Abstract:
This article examines the justifications which support the capacity of individual justices to voice
their disagreement from a majority through the writing of dissenting opinions. In doing so, it employs
extensive comparison with the practice of dissent in other jurisdictions, particularly that of the
United States Supreme Court. The author contends that there are political, procedural and
developmental benefits provided by the expression of disagreement amongst the bench. However,
arguments for judicial restraint are also weighed, especially in respect of the practice of persistent
dissent. The effectiveness of stare decisis as a check on disagreement — and the relationship between
the two in general — is also considered.
