Law and Order Africa by Dr Oluwole Kunuji

In Volume 1 of his Constitutional Democracy in Africa , Prof. Ben Nwabueze argues that the term ‘constitutionalism’ which originally entailed constitutional government-that is government limited in the exercise of its powers- has, of late, been conceptually broadened to include popular government duly sanctioned by the governed. In effect constitutionalism is now essentially defined by two key attributes- government according to law and government anchored on popular consent. This construction of the term, controversial as it may be, is supported by similar definitions in the literature. Nwabueze’s characterization of the subject is, i believe, apt for two reasons. First, government based on mere constitutionality leaves several loop-holes for tyranny if it is not, at the same time, held in check by the people’s sanction. Unless it is accountable to the governed, from whom it derives its authority, government is bound to be dysfunctional, serving parochial interests and blighting p...

Thursday’s missile strike launched by the US against Syria again brings to the fore the question of the use of force in International Law. Sometime in January we had cause to discuss this same subject in relation to threats by ECOWAS to use force in Gambia (see that intervention at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ecowas-use-force-gambia-wole-kunuji-oluwole-kunuji ). Unlike the ECOWAS/Gambian case which was an attempt to use force to restore/uphold democracy however, yesterday’s military action by the United States is said to be aimed at preventing or deterring “the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” It must be stated that this is a patently poor excuse for unauthorized military intervention in another State. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which embodies customary international law on the subject clearly prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” The only exception permitted by the Charter to the rule laid dow...

Recent reports regarding plans by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to unilaterally use force to remove incumbent President of Gambia, Yayah Jameh, from office following the political impasse in that country, are quite disturbing. This is not the first time ECOWAS has threatened to unilaterally use force against one of its member states. In March 2012, ECOWAS similarly threatened to unilaterally use force to restore democracy in Mali following the coup d’etat that overthrew the government of then Malian President Ahmadou Toure. The pertinent question to ask in this instance is whether a regional organization can legally resort to the unilateral use of force in order to restore democracy in any of its Member States? In other words, how far can a regional organization like ECOWAS go in ensuring constitutional order in its Member States? Can it legally circumvent UN Security Council authorization in its bid to use force to achieve benign aims in any of its member stat...

A major highlight of the recently held 28th ordinary session of the AU summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia was the adoption of a “strategy” for the withdrawal of AU member states from the International Criminal Court (ICC/ the Court). This development has continued to generate comments and debates within the international community largely because African States constitute the largest regional bloc in the roster of States Parties to the Rome Statute, the treaty that formally established the ICC in 2002. This is not the first time that the future of the ICC would be threatened. In October 2016, Gambia suddenly withdrew its membership of the institution, citing irreconcilable differences. South Africa, Burundi and Kenya had earlier indicated their plans to do the same. Calls for the withdrawal of African States from the ICC are not likely to abate in the coming months and years as long as the penchant for criminal impunity among African leaders subsists and remains unchecked. This a...

There can be no doubt that Turkey’s military activities in Northern Syria in the last few weeks are a brazen and blatant violation of established principles of international law. Turkey’s decision to unilaterally invade Syria, despite widespread calls for it to beat a retreat and reconsider its strategy in Northern Syria is nothing short of a deliberate and willful attack on time tested international norms that are at the very heart of the global collective security system. No amount of clever sophistry employed by Turkey and its allies can obliterate this reality. Two reasons have been given for Turkey’s incursion into Northern Syria. There are indications that the offensive is aimed at removing “Kurdish-led forces from the border area” between Turkey and Syria in order to “create a “safe zone” to which millions of Syrian refugees can be returned.” That would appear to be the official reason for Turkey’s military activities in Syria. The unofficial reason, and the one most obvious to ...