Prospects for Constitutional and Human Rights Transformation through Constitutional Adjudication in Zimbabwe after 2013

Abstract

The article is based on the notion that real socio-economic and political transformation did not follow the adoption of the 2013 Zimbabwean Constitution. Relying on theories of constitutionalism, transformational constitutionalism and transformative adjudication as contemplated by Karl Klare, the question of whether it is possible for the transformation agenda to be accomplished in the absence of political will, and the extent to which the courts can be used as a means of attaining this, is addressed. The article uses a socio-legal research method by drawing arguments from legal and policy-related literature. The jurisprudence of the Zimbabwean Constitutional Court is compared with other jurisdictions such as Kenya and South Africa that adopted interpretative and adjudication methods that have changed the lives of the people, especially with regard to socio-economic and civil and political rights. It is observed that while commendable progress has been made by the Zimbabwean courts, the jurisprudence is still fraught with inconsistencies and lacking in transformative legal culture.