The conflict in northern Uganda presents a unique study in comparing international, domestic and traditional responses to justice and stability amid prolonged conflict. This article explains the colonial and political background of the country and the emergence of the parties to the fighting, and describes the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law committed by all armed groups. It examines the various responses to these violations, focusing on Uganda's Amnesty Act, International Criminal Court indictments, the Juba peace talks, and traditional conflict resolution and reconciliation ceremonies, and explores how these mechanisms for negotiating peace and instilling justice are facilitating or interfering with each other. Overall, it attempts to discover how this interplay between international idealism, regional and national politics, cultural influences and logistical feasibility not only presents important lessons concerning the conflict in Uganda, but also reflects and informs false dichotomies in international criminal law and transitional justice.

Customary institutions are used successfully in some Ugandan communities, but not in others. There may be several explanations for this. First, the nature of social institutions clearly changes over time; it is likely that the utility of traditional practices has also changed accordingly. Secondly, the presence of protracted civil conflict in various parts of the country has altered the manner in which people are able to live and deal with conflict. Thirdly, the scope of conflict may have caused traditions to become dislocated or modified beyond any recognizable or useful form, which may have caused traditional mechanisms to become less useful or entirely obsolete. Fourthly, societies in Uganda are stratified very differently; this organization has had a major role to play in whether and how such mechanisms are used. Fifthly, the homogeneity of the population could be a key factor in whether, and whose, “traditions” are used in a given community.

The high levels of poverty, inequality and socio-economic marginalisation that bedevilled Kenya for generations led to a struggle for a new constitutional dispensation, which culminated in the promulgation of a new, egalitarian and transformative constitution in August 2010. This constitution entrenched justiciable socio-economic rights within an elaborate Bill of Rights. Though an important step in the process of the egalitarian transformation of the country, the challenge remains to transform these precepts into practice with their scrupulous implementation through legislative, policy and programmatic frameworks, as well as judicial decision-making. This article argues that, in order to achieve the intended egalitarian transformation, Kenya must adopt a strong interpretive approach, with sufficient foundational standards for the translation of these rights into tangible realities for Kenyans. Kenya must therefore explicitly adopt a minimum core approach for the realisation of these rights to transform them into practical realities for the poor, vulnerable and marginalised Kenyans.

This article seeks to provide a critical analysis and understanding of the institution of chieftainship in Botswana. It looks at the institution of chieftainship starting from before colonization, right through colonization to the present day, post-colonization. It will be observed that interference with the institution started from colonization and continues to the present day. Consequently, this article weaves a discussion of the justification for such interference through an analysis of the status and powers of chiefs during colonization and their status post-colonization. The chiefs’ reaction to the encroachment is also covered, for the chiefs were not simply passive and co-operative while their powers were being taken away.

The majority of migrant workers target those countries in southern Africa that have stronger economies. Irregular migrants are in a particularly vulnerable position, and this article discusses the protection that this category of persons may expect to experience in the southern African region. It traverses the international, continental and regional instruments providing protection to irregular migrants, and considers the constitutional and legislative frameworks in relation to social protection in Botswana and South Africa. The article concludes by recommending that the broader notion of “social protection”, rather than the narrower concept of “social security”, should be emphasized. Job creation programmes are essential. It suggests that the advantages of the free movement of people in the region should be explored and encouraged. The article also supports the notion that a regional policy that seeks to balance the flow of migrants in the Southern African Development Community should be adopted.

The jurisdiction of the Adjudicator is one of the most litigated and academically debated subjects in modern South African pension law. This note adds to the debate by discussing a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Mungal. In this case, the court construed the Adjudicator's jurisdiction broadly and, in the process, made some important pronouncements which warrant academic commentary. This article argues that Mungal should be welcomed because it clarified that the Adjudicator has jurisdiction to determine disputes against insurers of underwritten pension fund organizations. The author maintains that, by construing the Adjudicator's jurisdiction broadly, the court empowered the Adjudicator to achieve its mandate of disposing of complaints in a procedurally fair, economical and expeditious manner, and to extend services to lay complainants.

It has become a standard feature of litigation for amici to appear before courts, acting as the vindicator of rights for the politically powerless and marginalized. Their appearance has thus contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights before municipal courts and international tribunals. They have done this through the submission of briefs that seek to broaden perspectives of cases and by advancing innovative legal and factual viewpoints, thus assisting the courts in reaching appropriate conclusions. In Botswana, amicus curiae participation is still at a nascent stage. This is largely due to inflexible rules of standing and the general lack of knowledge of the potential usefulness of the institution by the judiciary. This article argues that, to enhance amicus participation in litigation, thereby enhancing the epistemological quality of its public law jurisprudence, Botswana must pay close attention to the practices and experiences of South Africa where amicus participation has resulted in the phenomenal growth of constitutional jurisprudence.

On 27 April 2007 Eritrea notified the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) of its decision to “temporarily suspend its membership” and “freeze its activities” in IGAD followed on 25 July 2011 by its decision to “reactivate its membership.” On 24 August 2011 Eritrea's representative to the IGAD Council of Ministers meeting in Addis Ababa was informed that he could not sit in the meeting and was escorted out. Eritrea's representatives have not attended IGAD meetings since. The incident raises the important question of what should be done in the absence of an IGAD rule regulating unilateral temporary suspension and reactivation of membership. The answer should be based on a clear understanding of the laws and practices of withdrawal, suspension, expulsion, membership reactivation and rejoining international / regional organizations. This article discusses how the stalemate regarding Eritrea's status in IGAD should be handled by reference to such laws and practices, and the rules in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties governing the interpretation of treaties.

Global regulators acknowledge the negative economic impact linked to insider dealing and have devised diverse regulatory frameworks aimed at minimizing its prevalence. Although their strategies differ, policy-makers realise that, with the inevitable internationalization of securities markets, the probability of cross-border insider trading escalates. With a view to providing a platform for regulatory re-examination and reform, this article discusses the divergent approaches that the United States and South Africa have adopted to counter the challenge of pervasive insider dealing. A paradox manifested with the US experience is that, while its theoretical prohibition of insider dealing is widely criticized as inadequate and inconsistent, robust enforcement has nonetheless led to strong institutions and a superior financial markets regime. The article concludes that the attainment of safer financial markets does not depend on the mere existence of superior proscriptions. Rather, it is the effective supervision of the sector and robust enforcement of those laws that enhance deterrence and ensure compliance.