Notes

1. In democracies across the world, there are variations in the allocation of power and responsibilities among the various organs or arms of governments. However, One thing is common in the system of government of most of the global democracies: the judiciary play essential and crucial roles in upholding the rule of law and protecting rights of citizens, but the extent of their authority in reviewing government actions differs depending on the constitutional framework and legal traditions of each democratic nation. In constitutional democracies like the United States and Nigeria, two countries that practiced the Presidential system of government, the judiciary is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of government actions and inactions. Conversely, in countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel, inter alia, the power of judicial review is primarily the responsibility of the Parliament, because of the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty.

In the United States, mentioned above, the courts are the umpire of the constitutionality of government actions--i.e. they have the power for judicial review. Judicial review refers to the concept where the courts have the power to void or declare as unconstitutional actions taken by the executive or legislative arms of government. Whereas, judicial review can serve to prevent arbitrariness by the executive branch of government, and can serve to protect the weak in the society and to protect the rights of citizens, thereby contributing to the overall health of a democracy by preventing abuse of power and also upholding the rule of law, there are also concerns regarding its democratic legitimacy. It is argued by some that major policy decisions should be left to the elected representatives of the people and the unelected judges should not be empowered to nullify decisions made by the elected representatives of the people.

it is, therefore, arguable whether judicial review is desirable or not, and this fundamentally depends on ones perspective on the role of the judiciary in our society. While judicial review can prevent abuse by government and protect the rights of citizens of the US, for instance, it also raises questions as to the proper balance of power among the three arms of government and whether unelected judges should have the final say in influencing government policy.

2. Whether the judiciary is best placed to exercise the power of judicial review is subject to debates. The courts constitutionally provides avenues for the resolution of disputes and upholding the rule of law. Nevertheless, some critics argues that the judges in adjudicating a matter before them may inject their personal or attitudinal biases into the matter, thereby resorting to judicial activism.

Alternative mechanisms exists in some democracies, for constitutional review, such as Parliamentary review, as practiced in the aforementioned countries, namely - United Kingdom, New Zealand, Israel and even Canada nearby. Proponents of Parliamentary review maintain that it upheld supremacy in the sovereignty of the elected representatives of the people.

Furthermore, in weighing the merits of demerits of judicial review, it is essential to consider the specific context of the country's democracy and the importance of separation of powers while also balancing the need for constitutional safeguards with democratic principles of popular sovereignty. In the end, the question of whether the courts should have the power of judicial review or it should be left in the hands of the legislature or the executive, depends on ones perspective.