This article analyses the difficulties surrounding justiciability of the right to health care in Nigeria and the implications for access issues. It argues that claims denying justiciability on the grounds of the absence of a legal foundation and / or paucity of resources are misplaced. This reasoning derives from an interrogation of the rationale for and the consequences of the designation of what ought to be the right to health care as a Directive Principle, kleptocracy as an impediment to actualizing the right to health care, and the impact of the domestication of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. Projecting into the future, the article analyses the challenges that would confront courts in Nigeria grappling with the normative content of the right to health care, arguing that the difficulties are not insurmountable and that, given the seemingly intractable nature of the issues, the courts should adopt a proactive interpretive approach.

This article considers the importance of preventing mother to child transmission of HIV in Africa. It argues, however, that any approach to achieving this aim must be consistent with respect for human rights. In particular, it argues that mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women violates their rights to autonomy, health and reproductive care, and non-discrimination, all guaranteed in the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women and other international and regional human rights instruments. It concludes by arguing that respect for women's human rights should form the fulcrum for any call for mandatory or routine HIV testing of pregnant women in Africa.

What began as an exercise in defining the jurisdiction of the Nigerian Federal High Court over fundamental human rights has now turned into a well established principle that Nigerian courts will not entertain an action for the enforcement of a fundamental human right contained in chapter IV of the 1999 constitution through the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules unless it is the principal claim. In other words, if the action for the enforcement of a fundamental human right is an accessory or subsidiary claim, the action must be started by a writ of summons. This article demonstrates that this distinction is dubious, irrelevant and impossible to make, and leads to a miscarriage of justice.

There is a general perception that home jurisdictions in vulnerable areas are powerless when it comes to the control of multinational corporations. While this assertion is largely correct, this article argues that there cannot be effective control of multinational corporations (“MNCs”) at international, regional or private level without the corresponding development of an effective minimum institutional framework at the domestic level. This article examines the Nigerian legal framework for the regulation of MNCs with a view to underlining the weaknesses in the domestic forum, and also examines the prospects for enhancing the capacity of a domestic framework for the effective control of MNCs. The article argues that, while corporate social responsibility practice by MNCs is becoming well entrenched, this development cannot replace the need for effective host state regulation. The article focuses on company law and human rights law and suggests viable possibilities within the local context that may enhance the control of MNCs.

Albert Hermann Post (1839–95) is an almost forgotten figure in the history of legal anthropology, yet he was the first anthropologist to propose the study of the legal relations of indigenous peoples. His questionnaire is presented here in English for the first time. It was distributed in the 1890s and the answers, from Cameroon, Mali, Western Sudan, Uganda, German East Africa, German South West Africa, Madagascar, and the Solomon and Marshall Islands, were published by Steinmetz in 1903, after Post's death. The questionnaire gives an insight into the state of German anthropology at the time and, however naïve the method, the answers provide in many cases the only written evidence for the period on the societies studied. This article also considers Hildebrandt's reassessment of Post and gives an account of the circumstances leading up to the distribution of Josef Kohler's later questionnaire.

Traditional oaths play decisive roles in customary law arbitration and are recognized and accorded due respect by the courts. This position is now threatened by four emerging factors. First, all customary law arbitrations (including those based on juju oaths) are now subjected to stringent conditions before the courts will enforce them. Secondly, there are discordant voices in the Supreme Court on the legal relevance and juristic value of traditional oaths. Thirdly, in August 2005, the gruesome activities of some shrines where juju oaths are administered in some Igbo communities were exposed in the mass media. This exposure has given traditional oaths a bad image. Lastly, the onslaught of Islam and Christianity is taking its toil on traditional oaths. There is the need to protect traditional oaths from these threats.