By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

to exist; in others the interest is a factor to be considered in the review of theexercise of an executive discretionary power. Once the factual basis isestablished by evidence so that the court is satisfied that the interest of nationalsecurity is a relevant factor to be considered in the determination of the case thecourt will accept the opinion of the Crown of its responsible officer as to what isrequired to meet it unless it is possible to show that the opinion was one whichno reasonable minister advising the Crown could in the circumstancesreasonably have held. There is no abdication of the judicial function but there is acommon sense limitation recognized by the judges as to what is justifiable andthe limitation is entirely consistent with the general development of the moderncase law of judicial reviewMy Lords I would wish to add a few very few words on the review ability of theexercise of the royal prerogative. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Dipock. Ibelieve that the law relating to judicial review has now reached the stage where itcan be said with confidence that if the subject matter in respect of whichprerogative of which prerogative power is exercise of statutory power withoutusurping the role of legal historian for which I claim no special qualification Iwould observe that the royal prerogative has always been regarded as part of thecommon law and that Sir Edward Coke had no doubt that it was subject to thecommon law prohibitions del Roy (1608) 12 Co. Rep. 63 and the proclamationsCase (1611) 12 Co. Rep. 74 in the latter case he declared at p, 76 that the Kinghath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him. It is of coursebeyond doubt that in Coke’s time and thereafter judicial; review pf the exercise ofprerogative power was limited to inquiring into whether a particular power existedand if it did into its extent; Attorney-General v. De Keysers Royal Hotel Ltd (1920)A.C. 508 But this limitation has now gone. Overwhelmed by the developingmodern law of judicial review Reg. v. Criminal injuries Compensation Board, Exparte lain (1967) 2 Q.B 864 a landmark case comparable in its generation withthe proclamations Case 12 Co. Rep. 74 and Reg. v. Secretary of State for HomeAffairs Ex parte hoasenball (1977) I W.L R. 766 just as ancient restriction in thelaw relating to the prerogative writ and orders have not prevented the courts from340