The Geneva Conventions have achieved universal ratification, and Additional Protocols I and II are binding on all African states except Eritrea and Somalia; however, their observance in African conflicts is flawed and inconsistent. From deliberate attacks on civilian populations to abduction and hostage-taking, humanitarian rules are openly flouted. Through an extensive assessment of the domestic measures required to implement the Geneva Conventions and Protocols in Africa, this article identifies the current level of implementation, existing gaps and possible non-legal factors that impact respect for the instruments in African conflicts. Violations are often associated with historical, political, religious and social factors that tainted the instruments’ lofty provisions and bequeathed a legacy that challenges the obligation to respect. Additionally, continuous political and religious struggles and the search for identity and relevance have displaced the ideals of the instruments’ humanitarian provisions. Reversing this trend requires an approach that appeals to and engages the continent beyond the traditional argument of obligation to respect.

This article examines the Kenyan legal and policy framework as well as jurisprudence on the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) occasioned by the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Commission) in Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Republic of Kenya (Endorois) and the judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) in the case of African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya (Ogiek). The main objective of this article is to examine the development and level of operationalization of the principle of FPIC in Kenyan domestic law and policy using the Endorois and Ogiek standard. It examines how the Kenyan domestic legal system has responded to these regional and international developments on FPIC and its operationalization.

At the end of apartheid, the South African government adopted laws regulating civil society that are widely seen as “good” laws: laws designed to encourage and facilitate a thriving civil society sector. In 2019 the Ethiopian government repealed the repressive, decade-old Charities and Societies Proclamation and replaced it with a much more open and permissive regulatory system, also aimed at facilitating a thriving civil society sector. This article compares South Africa's post-apartheid civil society organization (CSO) laws with Ethiopia's 2019 law, to examine the different and overlapping ways in which these regimes attempt to advance the interests of CSOs against an historical background of state oppression. In doing so, it examines what “good” regulation of CSOs constitutes in practice and finds that there are significant limits to the effectiveness of regulatory change in addressing the many, complex problems CSOs face, especially in the wake of political and legal oppression.

Public interest issues have the potential to play a significant role in the evaluation of mergers and acquisitions in Africa's regional competition laws. A case in point is the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA): its regional competition authorities have jurisdiction to evaluate transactions within the Common Market. To that end, COMESA's regional competition law enumerates specific public interest factors regarding mergers and acquisitions. Further, COMESA's regional competition law permits the consideration of additional factors under the rubric of public interest, without specifying what these factors are. On this basis, COMESA's regional competition authorities have gradually created precedents on incorporating public interest considerations. This illustrates the point that purist positions towards competition law do not serve Africa's socio-economic development goals. Therefore, the challenge facing COMESA's regional competition authorities is the application of the public interest in a manner that remains faithful to the economic doctrine that underpins competition law.

The Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AEAfCFTA) is a revolutionary treaty of the African Union (AU) which creates an African single market to guarantee the free movement of persons, capital, goods and services. The AEAfCFTA is geared towards enabling seamless trade among African countries. The single market relies heavily on the processing of the personal data of persons resident within and outside the AU, thereby necessitating an effective data protection regime. However, the data protection regime across Africa is fragmented, with each country either having a distinct data protection framework or none at all. This lack of a uniform continental framework threatens to clog the wheels of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), because by demanding compliance with the various data protection laws across Africa, free trade will be inhibited, the very problem the AEAfCFTA seeks to remediate. These concerns are considered and applicable solutions are proposed to ensure the successful implementation of the AfCFTA.

It has been over a decade since the Employees’ Compensation Act (ECA) came into force, introducing, for the first time under Nigeria's employees’ compensation scheme, mental stress as a basis for compensation. However, legal literature on salient aspects of Nigerian employees’ compensation remains scant. This article seeks to bridge this gap and provide a source of legal scholarship to aid the adjudication of mental stress claims in Nigeria. The article discusses when and how work-related mental stress is compensable within the context of the ECA. It finds that, notwithstanding the subjective nature of mental stress and the possibility of feigning mental injury, the ECA establishes broad bases for compensating mental stress, increasing the risk that employees may manipulate the system and obtain benefits even when mental stress is not work-related. The article therefore articulates criteria to defeat fraudulent claims and ensure that only legitimate mental stress claims are compensated.

The importance and contribution of derivative litigation to the effectiveness and credibility of a jurisdiction's corporate governance system is indisputable. There is a positive correlation between good corporate governance practices, which include shareholders’ rights, and investors’ return on their investments. On the one hand, an overly pro-shareholder derivative scheme is vulnerable to abuse and results in unnecessary interference with company management. This may, in turn, discourage directors from entrepreneurial risk-taking and undermine enterprise efficiency. On the other hand, a complex and ineffective system of derivative litigation protects errant directors and decreases investor confidence. This article is a critical assessment of Zimbabwe's recently adopted statutory derivative remedy. The analysis focuses on five locus standi-related aspects of the new statutory derivative regime. The article highlights some major weaknesses within Zimbabwe's statutory remedy and proposes pertinent legislative amendments.

In Nworika v Ononeze-Madu, the Nigerian Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court, denying the appellant standing to challenge the decision of the Imo State government. This highlighted the position of Nigerian courts on the rule of locus standi, which denies access to justice for many Nigerians who seek a court order to declare a law unconstitutional or to challenge the actions of the government or its agencies. This article examines the context of the application of the rule of locus standi before Nigerian courts and argues that the decision of the Supreme Court in Adesanya v President of Nigeria, which is the classic authority on the strict rule of locus standi in Nigeria, is outdated in the context of contemporary human rights development and that Nigerian courts can learn from the Indian courts that have discarded the strict application of the rule of locus standi through judicial activism.

Journalists play an important role in promoting and facilitating the right to freedom of expression. To promote and facilitate freedom of expression effectively, they should be free to perform their duties without fear of reprisals, intimidation or harassment. Journalists should carry out their duties in a legally safe environment. It has, however, been observed that journalists across the world are subjected to various human rights violations and abuses aimed at hindering them in performing their work. Journalists in Botswana also endure harassment and intimidation. One form in which this harassment manifests itself is through the use of sedition laws. In many countries these laws have been found to limit the right to freedom of expression unjustifiably. The legality of sedition laws has been considered by the courts of Botswana, where the High Court upheld their constitutionality. This note critically analyses the High Court's decision.