Implementation of the Latimer House Principles in the Commonwealth The Latimer House Principles (LHPs) were reaffirmed in the Commonwealth Charter of 2012 and member countries encouraged to ensure its implementation. The extent of its implementation however depends on how the notion of the separation of powers is understood by members of the three branches of government and applied in practice. This includes how the three branches appreciate and respect each other’s role and responsibility. Thus the strengthening of the principles of separation of powers in any jurisdiction will always be an on-going process which needs to be constantly complemented with capacity enhancement of the relevant officials.

The implementation of the LHPs is part of the commitment of member countries to democratic principles, shared political values, including, the rule of law, human rights and good, effective and equitable Governance. It will also deliver to the attainment of SDG 16 which seeks, among others, to provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Governments have also pledged to adhere to these shared principles that reflect the way the Commonwealth works to ensuring that all of a country's democratic institutions reinforce one another and in particular the adherence to the rule of law and good governance.

These institutions, whether legislative, judiciary or executive, must always be transparent in their deliberations and accountable for their decisions to have the confidence of their people. Each institution has a distinct role to play as well as each being a check or balancing mechanism for another. The predominance of one in disregard to the power and independence of the other is an affront to the rule of law and arbitrariness in decision making process. 

In the Commonwealth, an aberration to the shared Commonwealth values, such as violation of human rights, affront to the independence of the judiciary,  or existence of frictions between the various arms of the government either in terms of budget development or approval, power of appointments and discipline of certain officers and/or in the exercise of their respective oversight functions on each other, are clear indications of threats to the independence and harmonious relationship between the three arms of the government. They need to have an understanding of the limit of their powers and the mechanism to resolving such frictions before it developed to a major constitutional issue. 

The Project seeks to address the underlying causes of frictions between the three arms of government, through the process of awareness raising, capacity development and advising on the process of power delineation through mutual respect and understanding.  The Project delivers this with a Pan Commonwealth approach but on incremental basis, depending on the urgency required to addressing those underlying causes or indicators that would likely impair the rule of law. 

In this Financial year, three member countries, namely, the Gambia, Papua New Guinea and Malaysia, emerging from transitional government or exhibiting indicators of weak institutional arrangement, including lack of robust legal frameworks would be considered for intervention. 

It is envisaged that the project will be delivered in partnership with the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA), the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association (CMJA) and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), deploying the Commonwealth toolkits on the implementation of the Latimer House Principles. The Project will use the combination of dialogue, mediation and consensus building skills to promote active facilitated discussion and problem solving in creating an environment of mutual respect and knowledge sharing that enables practitioners to identify challenges and find mutually acceptable ways of resolving them. 

Strategically, at the project aims to contribute to the Strategic outcomes 1 - Greater adherence to Commonwealth political values and principles and specifically Strategic outcome 2 More effective, efficient and equitable public governance and the intermediate outcome 2.2 – the Rule of Law strengthened and access to justice ensured for all.