Judicial Independence and Separation of Powers in South Africa and Zimbabwe: A Comparison through Selected Case Law

The purpose of the paper was to explore the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. The article used doctrinal research methodology to analyse existing primary and secondary data sources. The study argued that judicial independence and separation of powers, if observed, make a democracy in a state successful and strengthen the rule of law. The controversial issue is whether there is no judicial overreach when the courts preside over cases involving the executive and parliament. This often leads to another controversy of who should judge disputes, where the judiciary is alleged to have overstepped its powers by the other arms of government. The three arms of government are equal. The study submitted a finding that each arm of government must ensure that it does not overstep and interfere with the authority of the other two organs of government. The paper concludes that impartiality of the courts and separation of powers are observed in some cases in South Africa and Zimbabwe. However, in some instances, there had been debates about whether the courts had overstepped their powers. In contrast, interference with judicial independence had been alleged in other cases. The researcher recommends that all three arms of government should keep to their lanes. The study contributes to scholarship because it cautions against either judicial overreach or interference with judicial independence. Keywords: Independence of the Judiciary, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Judicial Overreach, Arms of Government.