It may be of assistance to recall that the rule of law does not generally permit the unaccountable exercise of legal powers and this extends to legislative powers. Thus, it may be of assistance to consider whether, as a matter of law, the legislature continues to be properly accountable to the electorate and/or other checks and balances in the constitutional order in the interregnum before meeting of the new legislature. Assuming that legislative powers continue to vest in the legislature at the relevant time, is that limited by the principles of democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Democracy is rooted in the proposition that political sovereignty originates with citizens. Democratic governance derives its legitimacy from the consent of the electorate. In that context, legitimacy in governance is fundamental to the rule of law – legitimacy as much as individual rights is a defence against the abusive exercise of legal powers. Of course, legitimacy through consent does not mean that every action is approved by the electorate, in modern democracies consent is mediated through representatives, elected by means of regular, periodic, free and fair elections, based on universal suffrage and a secret ballot. Put simply, governance derives its legitimacy in a democracy from inferring the consent of the electorate through the decisions of representatives elected by regular elections.