Separation of Powers

MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD - AUTHORED WORK NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION

Author Elaine Obika

14th January 2026

Academic Commentary: Separation of Powers

A brief reflection on recent political commentary about lawyers and the constitutional role of judicial scrutiny.

Attacks on lawyers often reveal deeper constitutional tensions rather than simple disagreements about professional conduct. Within the UK’s separation of powers framework, the executive is responsible for governing, the legislature for making law, and the judiciary for interpreting and applying it. Judicial review and robust legal argument are therefore not political intrusions but essential mechanisms through which the judiciary scrutinises executive action.

If courts refuse to “block the will of the people,” they inevitably end up blocking the will of politicians — and that is precisely the safeguard the rule of law requires. Labels such as “activist lawyer” gain rhetorical force not because activism is inherently negative, but because the term is deployed to imply bias, partisanship, or illegitimacy, blurring the distinction between representation and endorsement.

In a climate where constitutional norms are treated by some as optional, and where societal and political standards shift rapidly, it is unsurprising that legal challenge becomes a site of contest. Much of the friction arises from a mixture of personal and political agendas, gaps in public understanding, and differing conceptions of how institutional change should occur.These dynamics reflect not a crisis of law, but the ongoing negotiation between democratic will, institutional restraint, and the evolving expectations placed upon the legal profession.

Political attacks on lawyers also serve multiple strategic functions within public discourse. Such criticisms can operate as a form of scapegoating, allowing governments to attribute policy difficulties or administrative failures to unelected judges or to lawyers characterised as obstructive. They simultaneously reinforce narratives that position the executive as aligned with “the people” against an alleged metropolitan or professional elite, thereby framing judicial oversight as a barrier to democratic legitimacy.

References to the professional backgrounds of political opponents — including prior work in human rights or prosecutorial roles can be used rhetorically to signal partisanship or to cast legal expertise as ideological. These techniques mirror familiar features of adversarial legal practice, where parties present selective characterisations to advance their position and influence how decision makers perceive the issues before them.

In political contexts, however, such portrayals can have broader consequences, shaping public understanding of legal institutions and the individuals who operate within them. The resulting tensions highlight the delicate balance between political accountability, legal constraint, and the contested narratives through which each branch of the state seeks to justify its role.

A further perspective emphasises that inflammatory or exaggerated political remarks are not confined to one side of the political spectrum but arise from the adversarial nature of parliamentary debate itself. The deeper concern, however, lies in a widespread lack of constitutional literacy among MPs regarding the function and significance of the rule of law. From this standpoint, the critical question is not whether politicians express dissatisfaction with judicial decisions, but whether the legal framework continues to be respected in practice.

Access to political power inevitably creates opportunities to test, stretch, or even disregard constitutional boundaries, and—as in any sphere of society—there will always be actors inclined to probe the limits of legal restraint.

The resilience of the rule of law therefore depends less on the tone of political commentary and more on whether institutional actors ultimately comply with judicial outcomes, even when those outcomes are politically inconvenient.

Is the attack on lawyers a constitutional clash or a personal vendetta? Please share your thoughts by using the tab.

MENARA ASPEN ADVISORY LTD - AUTHORED WORK NOT FOR REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION