Enforcement of lockdown regulations and law enforcement brutality in Nigeria and South Africa
Posted: 23 June, 2020 Filed under: Folasade Abiodun, Mary Izobo | Tags: accountability mechanisms, apartheid, coronavirus, COVID-19, enforcement officials, human rights violations, lawlessness, lockdown, lockdown regulations, medical facilities, Nigeria, pandemic, public health, public health interest, right to freedom of assembly, South Africa, use of force 1 CommentAuthor: Mary Izobo and Folasade Abiodun
(An earlier version of this article was published by Daily Maverick)
Since January 2020, COVID-19 pandemic, has held the world to ransom and has posed a threat to public health. It has put a lot of pressure on available medical facilities with a record of more than 9 million persons infected and more than 470 000 deaths globally with numbers set to increase. In order to stop the spread of the coronavirus, several countries are taking measures such as the closure of airports, seaports and land borders, isolation and quarantining of persons, banning of religious, sporting and social gatherings, closure of schools and universities, restaurants, public spaces and complete or partial ‘lockdown’ of some countries. The lockdown of countries entails complete restriction of movement as the virus is transmitted through direct contact with infected persons or surfaces. Some of these measures as well as their enforcement , have implications on the right to freedom of movement, the right to freedom of association and the right to freedom of assembly.
The role of international financial institutions in protecting the vulnerable during pandemics: Focus on World Bank in developing economies
Posted: 18 June, 2020 Filed under: Francis Kofi Korankye-Sakyi | Tags: access to justice, access to public services for the poor, COVID-19 pandemic, drafting of new legislation, economic growth, finance, healthy business environment, infrastructure, International Financial Institutions (IFIs), Legal empowerment, rule of law, sustainable development, Sustainable Development Goal 16, the rule of law, transparency, vulnerable persons, World Bank 2 CommentsAuthor: Francis Kofi Korankye-Sakyi
Development and International Trade Finance Expert
The importance of law in development discourse as captured under Sustainable Development Goal 16 is a critical factor in establishing and maintaining the rule of law by empowering the most vulnerable persons and groups in society to exercise their fundamental human rights against unfettered legal regimes and political leadership, especially in times of global crises.
The nexus between access to justice and the fostering of a healthy business environment, economic growth, access to public services for the poor, including the curbing of corruption and curtailing the abuse of power is well noted and must reflect on discussions in this period of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the era of crises, institutions emerge as products of deep thinking and serve the long-term interest of international peace and development. For instance, the Bretton Woods institutions comprising the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) were creations after World War II in 1944. In this light, the invitation to these international bodies to rescue developing economies in this unhealthy time of COVID-19 is, therefore, a legitimate expectation. From 1959 to 1991, multinational development banks which constitute part of the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) emerged as a result of the difficulties of the development paradigms of the times and have continued to execute programmes and projects within such expectations. This article takes a look at the role of the World Bank in building the judicial capacities of developing economies during this pandemic and advocates for support for a stronger monitoring and regulatory mechanisms in the application of the funds provided by these institutions to ameliorate the sufferings of the masses for whom these funds are intended to benefit.
Cameroon at cross roads
Posted: 3 June, 2020 Filed under: Dunia Mekonnen Tegegn | Tags: Ambazonia Defense Forces, Ambazonia Governing Council, armed conflict, Cameroon, Central Africa, conflict, coronavirus, COVID-19, displaced, fleeing their home, French government, health systems, Humanitarian Access, International Humanitarian Law, violence 1 CommentAuthor: Dunia Tegegn
Human rights lawyer, Ethiopia
The war in Cameroon
The conflict in Cameroon is complex. It involves different actors including the separatists Ambazonia Governing Council, which leads the Ambazonia Defense Forces. The conflict also involves Southern Cameroons Defense Force, Boko Haram and government forces. For many years, Cameroon has been considered a refuge for Boko Haram, where the organisation was tolerated by the Cameroon authorities in the sense of an unspoken mutual non-aggression pact. Since 2013, however, the organisation has extended its attacks to Cameroon itself.
Again and again, the inequality between the Anglophone and the Francophone parts of Cameroon have been the trigger for burgeoning conflicts within society. Other triggers and exacerbators of conflict are corruption and state failure, especially with regard to the education and health systems. Already after the reunification, the Anglophone part began to strive for autonomy, which has intensified since 1990. As a result, the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) was founded in 1995, advocating the separation of the English-speaking part from Cameroon and the establishment of an independent “Republic of Ambazonia”. There were also demonstrations in the Francophone part of Cameroon against a possible secession.
Seat versus venue of arbitration: settling the conflict
Posted: 1 June, 2020 Filed under: Damilola Raji | Tags: Arbitral Panel, Arbitral Tribunal, arbitration, Arbitration Law, arbitration proceedings, ‘seat’ of the arbitration, ‘venue’ and ‘seat’, differences, disputes, Egypt, geographical location, home of international arbitration, legal domicile, Nigeria, procedural rules, seat, venue Leave a commentAuthor: Damilola Raji
Kenna Partners Associate
Introduction
Disputes are an indispensable phenomenon in commercial relationships and arbitration, undoubtedly, is one of the oldest methods of resolving disputes. The flexibility in arbitration allows parties to determine the procedural rules that should be applicable where parties eventually go into arbitration. Consequently, the flexibility of arbitration reserved the rights for parties to determine the ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of the arbitration. These two fundamental concepts have been the subject of several controversies in Arbitration. I shall proceed to consider the differences and nexus between ‘venue’ and ‘seat’ of arbitration.