The most common consumer complaint in Ghana now is that prices of consumer goods are too dear. It is common knowledge that prices of basic goods change almost every month. Life in Ghana shows that price control has been one of the difficult problems that successive governments have faced since the termination of colonial rule.

The primary intention of this article is to present a descriptive account of price control legislation in Ghana, in the hope that it will interest as well as be informative to the reader.

The Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS) was instituted by the Lagos Treaty which was signed by fifteen original member states on 28 May, 1975. A few months later, Cape Verde acceded to the Treaty, thus increasing the number of member states to sixteen. In its composition, ECOWAS could be regarded as a microcosm of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) because, like the OAU, it comprises different sovereign African countries with varying colonial, political, social and cultural backgrounds. However, compared with the existing African Economic Unions, ECOWAS is, to date, unique; because, unlike them, it is a multilingual organisation. It is precisely on this multilingual nature of the organisation that this paper intends to focus.

Judicial statistics are frequently non-existent, or at best patchy, in developing countries. This note contains some very basic information—of the sort that in some places one might well find in published statistics—about the cases dealt with by a magistrate's court in Zaria, in one of the northern states of Nigeria during a six-month period in the early 1970s.

The purpose of the study was to try to find the answers to some very elementary questions about the functioning of this part of the legal system such as: what sorts of cases were courts of this type trying? how long did the cases take? what were the outcomes? how many accused persons had lawyers and did this make any difference to the outcome? The period in question was chosen as the most recent six-month period; there is, so far as I am aware, no reason to suppose it to have been in any way exceptional, although naturally enough the nature of the cases may well have been affected by police activity, for example a more than usually extensive vehicle document check or a crack-down on Indian hemp (marijuana). As we shall see, the Chief Justice had been urging courts to try to keep down the prison population, which may have had an impact on the granting of bail and the proportion of custodial sentences imposed.

Four interrelated reforms in the private law of Ghana were promulgated by the ruling Provisional National Defence Council (P.N.D.C.) on 14 June, 1985: the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. Ill); the Customary Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 112); the Administration of Estates (Amendment) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 113); and the Head of Family (Accountability) Law, 1985 (P.N.D.C.L. 114). The Intestate Succession Law radically changes the law of inheritance, and constitutes the most extensive legislative reform ever made in the private law of Ghana. The Administration of Estates (Amendment) Law is a minor consequential enactment. The other two Laws are directed primarily to other issues, but bear on the Intestate Succession Law in minor aspects which will be mentioned later.

This comment does not seek to provide a detailed textual analysis of the Law, but merely to consider its provenance and general significance in the development of Ghanaian property law.

Malaŵi has two sets of courts which run completely parallel to each other. One set forms the Judicial Branch of the Government and consists of magistrates’ courts (which have original civil and criminal jurisdiction only), the High Court (which has unlimited original and appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction) and the Supreme Court of Appeal (which has original criminal jurisdiction for contempt of court but otherwise has appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction). The Supreme Court of Appeal is a final appellate court in this set of courts. These courts are here called Received Courts because they apply the received (English) common law as the basic law.

The other set of courts is a section of the Ministry of Justice (which is part of the Executive Branch of the Government). The set consists of Traditional Courts of Grades A and B, the Traditional Appeal Courts (which hear and determine appeals from Traditional Courts of Grades A and B), District Traditional Courts, Regional Traditional Courts and the National Traditional Appeal Court (which hears and determines appeals from Traditional Appeal Courts, District Traditional Courts and Regional Traditional Courts). The civil and criminal jurisdiction of Traditional Courts is set out in the warrant establishing the Court and is supplemented from time to time by published ministerial orders under the authority of the Traditional Courts Act (the 1962 Act). The National Traditional Appeal Court is a final appellate court in this set of courts.

There comes a time during the life of almost every nation when situations arise which threaten its peace and security. At such a time the government may need to acquire certain additional powers to help it combat the danger and this is frequently achieved by the declaration of a state of emergency. This enables it to utilise wide-ranging emergency powers and in this situation national security and public order considerations are placed above the constitution. As a result, among the first casualties of an emergency proclamation are the guarantees of personal liberty and protection of the law which are often abrogated or at least severely curtailed.

The use of detention without trial during periods of emergency has now become commonplace, particularly in developing countries, a point which is defended by President Nyerere of Tanzania on the grounds that:

“Our Union has neither the long tradition of nationhood, nor the strong physical means of national security, which older countries take for granted. While the vast mass of people give full and active support to their country and its government, a handful of individuals can still put our nation in jeopardy, and reduce to ashes the efforts of millions.”

