•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

5-2025

Abstract

The author explores Conservation Advocates Zambia Limited v The Attorney General, contrasting the majority’s application of the constitutional avoidance doctrine with a forceful dissent. The majority declined to hear an environmental petition, classifying the grievances as statutory rather than constitutional. The author aligns with the dissent, arguing that such reasoning sidesteps the judiciary’s constitutional mandate to protect and promote environmental rights. The case presents a fundamental choice for the Court: whether to treat the Constitution as a source of aspirational guidance or as a directly enforceable instrument of environmental accountability and public participation.

Download

Share

COinS