Constitutional crises and administrative continuity
Constitutional Crises and Administrative Continuity
Constitutional Crisis occurs when there is a significant breakdown or conflict in the constitutional framework of a state, often involving disputes between branches of government, unclear constitutional provisions, or when political actors refuse to adhere to constitutional norms. This can lead to uncertainty about who holds legitimate authority.
Administrative Continuity refers to the principle that despite political or constitutional turmoil, the administration of government and the state machinery should continue to function without interruption to maintain law and order, governance, and public services.
In times of constitutional crisis, courts often play a critical role in upholding administrative continuity by clarifying who holds legitimate power and ensuring that government functions do not grind to a halt.
Case Law Illustrations
1. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) – UK
Context: The government sought to trigger Article 50 (to leave the EU) without parliamentary approval.
Crisis: The question was whether the government could trigger Brexit without Parliament's consent.
Judgment: The UK Supreme Court ruled that the government must seek Parliament’s approval before triggering Article 50.
Significance: This case reinforced the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and clarified the limits of executive power, thereby preventing a constitutional crisis that could have disrupted administrative continuity by ensuring decisions with major political impact involve Parliament.
2. Marbury v. Madison (1803) – United States
Context: William Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace.
Crisis: The case raised questions about judicial authority versus executive action.
Judgment: The Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, declaring the law that Marbury invoked unconstitutional.
Significance: This case resolved a constitutional crisis by establishing the judiciary’s role in interpreting the Constitution, thereby safeguarding administrative continuity by ensuring disputes over government authority can be resolved judicially.
3. Re Punjab Assembly Case (1954) – India
Context: The Governor of Punjab dismissed the state government and recommended President's Rule.
Crisis: Whether the dismissal was constitutionally valid.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Governor's power to dissolve the assembly was subject to judicial review.
Significance: This judgment checked executive overreach and maintained administrative continuity by ensuring that constitutional powers are exercised within legal limits.
4. Sankey v Whitlam (1975) – Australia (Political Crisis)
Context: The Governor-General dismissed Prime Minister Gough Whitlam during a deadlock in Parliament.
Crisis: The constitutional crisis centered on the Governor-General’s power to dismiss a government.
Significance: While there was no direct judicial ruling, this crisis highlighted the tension between written constitutional powers and political norms. It underscored the importance of administrative continuity in the face of political deadlock, leading to reforms ensuring clearer roles and processes for government transitions.
5. Federal Court of Nigeria – In Re: 2019 Governorship Election Crisis
Context: Disputes over the legitimacy of governorship elections led to administrative paralysis in a Nigerian state.
Crisis: The question was who had the lawful authority to govern pending legal challenges.
Judgment: The court reaffirmed that the incumbent government remains the caretaker authority until disputes are resolved.
Significance: This ruling ensured administrative continuity despite political instability, preventing a vacuum of power that could lead to lawlessness or governance failure.
Summary of Principles from These Cases:
Judicial Review as a tool to resolve disputes and prevent constitutional crises from paralyzing governance (Marbury v. Madison).
Checks on executive power to prevent unconstitutional acts disrupting government functioning (Re Punjab Assembly).
Parliamentary sovereignty and involvement in key decisions to maintain legitimacy (Miller case).
Caretaker governments or interim authorities maintain continuity until disputes are resolved (Nigeria case).
Political norms and constitutional conventions may fill gaps in formal rules to maintain stability (Australian crisis).
RELATED Blog
0 comments