The modern idea of secured transactions is based on the notion of economic efficiency, which implies the minimization of transaction costs while ensuring optimal returns. The efficiency theory posits that unclear definitions and unprotected allocation of property rights inhibit the production of wealth, because they raise the transaction costs of land and impede exchange. The more precisely property rights are stated and assigned, the lower the cost of establishing ownership, and the extent of one's interest in any given piece of land.1 Proceeding from the efficiency theory, contemporary commercial practice is not willing to accommodate the ancient, unnecessarily complicated system of conveyancing, which makes the taking of security in real property expensive. Thus, an efficient regime of secured transactions should be simple, fast, cheap and predictable.

At independence in 1968, the monarchy in Swaziland did not suffer the fate of traditional rulers in most of independent Africa whose powers were severely curtailed and subordinated to those of the nationalist leaders. In Swaziland, the King's pre-eminence as the head of the ruling Dlamini clan was constitutionally enshrined within the overall set-up of a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy's control over the strategic resources of the country such as land and mineral resources was also entrenched in the Constitution. Furthermore, the domination of the political scene by the royalist party, the Imbokodvo National Movement, consolidated the King's political powers far beyond what was possibly intended under the dispensation of a constitutional monarchy. As soon as the opposition gained three seats in Parliament, this was seen as a challenge to the power, prestige and authority of the King. It then became easy for the 1968 Independence Constitution to be targeted as a colonial imposition lacking authority as a source of legitimate governance in the country.

The criminal liability of corporations in Nigeria is an often neglected or forgotten aspect of the law, even in many of those cases where its consideration is ordinarily required. The reason for this anomaly is essentially two-fold. Firstly, the concept of distinct corporate personality remains a fiction to most Nigerians. At least in practical terms, even lawyers and members of the business community do not readily conceive the concept as going so far as a limited liability company being criminally liable. And as a matter of fact, the emphatic judicial affirmation of the concept is of relatively recent origin. Even then, the leading Nigerian text on criminal law states that its “exact extent is a matter of some doubt” and “await[s] clear definition”. The second reason is that those crimes for which corporations are most likely to be liable, in the main, are necessarily white-collar in nature. It is a self-evident fact that the attitude of organs of the state to the prevention and prosecution of white-collar offences is generally lukewarm. The pervasive corruption of the Nigerian society, a veritable point of agreement amongst analysts of diverse persuasions and disciplines, is to a considerable extent both the offspring as well as a manifestation of this cavalier attitude to white-collar crime. The result has been the danger of the law on corporate criminal liability falling into desuetude.

Under most customary laws in Nigeria the death of a wife, irrespective of the system of marriage, terminates the marriage. But the death of a husband does not necessarily terminate the marriage. Again, this is true irrespective of the system of marriage. A surviving widow has a number of options open to her. She may elect to remain as a member of her husband’s family or return to her parents. In the former case, she may be “inherited” by a son or relative of her deceased husband or stay on as the wife of her deceased husband. In both instances the original marriage is regarded as continuing directly or indirectly. However, the widow is most likely to return to her parents if her relationship with her husband’s family is less than cordial, especially where it is proved or suspected that she had a hand in the death of her husband.

In an address to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights on 31 January, 1994, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights stressed that the ratification of human rights instruments and die effective implementation of their provisions is fundamental in a world that aspires to the rule of law and the safeguard of fundamental freedoms. This followed the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations which reaffirmed that the effective implementation of the international human rights instruments is of major importance to the organization and urged all states that have not yet done so to become parties to the two International Covenants and to consider acceding to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Under the legal regime established by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, country reports “on the legislative or other measures taken with a view to giving effect to the rights and freedoms recognized and guaranteed by the present Charter” must be submitted every two years. If a state is serious in its approach to human rights it might be assumed that such reports would be prepared and submitted in a timeous and thorough manner. The case of Zimbabwe indicates that this is not always the case.

Far from heralding a comprehensive and long-overdue reform of the law relating to marriage and inheritance in Zimbabwe, this White Paper is a modest document, only seven pages long, which largely restricts itself to considering the extent to which the law of intestate succession applicable to a person’s estate should depend on the type of marriage into which the deceased had entered. Even so, the issues raised are controversial and the government clearly wishes to stimulate public debate and to receive suggestions from all quarters before formulating its policy. It appears that the paper has succeeded in generating interest as well as some harsh criticism.

“We the people of South Africa declare that … there is a need to create a new order in which all South Africans will be entitled to … enjoy and exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms.” (Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa)