An umbrella body for Guarantor institutions: a necessary condition or a strange-creature?*

Are Guarantor institutions a distinct branch of the state? This article argues that answering this question requires understanding the role of an ‘umbrella body’: that is, a hierarchically superior body with powers of appointment, supervision and removal over Guarantor institutions. I argue that an umbrella body can perform four key functions: (i) applying and defending non-self-enforcing constitutional norms; (ii) developing those norms in a context-specific way; (iii) serving as an administrative focal point; and (iv) communicating within the branch, with other branches and the world at large. Therefore, an umbrella body helps Guarantor institutions to fulfil their Guarantor functions in at least three ways: (i) it separates the Guarantor function from the traditional branches of the state; (ii) it advances internal and external accountability of Guarantor institutions and (iii) it prevents and remedies state capture. In advancing this argument, I compare the experiences in Nepal and Sri Lanka under Constitutional Councils, which function as umbrella bodies, with South Africa’s Chapter 9 institutions, which lack an umbrella body. I conclude that the limited and early experiences in Nepal and Sri Lanka suggest that an umbrella body for Guarantor institutions is highly desirable, even if not a strictly necessary condition for the existence of a Guarantor branch.