Meaning of Constitutionalism
Constitutionalism refers to the Constitutional limits on the Organs of the government, which are the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary. The limits are set up by the Constitution itself through constitutional rules and principles. The limits should always derive its justification from the constitution. That being the requirement the limits should be legal. The Constitution should make the government realize that its rule is subject to a certain bunch of limits. The Government should have an attitude of justifying its actions with reference to the constitution. That will only be possible when the Constitution itself is democratic. Democratic in the sense that it stipulates the constitutional rules and principles clearly. The Constitutional rules and principles that need to be found in any democratic Constitution include: Supremacy of the Constitution, Sovereignty of people, Separation of powers, Independence of the Judiciary, Rule of law and basic human rights. The amalgam of these constitutional rules and principles form Constitutionalism. The limits, through constitutional rules and principles, help the government not to rule tyrannically on whims, caprices and arbitrary discretion but rather to rule in accordance with the constitution. Constitutionalism insists on transparency and good governance and respect of individual liberty. Constitutionalism is the whole idea of making peoples' interests and rights recognized and respected. Constitutionalism makes government accountable to its people. The whole concept of Constitutionalism rests on the principles of limited government and rule of law.
To sum up the meaning of Constitutionalism it is wise to quote a prominent writer on public law, S. A de Smith who said:
To me, Constitutionalism in its formal sense means the principle that the exercise of political power shall be bounded by rules, rules which determine the validity of legislative and executive action by prescribing the procedure to which it must be performed or by delimiting its permissible content. …Constitutionalism becomes a living reality to the extent that these rules curb the arbitrariness of discretion and are in fact observed by the wielders of political power, and to the extent that within the forbidden zones upon which authority may not trespass, there is significant room for the enjoyment of individual liberty.
Constitutional limits on Government
It is now well known that constitutionalism is all about limited government and rule of law. That is to say, Constitutionalism simply means Constitutional limits in government. The constitution should limit the Organs of the government so that they do not exercise their power tyrannically. The whole practice of constitutionalism is well seen when the constitution of a country limits the pillars of the government. The pillars are the executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Since the three pillars are creatures of the constitution, the latter should clothes them with their powers and in so doing delimits the scope within which they are to operate. In this sense, Constitutionalism has come by and large to presuppose a written constitution. A government operating under a written constitution must act in accordance with it, any exercise of power outside the constitution is invalid. In such a system, a constitution is supreme. Alexander Hamilton writes that, No legislative act contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master, that the representative of the people are superior than the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do, not only, what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid65. Hamilton's observation is to apply to the rest of government's
organs.
Elements of the limits on government
Professor de Smith prescribes the minimum elements necessary for constitutionalism as follows:
"A contemporary liberal democrat, if asked to lay down a set of minimum standards, may be very willing to concede that constitutionalism is practiced in a country where the government is genuinely accountable to an entity or organ distinct from itself, where elections are freely held on a wide franchise at frequent intervals, where political groups are to organize in opposition to the government in office and where there are effective legal guarantees of fundamental civil liberties enforced by an independent judiciary and he may not easily be persuaded to identify constitutionalism in a country where any of these conditions is lacking.
The same view is prescribed by Professor Mcllwain who maintains that all that is needed is the ancient legal restraint of a guarantee of civil liberties enforceable by an independent court and the modern concept of the full responsibility of government to the whole mass of the governed.
By looking at the above findings of Professors de Smith and Mcllwain one will realize that the core and substantive elements of Constitutionalism are Separation of Powers, Democracy, Constitutional guarantee of individual liberties and Independence of the Judiciary. However, the developments on advocacy for Constitutionalism have integrated notions of Supremacy of the Constitution, Sovereignty of the people, Representative Parliament and Rule of law. Presently, these elements altogether are the core requirements for Constitutionalism. It is now the task of this paper to present them one after the other.
