Acts of Parliament, such as Act 1019, are therefore subject to judicial review and not immune from the scrutiny of this Court. Otherwise, both the letter and spirit of Article 2(1) would run a risk of being compromised. We must emphasize that the concept of a sovereign, and for that matter supreme, Parliament such as the English Parliament, which enjoys unfettered discretion in the creation of laws, known as the enrolled bills doctrine, is inapplicable under our Constitution. Accordingly, under our Constitution, Parliament is independent and not supreme. It is the Constitution that is supreme and consequently, this Court as the watchdog and/referee over constitutional compliance has the jurisdiction to interrogate and adjudicate any allegation of a breach of the Constitution by a legislative process resorted to by Parliament.
From its inception therefore, the lawmaking power of Parliament, is restrained by the limitations and structure set by the Constitution. Cases are legion to the effect that Parliament cannot exercise its legislative mandate in a manner that is antithetical to, inconsistent with or at variance with the Constitution and in cases where Parliament has, whether overtly or inadvertently strayed outside the scope set by the Constitution, such acts have invariably been struck down.
Presumption of constitutionality of an Act of Parliament
We cannot overemphasize our view that even though Parliament is independent, the Constitution is supreme. Consequently, Parliament, like every organ of the State, including the Judiciary is subject to the Constitution. Accordingly, the clear terms and spirit of Article 2 entrenches the traditional role of the Judiciary, as the final arbiter of what a statute means, and how it should be interpreted. Parliamentary Acts are presumed to be valid, and enacted in accordance with the basic law, the Constitution. However, this presumption is rebuttable and not conclusive. Therefore, absolute deference to parliamentary acts and enactments should not be the standard of the judiciary. In our view, it will be a serious dereliction of the duty of this Court to ignore a clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution.
