Complete a portfolio of work for this module, made up of 6 different tasks. Details of all the individual elements can be found on the NOW module page – under Content > Assessment Information > Portfolio Tasks. There is a set word limit for each task which you are required to adhere to.
The criteria we will use to mark/grade your work, made clear to you in advance:
The standard NTU grading scheme will be used as the grading framework. The specific criteria for this assignment are as follows:
- Evaluate the quality and coherence of an argument made within a debate.
- Appraise the evidence used within debates, in supporting or challenging an argument.
- Reflect on your experience of constructing or defending an argument and using evidence, and your experience within this module.
- Applying psychological knowledge to real world events and problems.
- Evaluate presentations, such as research seminars, external talks, etc.
- General engagement in the module, including attendance and taking part in debates.
give effect to a right or fundamental freedoms” (Art. 20(3) (a)). This is the very foundation for well – informed inputs before the Court, which inherently, justifies the admission of amici curiae. We have a duty to ensure that our decisions enhance the right of access to justice, as well as open up positive lines of development in jurisprudence, to serve the judicial system within the terms of the Constitution The Constitution further bestows upon all State Organs and all public officers the duty to respond to the needs of vulnerable groups within the society (Art. 21(3)). This obligation, in the context of an enlarged locus in the enforcement of fundamental rights and freedoms (Article 22(2), and of the enforcement of the Constitution itself (Article 258), enjoins that a person seeking to canvass the values and principles under the Constitution, by applying legal expertise, materials, or information available, is a potential friend of the Court. The evolution of the amicus role in Kenya is distinguishable from the position in jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, South Africa and Ireland. This distinction surfaces in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Ireland, in I v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform: “…….the court is satisfied that it does have an inherent jurisdiction to appoint an amicus curiae where it appears that this might be of assistance in determining an issue before the court. It is an unavoidable disadvantage of the adversarial system of litigation in common law jurisdictions that the courts are, almost invariably, confined in their consideration of the case to the submissions and other materials, such as relevant authorities, which the parties elect to place before the court. Since the resources of the court itself in this context are necessarily limited, there may be cases in which it would be advantageous to have the written and oral submissions of a party with a bona fide interest in the issue before the court which cannot be characterized as a meddle>GET ANSWER