Separation of powers
The doctrine of Separation of powers traces its origin way back to Aristotle's work.68John Locke (1632-1772) later postulated it in his book, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. However, the doctrine received its modern formulation in the middle of the 18th Century by the renown French jurist called Montesquieu, who said:
When the Legislative Power is united with the Executive Power in the same person or body of magistrates, there is no liberty because it is to be feared that the same Monarch or the same Senate will make tyrannical laws in order to execute them tyrannically. There is again no liberty if the judicial Power is not separated from the Legislative Power and from the Executive Power… If it were joined to the Executive Power, the judge would have the strength of an oppressor…
According to the formulation by Montesquieu the doctrine simply means there are to be three different powers of the State, which are the executive, the Legislature and the judiciary, their personnel are to be different and their functions should be different. Professor Peter prescribes that, under the doctrine the legislature is supposed to make laws, the judiciary to interpret and administer them and the executive to enforce them.
Constitutionalism demands for its efficacy a differentiation of governmental functions and a separation of the powers that exercise them. However, it has to be noted that practice and exigencies of modern governments have made a complete adherence to the doctrine impossible. The focus now is on insisting checks of one power by another. Separation of Power is taken to be an important element for constitutionalism as it prevents tyrannical rule. It was Montesquieu's argument that separation of power between different organs of the State helps to deter abuse of power and the three organs mutually act as checks on each other thereby balancing it. The practical part of separation of powers proves that it is inevitable to strictly follow the three well-known meanings of the doctrine. Matters are designed in such a way that each branch operates as a check on the other. United States is a good example on this. The President may veto legislation but has no power to dissolve Congress, he can also be impeached by the Congress. Though the President can appoint federal judges, his appointments need to be confirmed by the Senate. The Congress not the Executive removes Federal judges.
Checks and Balances
The idea of checks and balances seeks to make the separation of powers more effective by balancing the powers of one agency against those of another through a system of positive mutual checks exercised by the governmental organs upon one another. Thus, the executive might be empowered to dissolve the legislature and the legislature to impeach the chief executive, to approve the appointment of certain top State officials. The checks differ from one State to another depending on the type of government and its constitution. Checks and balances presupposes that a specific function is assigned primarily to a given organ, subject to a power of limited interference by another organ to ensure that each organ keeps within the sphere delimited to it.
Sovereignty of the People
Sovereignty of the people presents the idea that State power resides with the people. In any democratic government, sovereignty resides in the people in the sense that, it is the people themselves who are actually the source of power or authority. Sovereignty of the people is seen in many written Constitutions through their preambles. The proclamation in the preambles evidences that the people are the makers of the Constitution and that the latter derives its legal authority and political legitimacy from the people. The words "We, the People…" in a Constitution are not the mere words but they present a very important message that the Constitution is made by the people by virtue of constituent assembly or is made on their behalf. There are so many examples that can be used to reveal this argument, for example the constitution of India of 1949, states, 'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, …, IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY …, Do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. In Tanzania the Union Constitution of 1977 (as amended in 2005) proclaims in its preamble, (see down for English Official translation)
KWA KUWA SISI Wananchi wa Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Tanzania Tumeamua rasmi na kaw dhati kujenga katika nchi yetu jamii Inayozingatia misingi ya uhuru, haki, udugu na amani: NA KWA KUWA misingi hiyo yaweza tu kutekelezwa katika jamii Yenye demokrasia, ambayo Serikali yake husimamiwa na Bunge Lenye wajumbe waliochaguliwa na linalowakilisha wananchi, na pia yenye Mahakama huru zinazotekeleza wajibu wa kutoa haki bila woga wala upendeleo wowote, na hivyo kuhakikisha kwamba haki zote za binadamu zinadumishwa na kulindwa, na wajibu wa kila mtu unatekelezwa kwa uaminifu:
KWA HIYO BASI, KATIBA HII IMETYUNGWA NA BUNGE MAALUM LA JAMHURI YA MUUNGANO WA TANZANIA, kwa niaba ya Wananchi, kaw madhumuni ya kujenga jammi kama hiyo, na pia kwa ajili ya kuhakikisha kwamba Tanzania inaongozwa na Serikali yenye kufuata misingi ya demokrasia, ujamaa na isiyokuwa na dini.
WHERAS WE, the people of the United Republic of Tanzania, have firmly and solemnly resolved to build in our country a society founded on the principles of freedom, justice, fraternity and concord:
AND WHEREAS those principles can only be realized in a democratic society in which the Executive is accountable to a Legislative composed of elected members and representative of the people, and also a Judiciary which is independent and dispenses justice without fear or favour, thereby ensuring that all human rights are preserved and protected and that the duties of every person are faithfully discharged:
NOW THEREFORE THIS CONSTITUTION IS ENACTED BY THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA, on behalf of the People, for the purpose of building such a society and ensuring that Tanzania is governed by a Government that adheres to the principles of democracy and socialism.
