Lord Bingham's Theory Of The Rule Of Law

Aristotle

‘’It is more proper that law should be govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.’’ In his definition, he concludes that the law can mould both society and individuals which will result in law-abiding society.

Lord Bingham

Lord Bingham’s definition of rule of law in some way is similar to that of A.V. Dicey’s explanation. However, his interpretation of the rule of law is in tune with the modern era. He breaks down the rule of law into eight sub-rules:

1. The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable.

2. Questions of legal

Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose of which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers.

7. Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair.

8. The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law.

T.R.S Allan

In the mouth of a British constitutional lawyer, the term the rule of law seems to mean primarily a corpus of basic principles and values, which together lend some stability and coherence to the legal order.

Professor Lon Fuller

According to Fuller, eight principles should be followed in order for the rule of law to function and be effective. These principles are:

1. There should be law to govern action, and law should be obeyed by all officials.

2. The laws must be published so that they are capable of being known,

3. The laws must have prospective and not retrospective effect.

4. The law should be clear so that it can be applied fairly.

5. Laws should be free of contradictions.

6. It must be possible for the people to fulfil the terms of the law rather than for it to make impossible demands on

The separation of powers is divided into three branches which are the executive, legislative and Judiciary.

In terms of evaluating cases, there are two powerful instruments which the judiciary should be in place to ensure that there was no favouritism displayed towards any party and these are impartiality and independence. Influence and pressure can come from inside and outside of the court. The executive, legislature, the press and even other judges might interfere with the cases which no longer makes the dealing objective but rather subjective.

The first instrument is impartiality which simply means that the judge should not show bias to any of the parties. The two parties should be treated in the same way in terms of equality. Additionally, both parties should be given similar opportunities to submit their cases. The second instrument is independence. The judiciary should not only be impartial when dealing with cases but independent too. Whenever cases are being assessed, both impartiality and independence should go hand in hand to avoid