In this article, I explore the question of whether the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) could provide the framework mechanism for actualizing the right to development in Africa. The imperative for socio-economic and cultural development suggests rethinking the manner in which Africa is governed and, importantly, also the necessity of putting into place functional mechanisms in view of enacting the future that is envisaged for the continent. Article 22(2) of the African Charter enjoins state parties to individually or collectively undertake measures to give effect to the right to development. After several futile endeavours aimed at finding an appropriate mechanism for development, Africa eventually takes a giant stride in establishing the AfCFTA. From a decolonial perspective, I examine the prospects of the AfCFTA, particularly with regard to competing interests that dominate the African development space. At face value, the AfCFTA appears to provide an enabling framework for the nurturing of productive capabilities, the flourishing of local initiatives, the eradication of poverty and expanded opportunities for development. Notwithstanding, I contend that the inherently neoliberal nature of the AfCFTA leaves a further question of whether the free trade area is likely to deliver socio-economic and cultural development benefits to the peoples of Africa.

The frequent business transactions between China and South Africa in the context of BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative have resulted in many commercial disputes. The ultimate resolution of such disputes requires a feasible enforcement mechanism for commercial judgments, but some obstacles remain when enforcing commercial judgments from each side. Both countries have adopted different approaches and principles to ascertain the jurisdiction of the adjudicating court, the application of reciprocity and an understanding of public policy. This article examines these obstacles by comparing the two enforcement regimes, and explores ways to overcome these obstacles and to realize the free flow of commercial judgments between both sides.

Ghanaian law contains a number of statutes that broadly provide that certain disputes shall be settled by arbitration. This compulsory approach to arbitration departs significantly from the consent-based model of arbitration. This article considers the legal framework for statutory arbitration in Ghana. It examines the origins of statutory arbitration, documents some of the statutes that provide for statutory arbitration and assesses the rationale for statutory arbitration. The article also examines the issue of consent in statutory arbitration, the procedural aspects of statutory arbitration, as well as the constitutionality of this form of arbitration.

Parties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed.

This article argues that Nigeria should introduce a competition disqualification regime for company directors as a deliberate strategy to foster corporate compliance with the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018. It contends that the custodial and financial sanctions provided for under the act may not sufficiently deter directors from engaging in anti-competitive behaviour. It seeks to demonstrate that the “threat” of incarceration, which would ordinarily have a strong deterrent effect, is rarely imposed, as courts tend to prefer imposing fines on directors and individuals who breach competition law. For that reason, the article proposes that Nigeria should adopt a strategy of disqualifying directors who oversee companies that breach competition law, or who are complicit in that regard, as a means of complementing existing sanctions. In order to achieve its objective, the article examines the competition disqualification regime in the UK in order to extract valuable lessons that Nigeria can emulate.

This article analyses the dilemmas encountered in enforcing the Kenyan law on defilement, focusing specifically on consensual sex between adolescents. It argues that, although punishing adults who have sex with minors is clearly justified, punishment cannot be justified in the case of minors who engage in “experimental” sex with each other. It challenges the current legal regime that allows only one minor (male) to be charged, and not the other (female), noting that neither of the mutual participants would feel vindicated by punishing the other. Similarly, it shows that charging both participants also poses legal and policy challenges. Consequently, it argues that charging adolescents for defilement when they have consensual sex with each other goes against the very policy that informed the adoption of the anti-defilement provisions. The article recommends that Kenya's legislation is reformed to create a legal regime that protects juveniles from sexual violation without victimizing them.

The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in Lazarus Mbethe v United Manganese of Kalahari raises jurisprudential questions regarding statutory derivative actions in South Africa. For example, the SCA did not agree with the court a quo's ruling that the discretion to be exercised by the court is limited by provisions of section 165(5). The SCA also questioned whether it is necessary for South African courts to follow the good faith criterion in the Australian case of Swansson v Pratt as adopted into South African law through Mouritzen v Greystones Enterprises (Pty) Ltd & Another. This article contributes to these questions, and proposes possible criteria for other requirements in section 165(5)(b) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. These other requirements are that the statutory derivative action proceedings must involve “a trial of a serious question of material consequence to a company” and that proceedings be “in the best interests of the company”.

In this case, the Nigerian Supreme Court had the opportunity to build on the foundations of Nigerian trust law. The court was faced with facts that should have led to the implication of a resulting trust in favour of the appellant, since he had purchased a large parcel of land in the name of the respondent. While accepting that it made no contribution to the purchase or development of the land, the respondent sought to escape its fiduciary duty by alleging illegality, using the provisions of the Land Use Act as a statutory shield. The Nigerian Supreme Court endorsed the respondent's position, by electing to focus on the breach of the statute, while ignoring that equity would not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. This article shows how the court erred, as the statutory breach was not fatal to the appellant's claim: equity does not demand that its suitors have led blameless lives.