The function of a legal test is to navigate the court through various possible solutions to achieve the optimum result in the application of a legal principle. It therefore forms part of the process for securing a just result to a controversy in adversarial proceedings. A well-articulated legal test should reflect the judicial policy on the principle it applies. Such a test should generally yield results that are just and are in consonance with the policy behind the principle. If the test fails in this respect, it ceases to be functional. It is against this background that the one test used by Nigerian courts to determine standing to sue in all doctrinal contexts will be examined.

Benjamin Disraeli took a calculated “leap in the dark” in 1867, when he extended the right to vote to almost all British men. With hindsight, his leap can be seen to have been a necessary (but not sufficient) means of defusing discontent and promoting democratization. Ethiopia seems poised for an even bigger constitutional leap into a murkier realm, into an ethnicized attempt at democratization. To gain acceptance, a new constitution like Ethiopia's must seem to be all things to all people and, in Ethiopia and elsewhere, the end of the Cold War has seen an explosion of ethnic nationalisms similar to the one occurring in Europe late in the 19th century. Without benefit of hindsight one can only make informed guesses about the effects of a new Ethiopian “constitutionalism” on events which are largely beyond the drafters’ control. I will argue that there are grounds for a guarded optimism over Ethiopia's leap.

The contours of human rights, especially labour rights, have undergone significant shifts in the recent past in Southern Africa. Labour law regimes have been overhauled, resulting in large-scale changes, liberalization of controls over trade unions, loosening of strictures relating to the right to strike, freeing collective bargaining from excessive governmental interference and the extension of protective legislation to previously excluded workers. These developments have been a function of dramatic changes throughout die region. The transition in Soudiern Africa has encompassed die political, economic and legal fabrics of most countries. It has been under way since die late 1980s and is being extended daily. In die constitutional zone, diere is a discernible trend towards the constdtutionalization of social rights, thus settling the debate regarding positive and negative rights in favour of the interdependence, indivisibility and interconnectedness of human rights. The transformation in Soudiern Africa is emblematic of three critical developments: democratization, economic liberalization and paradigmatic transitions in law.

Over 20 years ago, the Federal High Court was created. It is today the only Court with jurisdiction in matters relating to admiralty in Nigeria. This has, however, not been without some teething problems. Disputes arose over what matters fell within the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts and also as to which courts had admiralty jurisdiction. The recent Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree of 1991 addresses these issues by providing a comprehensive local code in line with the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships, 1952. This article traces the development of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and examines the scope of its jurisdiction today.

“There is no doubt that once, twice or even several times in your life, you have had to stop for a moment in a street or as you enter into a village, to express sorrow over the lot of a man, a woman or a child looking haggard, badly dressed, underfed and not knowing where to go. Then, you were overwhelmed with a feeling of compassion and a sigh of sadness gripping you by the throat. You could not help but felt concerned and said to yourself it was your duty to ‘make a gesture’ thus listening to the dictate of your conscience.”

Dr Peter Onu, OAU Assistant Secretary General

In the period since the Movement for Multi-party Democracy (MMD) was voted into government in 1991 by an overwhelming majority, the Lands Bill, 1994 (hereafter referred to as “the Bill”) easily stands out as the most publicly discussed piece of proposed legislation. When the Bill was introduced to Parliament debate was deferred sine die because most members of Parliament (MPs) demanded more time to examine its provisions and consult over proposed changes. Postponement was followed by a one-day seminar on die Bill organized by the Ministry of Legal Affairs. Thereafter, the government initiated a programme to explain the Bill to the public: on 29 September, 1994, a chiefs' workshop was arranged at Mulungushi International Conference Centre, Lusaka, but this came to nothing because invited chiefs did not attend. Then the government conceived provincial programmes for die public discussion of the Bill, but diese were then postponed indefinitely, as explained below.