The framework of medical negligence claims in Zambia remains heavily influenced by inherited common law doctrines, placing a demanding burden on plaintiffs to prove duty of care, breach, causation, and damage on a balance of probabilities. Although this structure seeks to shield healthcare professionals operating within resource-constrained environments, it often produces unjust outcomes for patients, particularly within the overstretched public health sector marked by understaffing, inadequate equipment, and poor recordkeeping.This article re-examines that burden through a critical analysis of Kopa v University Teaching Hospital Board of Management, arguing that strict evidentiary requirements disadvantage vulnerable patients facing systemic institutional failures. It situates this critique within Zambia’s constitutional framework, especially Articles 8 (human dignity), 12 (right to life), and 15 (protection from inhuman treatment), as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, notably Articles 4 (integrity of the person), 5 (dignity), and 16 (right to health). Drawing comparative insight from South African jurisprudence, particularly the application of res ipsa loquitur in Goliath v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Ntsele v MEC for Health, Gauteng, the article demonstrates how doctrinal flexibility can address evidentiary asymmetries without undermining professional safeguards. Ultimately, it proposes recalibrating the burden of proof to harmonize medical professional protection with patient rights, fostering a fairer and more humane healthcare accountability framework in Zambia while avoiding defensive medicine or systemic strain. Keywords: Medical negligence, burden of proof, human rights, right to health, Res Ipsa Loquitur, African Charter.

This article critically examines the relationship between democracy, state sovereignty, and the protection of refugees’ rights in Southern Africa, with particular focus on Zambia, Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Drawing on Hannah Arendt’s theory that rights are secured through membership in a political community, it interrogates whether refugees excludedfrom the demos can meaningfully enjoy human rights protection. The study analyses restrictions on freedom of movement and political participation, especially the right to vote, under domestic refugee laws and international instruments including the 1951 Refugee Convention, its 1967 Protocol, and the OAU Convention. While Zambia and Angola maintain reservations limitingrefugees’ freedom of movement, the DRC presents a contrasting yet complex case of formal legal guarantees amid weak democratic structures. The article argues that state sovereignty often operates as a barrier to the full realization of refugees’rights, reinforcing political exclusion despite states’ international obligations. However, the existence of regional and international refugee frameworks challenges Arendt’s assertion by demonstrating that rights need not depend exclusively on political membership. The paper concludes that only a democracy genuinely grounded in human rights principles can ensure effective protection of refugees, and it recommends stronger domestication and implementation of international refugee law within host states. Keywords: Refugees; Democracy; State Sovereignty; Freedom of Movement

With the rapid pace of digitalisation and the rise of data-driven technologies, the issue of data protection has become increasingly important, as personal data is now widely seen as a valuable asset. In response to this development, the Nigerian Data ProtectionAct establishes a legal framework designed to safeguard individuals’ data rights. However, like many laws in Nigeria, its practical impact is limited by challenges such as weak enforcement mechanisms and gaps within the existing legal structure. This article, therefore, examines the Nigerian Data Protection Act, with a focus on assessing its effectiveness and continued relevance in the digital age. The study adopts a doctrinal research methodology. Keywords: Data, Data Protection, Artificial Intelligence, Digitalisation, Digital age.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) establishes Chapter II as a set of Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, outlining ambitious socio-economic, political, and developmental goals aimed atpromoting citizen welfare, national unity, and equitable governance. Despite forming part of the supreme law, these provisions are largely rendered non-justiciable by Section 6(6)(c), which ousts the jurisdiction of courts from entertaining claims regardinggovernment compliance or failure to implement them. This creates a significant gap between constitutional promises and enforceable rights, often reducing lofty ideals to mere political aspirations dependent on the goodwill of leaders. This paper examines the historical origins of Chapter II, tracing it to the 1979 Constitution and the recommendations of the Constitution Drafting Committee. It analyses key arguments supporting non-justiciability, including resource constraints, the doctrine of progressive realization, potential inter-branch conflicts, and the risk of raising unfulfilled public expectations. Keywords: Chapter II, Nigerian Constitution, non-justiciability, Fundamental Objectives, Directive Principles of State Policy, Section 6(6)(c).

This article examines the protection of refugees’ rights in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Zambia, assessing the extent to which host governments, in collaboration with UNHCR and international partners, fulfil their humanitarian and legal obligations. While significant progress has been recorded in the provision of education, healthcare, water, sanitation, and legal assistance particularly in Zambia and parts of the DRC serious structural and political challenges persist. In Angola, documentation gaps, restrictions on movement, and reported expulsions undermine refugee protection despite humanitarian support in settlements such as Lóvua. In the DRC, although legal frameworks and remedial measures demonstrate formal commitment to human rights and refugee protection, persistent governance failures, electoral controversies, impunity for human rights violations, and ongoing armed conflict continue to generate displacement and weaken institutional protection mechanisms. Zambia presents a comparatively progressive legal regime, granting refugees access to courts, property ownership, employment, and pathways to citizenship, thereby promoting socio-economic integration. Drawing on social contract theory and democratic principles, the article interrogates whether “rule by the many” inherently prioritizes nationals over noncitizens, thereby limiting the universality of human rights in practice. Keywords: Refugee Protection; Democracy; State Sovereignty; Human Rights

This article examines the right to healthcare for mentally ill inmates in Nigerian correctional facilities, looking closely at the gap between what the law promises and what actually happens in practice. Mentally ill inmates are caught between two systems,criminal justice and healthcare and are consistently let down by both. Despite the enactment of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019 and the Mental Health Act 2021, both important steps forward, this article argues that Nigerian law, as it stands and as it is currently applied, fails to properly protect the right to healthcare for this group of people. Drawing on the constitutional guarantee of human dignity under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, and drawing comparisons with the UN Nelson Mandela Rules and the South African constitutional framework, this article identifies serious gaps in Nigeria’s laws and institutions when it comes to mental healthcare in prisons. The article closes with specific recommendations for legislative and institutional reform, arguing that how Nigeria treats mentally ill inmates is ultimately a measure of its real commitment to human dignity and to a fairer criminal justice system. Keywords: Mental health, Nigerian prisons, Right to Healthcare, Correctional Service Act 2019, Mental Health Act 2021, criminal justice reform