DOES A REVOLUTION BEGET ITS OWN LEGALITY


A revolution is a term used to describe the action of a New Order taking over an Order already in existence: it is when something new takes over the old. A country is said to have undergone a successful revolution when a new government takes over an old government. The revolution can either be violent and bloody or it can be peaceful. Kenya for instance underwent a peaceful in the year 2002 when a new regime NARC took over the old regime KANU which regime had been in existence since independence of Kenya from the British colonialists.

According to Hans Kelsen, a norm is validated by a higher norm which is in turn validated by another higher norm. This chain of validity stretches back to the grund norm. In law this basic norm is the constitution of the state. In his general theory of the law and the state, Kelsen states that, “it cannot be maintained that legally, men have to behave in conformity with a certain norm, if the total legal order of which that norm is an integral part has lost its efficacy. The principle of legitimacy is restricted by the principle of effectiveness.” It would appear that Kelsen meant that it is unrealistic and unreasonable to continue abiding to a law that no longer serves the purpose for which it was meant or even worse a law that has been passed by time and events. If a law is not effective then it cannot be said to be legitimate.

It can therefore be argued that when a successful revolution takes place, its new constitution becomes valid and the old constitution is either entrenched into the new constitution or is declared null and void. The Constitution therefore becomes legally viable and acts as the grund norm of the state.

This theory was expressly cited and applied following a coup in Pakistan (The State versus Dosso), Uganda (Uganda versus Commissioner of Prisons, Ex Parte Michael Matovu) and the Rhodesian unilateral declaration of Independence. The general decision in the above was that a Revolution: a victorious revolution is an internationally recognized legal method of changing a constitution. Laws which derive from the old order may remain valid under the New Order only because their validity has been vested in them by the New Constitution and it is only the contents of these norms that remain the same and not ,the reason for the validity.

 This decision has been well illustrated in the recent revolutions that have occurred all over the world namely, the Egypt Revolution, the Libyan Revolution and the Tunisian Revolution. The new norm therefore endows a revolutionary government legal authority. In essence a successful revolution begets its own legality.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Effect of the Repugnancy Clause under Section 3(2) of The Judicature Act and The Supremacy Clause Under Article 2(4) of The Constitution on African Customary Laws

1.        What does Article 2(4) of the Constitution provide? Article 2(4) of the Constitution of Kenya provides that, any law, including customary, that is inconsistent with the Constitution of Kenya is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and any act or omission in contravention of the Constitution is invalid. In essence Article 2(4) of the Constitution provides for the supremacy clause initially provided for under Section 3 of the Constitution of Kenya (Repealed) . Consequently the effect of Article 2(4) of the Constitution is that that any act or omission in contravention of the constitution is invalid. Therefore before a court of law applies Customary Law or any other law, in any particular case, the court must be sure that the particular rule of custom is not contrary to any provision of the Constitution. The court must therefore, consider all acts of a customs and ensure that they are not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. In addition, Article 2(4)
Read more

The Problem of Legal Language: A Comparative Analysis of the Kenya Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and the 1998 England Rules of Procedure

Grant Gilmore of Yale has been quoted describing Christopher Langdell, a professor at Harvard Law school as essentially “a stupid man who early in his life hit on the casebook method, an idea that was absurd, mischievous and deeply rooted in error” an opinion that I strongly disagree with. However I do agree with the opinion of Joseph Kimble, Plain Language Michigan Bar Journal, November 2006, where he states that the case book method has had one harmful if unintended consequence for helping perpetuate legalese. Joseph Kimble states that legalese should be distinguished from terms of art such as habeas corpus, indemnity and tortious interference with a contract . He describes legalese as high faulting legal jargon such as hereinbefore stated, in the instant case, pursuant to and said claims or such claims. He further laments that use of legalese costs clients’ money, impairs persuasiveness and detracts a writer’s reputation. Bryan Garner [1] , in his article Learning to loathe
Read more

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN KENYA

This was Chapter 3 of my dissertation. A wonderful read for lovers of corporate governance especially as relates to the Nairobi Securities Exchange 3.1 INTRODUCTION Traditionally the idea of starting a business was driven by one motive only; that is to make profits. Questions of good corporate governance and business ethics never arose. All that mattered to organizations was whether they made profits and not how the profits were made [1] . Indeed most private business leaders are driven by profits and make no apologies for it. Ellen J Kullman , president of E. I. Du pont de Nemours and Company states that: “ Without profits, our system literally cannot be maintained anymore than man can survive without oxygen. No one would argue that breathing is an objective of life but no one could deny that, without it, no other objectives would be conceivable. And so it is and takes with it any possibilities of improving man's state of affairs. ” [2] This statement only s
Read more