What was the significance of Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke?
Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke and another [1968] UKPC 18 is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on UK constitutional law which was concerned with the legality of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence made by Rhodesia in 1965.
Who was the Minister of Justice in the Madzimbamuto case?
Madzimbamuto’s wife, Stella, challenged the legality of her husband’s detention on the ground that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful. Rhodesia’s Minister of Justice, Desmond Lardner-Burke, who had made the Order for Madzimbamuto’s continuing detention, was named as Respondent.
When did the state of emergency for Madzimbamuto end?
The 1965 Regulations expired in 1966. The state of emergency was then prolonged by the post-UDI legislature which also issued a series of new Emergency Regulations. Madzimbamuto’s detention was renewed under these new Regulations.
Who was Daniel Madzimbamuto and what did he do?
Daniel Madzimbamuto, an African nationalist, was detained under section 21 of the Regulations as a person “likely to commit acts in Rhodesia which are likely to endanger the public safety, disturb or interfere with public order or interfere with the maintenance of any essential service”. The 1965 Regulations expired in 1966.
Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke and another UKPC . 1968 . 18 . is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on UK constitutional law which was concerned with the legality of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence made by Rhodesia in 1965. [1]
Rhodesia’s Minister of Justice, Desmond Lardner-Burke, who had made the Order for Madzimbamuto’s continuing detention, was named as Respondent. The case was first heard in the High Court of Southern Rhodesia. Lewis J. (Goldin J. concurring) found Madzimbamuto’s detention to be lawful.
Why did Stella Madzimbamuto challenge the state of emergency?
Madzimbamuto’s detention was renewed under these new Regulations. Madzimbamuto’s wife, Stella, challenged the legality of her husband’s detention on the ground that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful.