Abiatha Adu Wiafe has posted Doctrinal and Jurisprudential Foundations of Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Review in Ghana and the United Kingdom on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This article examines the doctrinal and jurisprudential foundations of parliamentary supremacy and judicial review in Ghana and the United Kingdom, two common law jurisdictions with shared historical origins but sharply divergent constitutional trajectories. It argues that the relationship between legislative authority and judicial oversight reflects distinct constitutional philosophies shaped by political experience, democratic anxieties, and institutional design. In the United Kingdom, parliamentary supremacy has traditionally functioned as the organising principle of the constitutional order, with judicial review developing primarily as a mechanism for controlling executive action within a weak-form review model. Although recent jurisprudence under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Brexit litigation has introduced important qualifications, Parliament remains legally sovereign. By contrast, Ghana’s 1992 Constitution entrenches constitutional supremacy and mandates strong-form judicial review, empowering courts to invalidate legislation and parliamentary conduct inconsistent with constitutional norms. The article contends that neither absolute parliamentary sovereignty nor unconstrained judicial power is normatively sufficient, and that constitutional legitimacy depends on maintaining a principled balance between democratic governance, human rights protection, and the rule of law.
“This is a preprint version of an article submitted to the Human Rights Law Review. The manuscript has not yet undergone peer review.”