The judicial power of Sudan’s Constitutional Court is typical of any other of its kind. The court “sits at the apex of the centralized judicial system” (The Republic of Sudan Art. 119). It functions as the “highest court in constitutional maters and has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate cases concerning: protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, resolution of disputes between the different levels of government, and complaints against any act of the Presidency or the National Council of Ministers if the act involves a violation of the decentralized system of government” (REDRESS 10). The court can also “order interim measures to avoid irreparable harm and effectively guarantee rights and freedoms before making a final ruling…and
…show more content…
Conversely, this set up actually is in violation of the constitution of Sudan and treaties that are a part of. The Constitution states in article 119 that the “court shall be independent of legislature and Executive and separate form the National Judiciary. Furthermore, The United Nation’s “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states that, “The National Judiciary shall be independent of the Legislature and the Executive, with the necessary financial and administrative independence…and promotion of judges should be based on objective factors, particularly ability, integrity and experience”. Sudan is in clear violation of these regulation that clearly enables the Constitutional Court to be able to perform its duties of providing justice wholeheartedly without any unwarranted interference and appearance of bias. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as the head of the National Judicial Service Commission is not only an illegitimate source of oversight for the Constitutional Court, but the Supreme Court as well. This creates a harmful situation in which there is a need for a check of power for both courts when competency …show more content…
Laws in place in the state prevent the court from adequately charging the perpetrators of human right violations. “Executive bodies such as the armed forces and police have immunities from prosecution under their respective laws” (African Centre For Justice and Peace Studies 3). More specifically, judges do not have the power to oversee the work of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), which has wide powers of search, confiscation of assets, arrest, and detention of persons for up to four and a half months without judicial review” (African Centre For Justice and Peace Studies 3). As you can see, with the NISS having the power to virtually dehumanize a person for up to four and a half months, any human rights and civil liberty complaints may arise from such a policy. A lot of times the victims of the NISS are tortured, beaten, and falsely imprisoned by the wrath of this institution and the legal immunity that they are given legitimizes there acts without any consequences. The Constitutional Court transparently have autonomy issues that keep it from functioning as it supposed to, but that’s only when individuals get the rare opportunity to state their grievances in the courtroom
Conversely, this set up actually is in violation of the constitution of Sudan and treaties that are a part of. The Constitution states in article 119 that the “court shall be independent of legislature and Executive and separate form the National Judiciary. Furthermore, The United Nation’s “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary states that, “The National Judiciary shall be independent of the Legislature and the Executive, with the necessary financial and administrative independence…and promotion of judges should be based on objective factors, particularly ability, integrity and experience”. Sudan is in clear violation of these regulation that clearly enables the Constitutional Court to be able to perform its duties of providing justice wholeheartedly without any unwarranted interference and appearance of bias. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as the head of the National Judicial Service Commission is not only an illegitimate source of oversight for the Constitutional Court, but the Supreme Court as well. This creates a harmful situation in which there is a need for a check of power for both courts when competency …show more content…
Laws in place in the state prevent the court from adequately charging the perpetrators of human right violations. “Executive bodies such as the armed forces and police have immunities from prosecution under their respective laws” (African Centre For Justice and Peace Studies 3). More specifically, judges do not have the power to oversee the work of the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), which has wide powers of search, confiscation of assets, arrest, and detention of persons for up to four and a half months without judicial review” (African Centre For Justice and Peace Studies 3). As you can see, with the NISS having the power to virtually dehumanize a person for up to four and a half months, any human rights and civil liberty complaints may arise from such a policy. A lot of times the victims of the NISS are tortured, beaten, and falsely imprisoned by the wrath of this institution and the legal immunity that they are given legitimizes there acts without any consequences. The Constitutional Court transparently have autonomy issues that keep it from functioning as it supposed to, but that’s only when individuals get the rare opportunity to state their grievances in the courtroom