Professor Shivji seriously states that these proclamations are not mere embellishment. They evidence one important legal and political fact. This is that the constitution derives its legal authority and political legitimacy from the people. By giving themselves a constitution, the people are formally and legally constituting state power: providing for state organs and their respective powers, the procedures for exercising those powers and the limits on exercising them. All state power, that is legislative power, executive power and judicial power, is created by the constitution and must derive its authority from the constitution. 74 In this perception and understanding of sovereignty of the people, all powers and actions of government organs need to be exercised and justified with reference to the constitution. The Executive should always execute its functions with reference to the terms of the constitution. The Parliament when making laws must not go beyond what is required of it in the constitution. The same applies to the Judiciary, it has to look and shape itself within the ambit of the mother law of the land. Nothing extra-constitutional by any of the organs can find justification in such a proclamation.
Supremacy of the Constitution.
The principle of Constitutional supremacy is found in many countries that have written Constitutions. In countries, where written constitution is adopted it is the constitution, which is supreme. Supremacy means that Constitution is the source of all other laws of the country. The Constitution is providing for the ways and procedures of making laws of the country. The Constitution is to declare the body, which is vested with powers to make laws. The procedures for amending the laws including the Constitution itself are to be provided for in the Constitution. Basic rights and duties of the people are to be recognized by the Constitution. Therefore, Supremacy of the Constitution demands for the Constitution to be above all other laws of the country. The laws must be made and justified from the Constitution. No law should be applicable if it contravenes the Constitution. Supremacy demands the Constitution to prevail whenever there is a conflict between the constitution and any other law. Supremacy of the constitution also requires the courts to hold void any exercise of power which does not comply with the prescribed manner and form or which is not in accordance with the Constitution. Shivji says, this is then the basis for the principle that the Constitution is "basic law" from which all other laws and institutions derive their authority.
Representative Parliament
Constitutionalism calls for the makers of the laws to be the result of peoples' choice. Members of Parliament must always be the representatives of the people. For there to be a representative parliament free, fair and democratic elections in a country is a must. People are to be given opportunities to choose their leaders freely. A representative parliament is guaranteed in a place where democracy is fully practiced. If this condition is Fulfilled then the Parliament becomes representative one, the parliament that speaks for the people and represents the interests of the people. It is only when a country has representative parliament where the people will feel part of the government.
Independence of the Judiciary
Judiciary is an autonomous organ, which is vested with powers to dispense justice. It deals with the interpretation, construing and application of the law. It is a body that determines the guilty or innocence of an accused person, also it decides on rights and liabilities of the people. Generally, the administration of justice is in the custody of the Judiciary. Basing on the idea above Judiciary needs to be independent for it to fulfill its functions without fear or favour. Judiciary must be kept away from all forms of interference and control. Hon. Justice Buxtorn Chipeta defined Independence of the Judiciary in these words76
As I understand the constitutional position in our country, the Judiciary is supposed to be an independent institution- independent in the sense that those who are entrusted by the Constitution to decide the rights and liabilities of guilt or innocence of people must be free from all kinds of pressures, regardless of the corners from which those pressures come. The Judiciary must be free from political, executive or emotional pressures if it is going to work with the smoothness and integrity expected of it under the supreme law of the land- the Constitution. It must not be subjected nor succumb to intimidation of any kind.
In the same lines, Prof. Peter writes, Independence of the Judiciary means every judge or magistrate, as the case may be, is free to decide matters brought before him in accordance with his assessment of the facts and his understanding of the law without any improper influence, inducements, or pressures direct or indirect from any quarter or for any reason… . We always tend to think independence of the Judiciary means just independence from the legislature and the executive; it means more than that. It also means independence from political influence whether exerted by the political organ of the State, or by political parties, or the general public, or brought in by judges themselves through their involvement in politics, which may take two forms, viz. deciding in favour of dominant sects (such as the ruling party) and, or of membership of judicial personnel to political parties.
