Attorney General Dick Bayford on Tuesday delivered a firm reminder that constitutional matters already adjudicated by the courts are no longer open for political or legislative reconsideration.
Speaking at the ceremonial opening of the 2026 Legal Year, Bayford said the authority of constitutional interpretation rests with the courts and that laws struck down as unconstitutional must be treated as void, not merely contested or ignored.
“I have taken the initiative to remove from the Statute Book all laws that the Court has struck down as unconstitutional,” Bayford said, describing the move as part of his duty to ensure constitutional compliance across the legal framework.
His message was simple, that judicial decisions on constitutional validity are final and binding, even as the government and Parliament consider broader constitutional amendments, including the possible establishment of a Constitutional Court.
While expressing strong support for the proposed establishment of a Constitutional Court, Bayford stressed that such a body would complement, not undermine, existing jurisprudence. Its role, he said, would be to safeguard constitutional renewal through democratic and lawful processes, not to relitigate past judgments.
Bayford framed the issue as one of constitutional fidelity rather than institutional rivalry, emphasizing that reform must proceed from an acceptance of judicial authority, not an attempt to dilute or reverse it. Constitutional litigation, he said, should not be treated as a tactical contest but as a process through which the State assists courts in giving effect to the Constitution’s underlying promise of dignity, equality and freedom.
Bayford’s position drew a clear distinction between future-oriented constitutional reform and retrospective challenges to court decisions.
“Every legal action either affirms or erodes the constitutional promise,” he said, adding that ignoring or sidelining court rulings would weaken public trust in the rule of law.
The Attorney General also linked constitutional certainty to good governance, warning that legal ambiguity undermines both democratic legitimacy and economic confidence. A predictable constitutional order, he said, is essential not only for citizens but for investors and institutions that rely on stable legal frameworks.
While expressing strong support for the proposed establishment of a Constitutional Court, Bayford stressed that such a body would complement, not undermine, existing jurisprudence. Its role, he said, would be to safeguard constitutional renewal through democratic and lawful processes, not to relitigate past judgments.
In positioning the courts as a public service rather than a distant authority, Bayford argued that respect for judicial outcomes is central to constitutional democracy. Courts, he said, exist to resolve disputes conclusively, and their decisions must be reflected in the law as it stands, not treated as provisional opinions subject to political convenience.