The need for a nation to protect itself in this way cannot be denied and this is widely recognised. For example, Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) recognises the rights of governments

In the history of modern Africa the issue of self-determination has always been of special significance. For a better part of a century and in some cases more, almost the entire continent was subject to colonisation by various European powers. The end of the Second World War and the subsequent adoption of the United Nations Charter, incorporating the principle of self-determination, heralded a new phase for the African colonies in international relations. Defined in its simplest terms, self-determination is the principle by virtue of which a people freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Selfdetermination is in essence the right of self-government. A territory exercises the right by either opting to establish itself as an independent state, associating with an existing state or by accepting to be integrated into an existing state. Self-determination so defined was thus used as the basis for decolonisation in Africa and provided the foundations for equal statehood for the former colonies of Africa in international relations.

After decolonisation, the issue of self-determination still persists in Africa attracting sentiments and implications well exemplified by the conflicts Over Biafra and Katanga in the 1960s and currently in Eritrea, the Tigray province of Ethiopia and the Southern Sudan. The very successful propagation of self-determination as the right of every people to self-government by African nationalists during the colonial days seems to have left behind a legacy of a question for post-independence Africa—is the ideal of self-determination

This paper attempts to look at tax evasion and avoidance and the approach of the Nigerian courts and legislature. The starting point is an incursion into the history of taxation, especially personal taxation in Nigeria. Attempts are also made to define and distinguish evasion and avoidance while at the same time possible reasons are explored for explaining why people react to evasion and avoidance.

Reasons are given for resorting to English judicial decisions in explaining various Nigerian circumstances and lessons learnt from them are noted. The attitude of the Nigerian courts and legislature to tax evasion and avoidance are illustrated and in conclusion suggestions are offered to remedy the various anomalies in the system which aid tax evasion and avoidance.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was adopted unanimously in June, 1981, by the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.). Although it is not yet in force its adoption represents an important landmark in the protection and promotion of human rights on the African continent. The O.A.U. has in the past been sharply criticized for its apparent indifference to the suppression of human rights in a number of independent African States. Although the founding Charter of the O.A.U. of 1961 makes reference to the issue of human rights in Article II l (e) and also mentions in general terms the need to promote the welfare and well-being of the African people, its primary concern has been with the eradication of colonialism and apartheid on the African continent. In this context it is clearly committed to the achievement of human rights and self-determination of the peoples of South Africa and Namibia. However, other breaches of human rights on a widespread scale, such as the massacre of thousands of the Bahutu tribe of Burundi in 1973, was neither discussed nor condemned by the O.A.U. Similarly, the mass murders and other atrocities during the former regime of Idi Amin (Uganda 1971–79) and subsequently and also those which took place during the regime of Jean-Bedel Bokassa, (Central African Republic 1966–79) and Marcias

Jane Collier has stated that “the long preoccupation in legal studies with explaining the gap between law and behaviour has precluded the search for a more complex model of relations between law and society that accepts the gap as given”. The purpose of this paper is to further document the need for a more complex model of the relations between law and society. One question now gaining currency is: what is the relationship of law to social change? Some observers claim that “the question is no longer whether law is a significant vehicle of social change but rather how it so functions and what special problems arise”. Others regard law as a potential cause of social problems. A serious debate has thus emerged over whether law works at all to effect change and, if so, for whose benefit. This is a complex question. Legal impact studies for example, have revealed some unintended consequences of law-in-action. Moreover, it is often difficult to isolate the main effect of a legal policy, and in any case, social scientists and policymakers alike are interested in longer-range, indirect effects. It is useful, therefore, to distinguish between the direct and indirect aspects of the role of law. Given this complexity, we may usefully rephrase the question as follows: what conditions or factors affect the relationship between law and society, including social change?

The doctrine of judicial precedent forms an integral part of the general law of Swaziland. This doctrine would be unworkable without the publication of law reports. The following is an account of the Swaziland law-reporting process.

The Kingdom of Swaziland, which regained its independence on 6 September, 1968, has retained the dual structure of laws and courts which it inherited from the British administration. In terms of this structure the traditional Swazi law and Swazi courts operate under the umbrella of the general law and the ultimate control of the general law courts.

The country's general law is based on the Roman–Dutch law. When the British found that Civilian system of law to be well-established on their arrival in Southern Africa, they decided to respect it. However, many elements of English law were introduced. The doctrine of judicial precedent was one of them.

Even though Swaziland shares with South Africa (including its “independent homelands”), Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Zimbabwe a mixed general legal system which resulted from the interaction between the Roman–Dutch Civilian law and the English Common law, its general law operates independently.