Veritatis Gaudium: Multidisciplinary Journal of Postgraduate Studies

Algorithmic systems increasingly influence legal decision-making. Courts, tribunals and administrative agencies now employ them for risk appraisal, sentencing recommendations, case management and other adjudicative functions. Their growing adoption is often justified by promises of efficiency, consistency and procedural uniformity. Yet beneath these practical advantages lies a deeper philosophical question: can law preserve its essential character when judgment is increasingly mediated by computational processes? This study investigates that question by examining the relationship between algorithmic decision-making and the rule of law. It employs phenomenology and hermeneutics and draws insights from Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer to explore the experiential and interpretive dimensions of legal judgment. The analysis further adopts African jurisprudential insights, particularly those that conceive law as a socially embedded and relational practice based on communal values and lived realities. The findings reveal a paradox. While algorithmic systems enhance consistency, predictability and administrative efficiency, they also obscure justification, weaken accountability and diminish the interpretive character of legal reasoning. The study further demonstrates that the reduction of legal judgment to computational outputs sits uneasily with African conceptions of law that emphasize human dignity, communal responsibility and contextual understanding. On this basis, the paper argues that algorithmic justice may satisfy certain formal requirements of the rule of law, but it struggles to uphold its deeper normative and interpretive foundations. Law is more than the application of rules; it is a human practice of understanding, reasoning and responsibility. Consequently, the study concludes that the uncritical expansion of algorithmic decision-making likely undermines the legitimacy and meaning of legal authority. Therefore, it recommends that algorithmic systems remain subject to meaningful human oversight and that their deployment be guided by principles of transparency, accountability and interpretive responsiveness.

Open Full Text (PDF)