Independence of the Judiciary also demands for the government to guarantee the welfare of judicial officers especially judges and magistrates. There should be specific provisions on salaries and other remunerations, security of tenure, judicial immunity and…. All these dimensions are to be recognized in the Constitution of a country.
With that, perspective independence of the Judiciary today means more than interference of the Judiciary by the Executive. In modern times, the term Independence of the Judiciary incorporates freedom from all kind of pressures no matter where they come from, whether political or administrative. The doctrine embodies impartiality of adjudication, fairness of trial and integrity of the adjudicator. Independence of the Judiciary once guaranteed in a country helps to indicate the recognition and practice of justice for a great extent. Once the Judiciary is Independent Judges and Magistrates are placed in a better and safe position to administer justice without fear or favour, again the citizens gain confidence with their government in the sense that it is the rule of law that is in place and not the rule by interests of the few people in power.
Judicial Independence In a country that professes for the rule of law and principles of democracy, Independence of the Judiciary is necessary Independence of the Judiciary has been a determinant factor for democratization. The advocacy for an Independent Judiciary is not the struggle to put in place the doctrine of Judicial Supremacy but rather to have in place the political power that facilitate Judicial Independence. In this regard, the building of judicial independence in any country depends on initiatiatives and efforts of more than one body. All stakeholders in the struggle to build democratic States including the Courts of law have a very big role to play in promoting judicial independence. However, that requirement does not excuse the Governments from the big role to play in ensuring the Judiciary is independent.
Rule of Law.
The principle of rule of Law is a historical phenomenon. The principle stands against rule by personal whims and caprices of the monarchies. Under the monarch regime, it is rule by man that prevails as opposed to rule of law. Traditionally, rule of law, as propounded by Dicey78 means Supremacy of the law and equality before the law. However, Constitutional scholars raised many criticisms that if rule of law is to mean supremacy of the law there is a big possibility for tyrannical leaders to put in place tyrannical laws so that they enforce them tyrannically. Good examples that are given to criticize the formulation by Dicey are the Apartheid regime in South Africa and the rule by Idd Amin in Uganda. However, the challenge is drawn that when Dicey was propounding for rule of law as against rule by law he wanted to see all unjust systems of governments are discouraged at the expense of just laws. Therefore, it is worth to argue that by supremacy of law Dicey meant supremacy of just laws. Basing on that take Professor Shivji79writes rule of law means that the exercise of political power is in accordance with rules and laws and power is to be exercised within these rules and laws and not according to personal whims or desires of the ruler. Every individual or Institution which exercises authority or public power has to justify it by reference to law.
The meaning of rule of law has been changing from time to time following great changes and challenges facing the world's democracy and human rights issues. The advocacy for democracy and human rights has added more value to the meaning of rule of law. Today it is not enough to say about supremacy of the law, but it values a lot to talk about the body that makes those laws. The people who are the result of peoples' choice must constitute the body that is vested with powers to make laws. The body should have a representative flavour; that is to say, all the people should be well represented. Once the representative body is put in place it becomes easier to make the lawmakers accountable at the moment they enact unjust laws. Therefore, rule of law demands for a representative body to make laws of the country. In line with a representative body, the emphasis today is also on just and fair laws. The other ingredient that adds value to the rule of law is Independence of the Judiciary. The Judiciary as the custodian of justice should enjoy the maximum freedom enough to make it administer justice without fear or favour. Knowing the importance of Independence of the Judiciary as an element of rule of law the International Conference of Jurists held in New Delhi in 1959 pronounced that Independence of the Judiciary is an indispensable requisite of a free society under the rule of law. The experience since 1959 shows that for a country to be a rule of law State one among the things that need to feature in that particular country is the Judiciary that is Independent. Separation of Powers plays an important part in the doctrine of rule of law. In any, State rule of law is not complete if the Powers of the State are not separated from one another. There must be three State Organs. The Officials in these Organs are to be different performing different functions. Democracy is an essential element in rule of law. Through democracy, people are made part of the government. The people are participated fully in the decision making. Democracy allows people to elect their representatives in the government. In a rule of law, State people enjoy the freedom of speech and expression, which is part and parcel of democracy. In practicing democracy through freedom of speech and expression people can do it either by way of conduct or orally. In a country, where rule of law is predominant people can freely express what they want their government to do for them, and condemn the acts of government that jeopardize the entire practice of rule of law. Therefore, the new jurisprudence on rule of law incorporates, apart from well-known traditional definitions, issues of Democracy, respect for basic human rights, Independence of the judiciary, Representative Parliaments, recognition and respect of peoples' views and expression in the running of governments. Rule of law in modern times also calls for Transparency and accountability on the part of the government.
