions of Ghana and Nigeria to be construed by the courts as law in a manner that best serves the collective wellbeing of the people. The project involves an examination of both legal theory and substantive constitutional law. The theoretical argument will be applied to show how a proper understanding of the ideals of the rule of law and constitutionalism in Ghana and Nigeria necessitate the conclusion that socio-economic rights in those countries are constitutionally protected and judicially enforceable. The thesis argues that this conclusion follows from a general claim that constitutions should represent a ‘fundamental law’ and must be construed as an aspirational moral ideal for the common good of the people. The argument is essentially about the inherent character of ‘legality’ or the ‘rule of law.’ It weaves together ideas developed by Lon Fuller, Ronald Dworkin, T.R.S. Allan and David Dyzenhaus, as well as the strand of common law constitutionalism associated with Sir Edward Coke, to develop a moral sense of ‘law’ that transcends the confines of positive or explicit law while remaining inherently ‘legal’ as opposed to purely moral or political. What emerges is an unwritten fundamental law of reason located between pure morality or natural law on the one hand and strict, explicit, or positive law on the other. It is argued that this fundamental law is, or should be, the basis of constitutional interpretation, especially in transitional democracies like Ghana and Nigeria, and that it grounds constitutional protection for socio-economic rights. Equipped with this theory of law, courts in developing African countries like Ghana and Nigeria will be in a better position to contribute towards developing a real sense of constitutional justice for Africa.

The Evolution and Reform of Summary Trials in Canadian Military Justice

There is a place where a Canadian citizen can be sent to 30 days detention, by someone who is not a judge, without being represented by counsel, and without having a meaningful right to appeal. It is the summary trial system of the Canadian Armed Forces. This thesis analyses that system and suggests reforms. It is aimed at those who have an interest in improving the administration of military justice at the unit level but want to sufficiently understand the issues before doing so. Through a classic legal approach with elements of legal history and comparative law, this study begins by setting military justice in the Canadian legal firmament. The introductory chapter also explains fundamental concepts, first and foremost the broader notion of discipline, for which summary trial is one of the last maintaining tools. Chapter II describes the current system. An overview of its historical background is first given. Then, each procedural step is demystified, from investigation until review. Chapter III identifies potential breaches of the Charter, highlighting those that put the system at greater constitutional risk: the lack of judicial independence, the absence of hearing transcript, the lack of legal representation and the disparity of treatment between ranks. Alternatives adopted in the Canadian Armed Forces and in foreign jurisdictions, from both common law and civil law traditions, in addressing similar challenges are reviewed in Chapter IV. Chapter V analyses whether the breaches could nevertheless be justified in a free and democratic society. Its conclusion is that, considering the availability of reasonable alternatives, it would be hard to convince a court that the current system is a legitimate impairment of the individual’s legal rights. The conclusion Chapter presents options to address current challenges. First, the approach of ‘depenalization’ taken by the Government in recent Bill C-71 is analysed and criticised. The ‘judicialization’ approach is advocated through a series of 16 recommendations designed not only to strengthen the constitutionality of the system but also to improve the administration of military justice in furtherance of service members’ legal rights.