Interdependence Versus Checks and Balances of Power: A Reflection on the Role of Constitutional Court in South Africa

  • Ademola Oluborode Jegede
  • Sidogi Tendani


Under the apartheid regime in South Africa, the adopted Westminster model of governance allowed for parliamentary sovereignty with no clear separation between the branches of government. With the birth of democracy, there is textual division of state power between the Legislature, Judiciary and Executive in the resultant 1996 Constitution. Whether or not the main end of this division is to achieve interdependence of the executive, legislature and judiciary that allows the branches of government to be complementary as well as serve as checks and balances on one another merits an examination. This contribution argues that there exists interdependence in the functioning of different arms of government in the democratic dispensation that allows the branches of government to be inter-reliant. While reflecting on judicial interventions by the Constitutional Court, it demonstrates that the interdependent relationship does not foreclose the arms of government from checks and balances of power in South Africa.


  1. Erik, Herron S., and Randazzo A. Kirk. “The Relationship Between Independence and Judicial Review in Post-Communist Courts.” The Journal of Politics 65, no. 2 (2003): 422–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Labuschagne, Pieter. “The Doctrine of Separation of Powers and Its Application in South Africa.” Politeia 23, no. 3 (2004): 84–102.Google Scholar
  3. Larkins, Christopher M. “Judicial Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis.” American Journal of Comparative Law 44 (1996): 605–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lenta, Patrick. “Democracy, Rights, Disagreements and Judicial Review.” South African Journal on Human Rights 20, no. 1 (2004): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lever, Annabelle. “Is Judicial Review Democratic?” Public Law (2007): 280–298.Google Scholar
  6. Liedenberg, Sandra, and Konesh Pillay. Socio-economic Rights in South Africa: A Resource Book. Cape Town: Community Law Center, University of the Western Cape, 2012.Google Scholar
  7. Mojapelo, Phineas. “The Doctrine of Separation of Powers: A South African Perspective.” Advocate 26, no. 1 (2013): 37–46.Google Scholar
  8. Naidoo, Sherilyn. Does the Lack of Sufficient Formulation and Articulation of the Principles Guiding Limits of the Constitutional Court Undermine Its Legitimacy? LLM dissertation, University of Cape Town, South Africa, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. O’Regan, Kate. “Checks and Balances Reflections on the Development of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers Under the South African Constitution.” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 8, no. 1 (2008): 120–150.Google Scholar
  10. Pierre, De Vos, Warren Freedman, and Danie Brand, eds. South African Constitutional Law in Context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press Southern (Pty) Limited, 2014.Google Scholar
  11. Pieterse, Maurius. “Coming to Terms with Judicial Enforcement of Socio-economic Rights.” South African Journal of Human Rights 20 (2004): 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pillay, Anashri. “Toward Effective Social and Economic Rights Adjudication: The Role of Meaningful Engagement.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 10, no. 3 (2012): 732–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sang, Oscar. “The Separation of Powers and New Judicial Power: How the South African Constitutional Court Plotted Its Course.” ELSA Malta Review no. 3 (2013): 96–123.Google Scholar
  14. Seedorf, Sebastein, and Sanele Sibanda. “Separation of Powers.” In Constitutional Law of South Africa, edited by Stu Woolman and Michael Bishop, 12–26. Cape Town: Juta, 2013.Google Scholar
  15. Waldron, Jeremy. “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review.” Yale Law Journal 115, no. 6 (2006): 1346–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ademola Oluborode Jegede
    • 1
  • Sidogi Tendani
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Law, University of VendaThohoyandouSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations