Constitutionalism in the third republic

The principal objective of this study is to examine and evaluate the relationship between a written constitution and the management performance of government. The conduct of national affairs by the three arms of government, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary will be analyzed to determine whether such conduct conforms to constitutional rule in the 'Third Republic'.
The existing Constitution and other legal framework supporting constitutional rule may
be deficient, yet to a large extent they are supportive of constitutional rule. There may be no major problems with the Constitution and with its compliance. For example, the Bill of Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution is sufficiently protective of individual rights, regardless
of race, place of origin, colour, political opinion, sex or status in society. These rights are not sufficiently protective of individuals because they have clawback provisions. To enhance strict
observance of human rights, the derogation clause should be deleted. This is also said to be the major problem with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The Bill of Rights
survived the introduction of a One-Party political system.
The sharp focus of the thesis is that, despite the return to Multi-Party politics in 1991, with its emphasis on democratic governance, the three organs of government moreso, the Executive is a repository of enormous powers, enabling it to deviate from constitutional precepts.
The thesis is intended to be a treatise on constitutionalism in the 'Third Republic' and will extensively discuss the functioning of the three organs of state and institutions supporting constitutional democracy. The citizen expects the Executive to be accountable, the Legislature to check the Executive boldly and the Judiciary to play an effective role through courageous human rights 'activism' and a generous interpretation of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
It is the author's sincere hope that this thesis will make a significant contribution to the body of current constitutional rule discourse.