<p>Through time, legislative practice and procedure have undergone improvements and witnessed several innovations around the world. Irrespective of the type of legislature, whether Westminster-type or non-Westminster-type, there have been transformations in the manner in which the core functions of legislatures are performed. A central transformation which has emerged quite recently is the notion that legislative functions must necessarily extend beyond representation, law-making, and oversight, to concerns by legislators about the implementation and impact of laws enacted by them. Dubbed post-legislative scrutiny, this new concept in legislative lingua seeks to entrench the practice of assessing the level of implementation and impact of laws after their enactment, in a bid to ascertain the functionality of those laws. While the concept has generated research and practice interest in some jurisdictions, it remains largely unknown in others given its relatively recent entry into the legislative domain. In some jurisdictions, it is practised without the tag. Given its novelty and somewhat limited awareness, it is pertinent to analyse the concept and x-ray its practice in legislatures where it has firm footing. Against this background and relying on the doctrinal research methodology, this article contributes to the discourse on post-legislative scrutiny by analysing the concept and its practice through the aid of a literature review and case analysis. The article finds and argues that there is need for improved awareness and adoption of post-legislative scrutiny across legislatures as it has the ability to promote the rule of law, good governance, and legislative excellence.</p>