The Nigerian Land Use Act (LUA), which governs contemporary Nigerian land law, provides that any disposition of land must have the prior consent of the appropriate authority under the LUA. However, the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria Act, which regulates the disposition of eligible bank assets, contains provisions that imply that the requisite consent under the LUA is not required for the disposition of an eligible bank asset consisting of land. This article interrogates the propriety of the provisions of the Assets Management Corporation of Nigeria Act in this regard and argues that, in view of the fact that the LUA is a statute with constitutional flavour by virtue of its entrenchment in the Nigerian Constitution, the LUA's provisions supersede the provisions of any conflicting law.

Expropriation of private land rights involves two contradictory interests: there is a public need for land; and landholders expect security of tenure and protection of their private property rights. A satisfactory expropriation policy must strike a balance between these interests. Legislation must therefore only authorize the government to expropriate land rights for a clear and limited public purpose under the supervision of an independent body. The author argues that Ethiopia's rural land laws have defined the public purpose for the expropriation of rural land rights in different ways depending on the nature of the landholders. For peasants and pastoralists the public purpose requirement is defined vaguely and broadly, whereas for investors the concept is limited to projects implemented by government. The author argues that the protection of private property rights and security of tenure are further undermined by a legislative failure to authorize affected people to appeal to an independent body on the basis that the public purpose requirement has not been satisfied.

Property rights discourse, particularly the scope, nature, distribution, redistribution, recognition and protection of property rights, has dominated debate in African post-colonial property rights systems. In Zimbabwe, property rights law has been a contested space since the colonial era. That the property rights system is a contested arena is particularly so in view of the fact that colonial subjugation in Zimbabwe was characterized, in a very important way, by politically motivated land dispossession and, consequently, inequitable property rights distribution patterns. As a result, Zimbabwe's property rights law has always responded to mainstream, albeit fluid, political and economic undercurrents. This has meant that mainstream historical and contemporary debates have provided the context for understanding the constitutional regulation of property and land rights in Zimbabwe. This article assesses the constitutional regulation of constitutional property and land rights in Zimbabwe, and the conflicts and tension that are accommodated in the constitutional property rights framework.

The regulation of the extractives sector in Zimbabwe has recently come under scrutiny due to the uncertain social, economic and political environment. Zimbabwe's mining sector was under colonial legislation for a long time and that legislation has recently been reviewed. Existing extractives sector laws do not adequately promote transparency and accountability, an issue recognized by stakeholders throughout the mining sector. The advent of the new constitution and law reform processes indicates Zimbabwe's intention to incorporate good governance, transparency and accountability provisions in the mining sector. State driven reforms have been inspired by global and local civil society initiatives. Analysis shows that, for various reasons, the government does not readily embrace such initiatives, which are important drivers of official policy and legal reforms. Zimbabwean environmental civil society groups have been exceptional in this regard.

Since Nigeria's return to democratic governance in 1999, violent conflicts around identities including religion, ethnicity, indigene / settler differentiation and resource control remain a challenge to peace. Thus far, government responses lack a normative framework to motivate consistent intervention and foster peace. While Nigeria's 1999 Constitution identifies peace as a common aspiration, there is a lack of a non-adversarial institutional mechanism to address violent conflicts related to identity. Despite its limited relevance, the visible institution for conflict management is the court. This article argues for the need to establish a panel of the wise, a conflict and peace intervention mechanism, as an “essential” element of the Nigerian Constitution. It then explores key considerations regarding the proposed panel, in terms of its composition, functions and legal status to intervene in the management of violent conflicts associated with identity and fostering peace in Nigeria.

The major objective of this article is to examine the extent to which the human rights jurisprudence of the Nigerian appellate courts has been sensitive and / or receptive to the socio-economic and political claims of Nigeria's large population of the poor and marginalized. In particular, the article considers: the extent to which Nigerian human rights jurisprudence has either facilitated or hindered the efforts of the poor to ameliorate their own poverty; the kinds of conceptual apparatuses and analyses utilized by the Nigerian courts in examining the issues brought before it that concerned the specific conditions of the poor; and the key biases that are embedded in and shape Nigeria's jurisprudential orientation. The line of cases analysed in the article indicate that the Nigerian appellate courts, as elsewhere, possess great capacity, for good or ill, to impact public policy in the field of poverty reduction.

Trade in counterfeit medicines raises serious public health concerns. However, efforts geared towards combating trade in counterfeit medicines tend to focus more on the protection of trademarks, which may not necessarily protect the public from the adverse consequences of using counterfeit medicines. This arises from differences in the meaning of “counterfeit” in the intellectual property and public health contexts. This article analyses the extent to which the anti-counterfeiting legislation and institutions in two African countries, Kenya and South Africa, are capable of combating trade in counterfeit medicines in a manner that protects both the public and brand name owners. The article examines the anti-counterfeiting legislation and institutions that ensure compliance with the standards for marketing medicines that are in place in these countries, in order to draw lessons on how they can be used to balance the protection of public health interests and trademarks.