Multi-party systems play an important role in African democracy and constitutionalism. Against the African backdrop, political parties are indispensable in promoting constitutional values, enhancing political stability and realizing the effectiveness of constitutions. Recognizing the importance of political parties, African constitutions introduce many provisions confirming rights relating to political parties, recognizing their central role in elections, enhancing the internal solidarity of the parties and protecting the opposition. Meanwhile, due to concern regarding the negative impact of party politics, African constitutions also show hesitation about public funding to political parties, set controls on their programmes and organization, and demand many public office holders to be party neutral. Therefore, in African constitutions one can find a high expectation on political parties as constitutional institutions, while deep suspicion against them as individual organizations, which reflects the dilemma that African constitutionalism and democracy is facing in its development.

Zambia has recently witnessed the removal of four High Court judges within a period of less than two years, raising questions about the country's commitment to judicial independence. This article examines the extent to which the current legal framework governing the removal of judges in Zambia coheres with the principles of judicial accountability and independence. Drawing upon insights from relevant international standards and scholarly literature, the article posits that the removal of judges is not only a necessary mechanism for judicial accountability but should also be seen as an essential safeguard for judicial independence. Its analysis suggests that some of the grounds for removal and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards within the current legal framework pose threats to both judicial accountability and independence. The article concludes with a call for necessary legal reform, urging policymakers to bring the framework in line with relevant international standards.

This article examines the impact of informal intergovernmental relations on the Kenyan government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. It argues that although informality in governance has been perceived negatively by many governance scholars, it nevertheless has the capacity to enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of government. By virtue of informality's adaptability and recognition of the centrality of context, it can enhance efficacy particularly in unpredictable circumstances as occurred in the pandemic. Notwithstanding this reality, until recently, literature on informality, mainly informed by Eurocentric colonial perspectives on governance, has focussed on its negative elements, criticizing it for diverse governance ailments. Through the prism of the negotiated order theory, this article challenges this dominant narrative using an analysis of informal intergovernmental relations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Kenya. It argues that though informality was at times applied negatively, overall, it ensured vibrant intergovernmental relations, thus positively impacting health service delivery and enhancing the government's legitimacy in the management of the pandemic.

This article evaluates the application of probation orders in Nigeria. It offers a detailed discussion of international legal frameworks for probation and in particular discusses penal provisions that provide for probation, while noting innovations provided by the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of States and the Nigerian Correctional Services Act 2019. The article highlights the benefits, terms and conditions and duties of a probation officer and the application of probation in Nigeria. Complementarily, it discusses Kenya as a jurisdiction, where judicial activism and other underpinning factors have occasioned a robust application of probation. The article also identifies noticeable gaps which hinder the robust application of probation in Nigeria and proffers solutions by way of recommendations.

Rules of origin under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement constitute a vital trade instrument that forestalls freeriding by ensuring that only originating products and services benefit from preferential treatment within the free trade area. Functional rules of origin in design and implementation foster the sourcing of value content by producers, manufacturers and enterprises within Africa in accordance with the governing treaty. The sourcing of value content by producers, manufacturers and enterprises within Africa promotes economic activities, measured industrialization and socio-economic development. While the AfCFTA Agreement recognizes the capacities of both rules of origin and regional value chains, each standing alone or acting in a complementary manner to promote African development, a successful outcome will be determined by a critical adjustment that improves capacity and capability. Arguably, state parties to the AfCFTA Agreement should implement strategies for upscaling preference utilization and value chain growth, infrastructural investment and interventions that stimulate value chain trade.

The Fourth Republic is Nigeria's longest experience in democratic practice. It is a democracy founded upon the ideal of separation of powers; each branch checks the other two within defined boundaries. To act as an effective check on the political branches of government, the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, is built around structures that guarantee its independence. This article assesses the Supreme Court of Nigeria's use of discretion within this web and argues that the court now inevitably allows powerful actors to bank on its legitimacy and induce it to overstretch its competence to satisfy their individual policy and political preferences. This trend, the article finds, is antithetical to the concept of judicial independence. A court's independence is not only apparent when it is able to do what it is meant to do but also when it is able to refrain from what it is not meant to do.