Basic Human Rights
It is common and well known that the term human rights is not a novel phenomenon in the ears of many people in the world today, though this understanding does not refute the fact that in some areas due to different reasons people do not know their rights as a result makes it impossible to demand them in times of violations. Human rights are those rights recognized to any person simply by being a human being and nothing else. Human rights are not privileges that one may wish to give to another as he/she wishes. Basic human rights are to be recognized to all people regardless of their sex, race or religious beliefs. They are the same to all persons, the most qualifying character is the fact that one is a human being. Therefore, rights are to be recognized to all persons. Since human rights are not privileges then they are innate that is; one comes into the world with them. Human rights start to be recognized since one is still a foetus.
Generally speaking human rights are first said to be recognized, second, inalienable and inherent and third human rights are said to be essentially equal. On the recognized aspect of human rights, Dr. Chandra writes "Human Rights are neither derived from the social order nor conferred upon the individual by the society. They reside inherently in the individual human beings independent of and even prior to his participation in the society. As such, they are the result of recognition by the State but they are logically independent of the legal system for their existence. Human rights are said to be inalienable natural and inherent in the sense that a holder of these rights cannot divest himself of them. The reason is simple. These rights are inherent in the very nature of human being. Jackues Maritain writes on this aspect that "human person possesses rights because of the very fact that it is a person, a whole, a master of itself and of its acts…by natural law, the human person has the right to be respected, is the subject of rights, possesses rights. These are things which are owed to a man because of the very fact that he is a man". Therefore, the thing that is done by various documents is to recognize these rights. The Instruments that list the rights only recognize human rights but they do not give human rights, if they could be giving human rights then, human rights could be a matter of privilege and obvious the name human rights could be replaced by another name that would reflect the indication of privilege against a right. There are number of reasons as to why the term human rights is so popular and famous in different countries of the world. However, the most common reason for the peoples' awareness towards human rights is the maximum violations of these rights. Mal-violation of human rights throughout the world has made it possible for people to know their rights, hence demand them in case of disrespect of the same. There is a common say in African History that Colonialism planted seeds of its own destruction, meaning that through the negative treatments of colonialists people suffered a great and intolerable pinch, that awaken them to find means of getting rid with colonialism. The hard life experienced by the people during colonial period stimulated them, not to sit back and wait for others to help, to struggle for independence. Similarly, the same test is to be compared with the struggle for respect for and recognition of human rights throughout the world. In different epochs, people have been able to demand their rights after feeling tangibly the pinch of the denial. In most cases, human rights are known through negative experience. Therefore, the recognition of certain basic rights has always been, and experience shows will always be, the result of what people see to be contrary to their rights. This is not to be taken that it is impossible to have the rights recognized before the violation is experienced but the reality is out of peoples' experience first that things are not right somewhere it is when certain rights are noted and advocacy for their recognition takes the motion.
There are number of documents that recognize human rights. These Instruments are categorized into three groups. International Instruments make up the first group. The second group is that of Regional Instruments and the third is made up by National Instruments. This is to say human rights are recognized in three different levels, and that helps to implicate that issue of human rights has to draw and receive not only the attention of International Community but also the national attention. The member countries of United Nations should in all their dealings recognize and respect human rights. This is due to the fact that Member States of UN are required and emphasized to sign, ratify and domesticate all the human rights treaties, because they are bound by the UN-Charter of which declares the reaffirmation faith in fundamental human rights83. Following the understanding that some states deny the responsibility by basing on the argument that they are not UN Members and that they have not signed certain treaties hence not bound by them, all countries in the world whether UN members or not are bound by all human rights treaties passed regardless of the fact that they have signed them or not. Before discussing how human rights is regarded to be an essential element in Constitutionalism it is wise to dwell a little bit in essence of various International and Regional human rights Instruments.
