The Lesotho Constitution and Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Reflections on the Judicial Attitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the popularization of the doctrine of separation of powers in the 18th century by Baron De Montesquieu, emerging democratic nations have continued to strive towards evolving patterns of governance that suit their internal needs with regards to the political, social and cultural peculiarities of each nation. Lesotho is no exception to this evolutionary trend, as the country transitions from a traditional monarchical to parliamentary system of government, founded on popular democracy. The 1993 Constitution of Lesotho embodies provisions that ensure the distribution of governmental powers among the three arms of government, but with due reverence to the monarch whose powers cut across each branch of government. The judiciary plays a very important role in preserving the tenets of the constitution. The courts in Lesotho have been very assertive, sometimes excessively so, by intruding into the functions of the other arms of government. This paper captures the true importance of the doctrine of separation of powers, examines the Lesotho constitutional arrangement in preserving this doctrine and calls for caution on the part of the courts as guardians of the constitutional order.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".