This article discusses the law regulating living annuities when spouses in South Africa are divorcing. It demonstrates that South African courts have interpreted the law to prejudice non-member spouses financially. It argues that courts have failed to consider matrimonial principles when determining whether living annuities are susceptible to being shared on divorce. It argues further that adequate consideration of matrimonial principles will render it impossible for retirement fund members to prejudice their spouses financially by purchasing living annuities without the consent of such spouses, particularly when married in community of property. Disregarding matrimonial law principles may lead to deprivation of property.

This case note presents the arguments made in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the UN independent expert on debt and human rights to the OECD National Contact Point in the case brought in 2018 by Open Secrets and the Centre for Applied Legal Studies concerning the alleged complicit conduct of two banks during apartheid in South Africa. It also outlines the developments in this legal case and comments on why apartheid victims’ claims against financial accomplices are now more compelling than ever.

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in Adesanya v President of Nigeria, which is the classic authority on the strict rule of locus standi in Nigeria, is outdated in the context of contemporary human rights development and that Nigerian courts can learn from the Indian courts that have discarded the strict application of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.