Judicial review is a public law remedy which allows citizens to institute court proceedings to challenge a decision made by public bodies or authorities. It is a necessary tool for ensuring checks and balances, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law. Judicial review, if properly employed and tenable, protects the citizenry from abusive use of power reposed in public decision-makers. Unfortunately, the remedy of judicial review in Zambia has often not achieved the desired goal due to its discretionary nature, inconsistencies in the decisions by the court and the nonchalant approach of the court in cases that are smeared with political clutter. This has led to questions on its effectiveness as a tool for ameliorating wrongful actions by public bodies or persons. The narrative perpetrated also is that judicial review militates against the rendering of justice to persons that seek the intervention of the courts as vanguards of violations by public bodies or persons. The article argues that the remedy of judicial review in Zambia is ineffective and a subversion of justice.
Chipasha Mulenga (Tue,) studied this question.