This article aims to deal with the evolution of constitutional adjudication as a formal mechanism for resolving disputes in the area of constitutional law. The interface between law and politics is rather evident in the interpretation offered by courts. This can create obstacles mainly because of the differences that exist between constitutional law and ordinary law. While this interaction has always existed, at times, it gives rise to certain inevitable conflicts in interpretation thus casting doubts on the efficacy of constitutional democracy. The paper proposes to suggest remedies such as restraint in use of power by courts by way of amendments Since the role of the judiciary is only to interpret the existing law, any change in the law or an amendment should vest only with the political powers. This can serve as a check on judicial imperialism and perhaps give incentives to the judiciary to actively participate in discussing the reactions of society to their decisions.