Prerogative powers and parliamentary supremacy

The other elected members sit at the House of Commons. The house of lords plays a vital role in making and shaping laws, which include oversight, and challenging the government. However, the role of oversight is shared between the two houses. The House of Lords constitute people with successful and different occupations such as businesses, sports, culture, academia, science, public service, politics, and health3. The essence is to bring the wealth of knowledge and expertise suitable in executing the role of examining matters considered to be of public interest. Its variations require a referendum or an operation of a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons5. The constitution is much like a living organism, which is affected by current affairs6. The constitution also adapts to changes because it requires evolutionary circumstances with infinite flexibility where fundamental judgments or pragmatic political agreements can make a significant change in the constitution as comprehensive as primary law.

The constitution of the United Kingdom gives the concept of parliamentary sovereignty a central place. It argues that the parliamentary acts of the UK are the highest legal nature and prevent the judiciary from litigation on the validity of primary legislation. In this sense, we are guiding the principle, regardless of the concerns about making decisions about the forces on the ground8. As such, it was argued that the examination should not involve questioning the aspect of the decision for operations. However, it is clear that the main cases should be dissatisfied or reflect a significant, qualitative or quantitative change in the existing application as a new proposal with Afghanistan being a possible example. The royal prerogative is one of the constitutional features rooted in common laws and convention governs its application9.

Notably, its measure was reduced in time by adopting the statute of the laws. For instance, it is important to account the money used in a certain project. The parliament is a constitutional body mandated with the role of scrutinizing the work of executive. In the UK, the parliament plays a similar role, but its power is limited as long as there are prerogative powers. These powers give the ministers an opportunity to undermine the role of parliament. As such, there are limitations on the part parliament plays in executing its role. It is important to note that the monitoring and guidance of implementing actions, such as the conviction of law, are part of the NA's constitutional obligation. Under the oversight obligations given by the constitution, section 55 (2), the National Assembly shall convert the necessary mechanisms for conducting its role16.

The National Assembly must ensure that all executive bodies of the state are responsible in the national framework of the government. Secondly, it must maintain the implementation of national administrative authorities, including the implementation of legislation and any state data. Thus, the NA has two main roles, including state-owned responsibility in the national sphere and maintains general oversight of the national executive power and administrative authorities. 18 However, it was argued that what Mr. Mayhew described as advice's character is important and its details should be provided as much possible. It is also mentioned that since the exposure is less comprehensive, the chances that the legislature will seek independent counsel will have limited access to the relevant facts as well as the opportunity to eliminate the fanatic opinions.

Most of the critics have argued that it is anachronistic to consider the supremacy of parliament as void while the conventions give parliamentary democracy as well as the right to support or reject a proposal. Parliament across the world has the mandate to regulate the proposals to use military force in pursuing politics, even though there is no consensus on the best means of its application. Arguments are indicating that exposing every action by the government to the parliamentary process will prolong its execution or take a longer time at the planning stage as well as persuading the parliamentary support. However, the lengthy process, as well as the discomfort caused to the government while seeking this support, does not justify the move to undermine the constitutional supremacy and parliamentary authority21.

Nevertheless, the government has continued to operate provocatively citing the provision by the constitution stating, "Parliament can Decide" it is necessary to adjust significantly the process used to do it. Regarding the cited potential issue of politicizing the ministerial decision-making process, it is not believed that the obstacles to the power of deployment will affect the freedom that is owned and must continue to be enjoyed. It is acknowledged that the controversies can have detrimental effects during the execution and that they agree with the importance of guarding them, but this is found to be the case, no matter what process is followed. However, it is not acceptable to subdue the power of the ministers as a government body, which might be the only mandated agency to address matters of emergency24.

As such, there are enough reasons to persuade the transfer of prerogative power from the ministers to the parliament. One of the major persuasion is the need for accountability. The decision to deploy troops to a foreign endeavour is one critical issue that has seen arguments from critics arguing that such action needs the intervention by the parliament to debate whether such action is of paramount importance as well as developing the best mechanisms of entry and exist. There is a possibility that the use of prerogative powers could limit the ability of the government to develop an effective method of deploying or engaging in warfare activities. Online sources Anon, (2019). [online] Available at: https://global. oup. com/ukhe/product/public-law-9780198735380 [Accessed 1 Feb.