International Instruments
Internationally, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 is the very significant legal Instrument on human rights. It was the first document to recognize various human rights such as right to life, liberty and security of person.85The declaration reaffirms in the preamble the faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and the worth of the human person and in equal rights of men and women. The first two articles of the Declaration insist on application of these rights and freedoms to all people regardless of their race, colour, sex, language, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. The, Declaration states that "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person". Other rights recognized by the Declaration include rights against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment86. Equality before the law is recognized under article seven It is stated in article seven that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Article eight recognizes the right to an effective remedy by the competent national Tribunals for acts violating the fundamental human rights granted by the constitution or by the law. The right against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile is stipulated under article nine, the article states " No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Right to a fair trial87 and the eminent right of presumption of innocence88 until one is proved guilty by the court of law. are also recognized by the Declaration. Freedom of movement is covered under article thirteen.
Economic, Social and Cultural rights are covered in articles 22-27. These include the right to work, the right to rest and leisure, the right to standard living adequate for the health and well being, right to education is recognized under article 26 while article 27 dwells on the right to participate in the cultural life of the community.
Generally, the Declaration that has 30 articles is a very important document since it recognizes and sums up the Civil, Political and Religious Liberties of men and women all around the world. Writing on the importance of the Declaration Tandon says, "The Declaration sets a new international standard. For the first time in history, the representatives of most governments on earth have agreed that certain rights belong not to any one national or group but to every human being as a human being. The United Nations have proclaimed that people have rights not because they are Swedes or Arabs, Christians or Buddhists, Eskimos, Hottentoes or South Sea Islanders, but because they are human beings. What the Universal Declaration really says is that each person should be considered on his or her merits and all deserve a chance to live a full and happy life".
The other International documents to supplement the UDHR, 1948 were The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.
The two Instruments represent the first two generations of human rights namely the Civil and political rights being human rights of first generation. The second generation consists of economic, social and cultural rights.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
The International Covenant on Civil and Political recognizes various human rights such as inherent right to life90. Right against torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is recognized under Article 7 of the Covenant. Article 9 declares that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Right for persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and respect91. Freedom from imprisonment merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation92. Freedom of movement and freedom to choose residence93. Right to be treated equal before the courts and tribunals. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty for everyone charged with criminal offence is covered under Article 14(2). Right to recognition as a person before the law95. Right to privacy and family. Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion97. Right to hold opinion and the right to freedom of expression are covered under Article 19. Right of peaceful assembly98. Freedom of association is guaranteed under Article 22. Right to family is under Article 23 while Article 24 recognizes the right of every child to protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State without any discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth. Equality before the law is The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has two major Optional Protocols, i.e. to say the Covenant was amended twice since its coming to force. The first Protocol is called Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. This Protocol mainly, laid the complaint procedure to the Human Rights Committee based in Geneva, Switzerland.
The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966
The Covenant under Article 2 requires each Member State to undertake steps individually and through International assistance and cooperation especially economic and technical to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.
The Covenant recognizes the right to self-determination, right to people to dispose their wealth and resources. Right to men and women to enjoy all economic, social and cultural rights that the Covenant set. Other rights recognized to be of economic, social and cultural rights include the right to work, right to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work whereby workers are to be provided with fair wages and equal remuneration regardless of their sex whether men or women, no group should be treated as superior and the other inferior. Decent living is a guaranteed right to workers and their families. Right to safe and healthy working conditions103. Right to form trade unions is covered under Article 8. Right of everyone to social security. Other rights include right to an adequate standard of living, right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Right to education is also recognized by the Covenant under Article 13 while right to cultural life is recognized in through Article 15.
Article 16 puts responsibility to member States to submit, to the Secretary-General of the UN, reports on the measures which they have adopted and the progress made in achieving the observance of the economic, social and cultural rights.
In the changing world today, recognition of basic human rights has been a major challenge in any country that professes Constitutionalism. Constitutionalism calls for great respect, protection and promotion of human rights. Recognition of basic rights is regarded to be an important dimension of Constitutionalism. Basing on the same spirit of protection and promotion of human rights UN-Member states are emphasized to ratify and domesticate all agreements geared towards human rights promotion.
