This article looks at religion as a major cause of violence and as the main motivation of violence in the community. It also examines the hits and misses by the state in respecting the right to religion, belief and opinion. A general argument emerges based on decided cases, constitutional provisions and, the state and church activities in Kenya as to whether there exists a clear separation between the church and the state in Kenya, and whether Article 8 of the 2010 constitution has been fully actualized.The relationship between church and state, and the need to separate them is something of concern to the present generation. In the past, there have been a struggle between secular and religious power in many states, until the fourteenth (14) century when countries in the world began to expressly state in their constitutions that, ‘the state is secular.

Implementing the rights of intersex individuals poses a significant challenge in Eastern Africa, primarily due to contentions rooted in morality, religious beliefs, and cultural norms. Gender recognition in the region is currently limited to binary classifications of male or female, resulting in a marginalized status for intersex persons within African communities. This marginalization, in turn, subjects intersex individuals to profound suffering as their rights and fundamental freedoms are systematically violated. Key areas of infringement include the right to life, access to health and education, personal liberty, protection of personal dignity, safeguards against torture, discrimination, and prevention of inhumane treatment.Despite the existence of international human rights laws and standards that affirm the inherent and equal applicability of human rights to all individuals, Eastern Africa has yet to fully integrate these principles into societal norms. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes the equality of all individuals before the law and the entitlement to equal legal protection.

and must be seen to thrive for orderliness, equity, and peace to reign. Whose responsibility is it to dispense justice, and encourage equality? The Judiciary is the organ that interprets the law, guards the constitution, defends rights, punishes law breakers, and settles disputes among the state and its citizens, or citizens and other citizens. When a dispute arises or human rights infringement occurs, citizens approach the court because the court is considered the holy sanctuary of justice.The judiciary connotes justice, fairness, and equality. However, this paper seeks to evaluate the roles of the judiciary arm of government in the conservation of democratic principles in Nigeria, commencing with a brief history of the judiciary in Nigeria, and the judicial roles in promoting democratization which include but are not limited to justice dispensation, protection of rights, and dispute resolution. This paper furtherly recommends some measures that will facilitate the promotion of democratic principles.

According to Montesquieu, there would be an end of everything if the same person exercised the powers of implementing public decisions, enacting laws, and deciding cases. For this reason, democratic countries have incorporated the doctrine of separation of powers in their jurisdictions. Kenya, being one of the democratic countries, has incorporated in its Constitution the separation of powers by creating three arms of the government which are to work independently, and interdependently in exercising checks and balances. However, since independence (1963), the Judiciary (one of the three arms of government) has been prone to control and attacks from the other arms (Executive and the Legislature) and this hasundermined its independence. The health of judicial independence has come under scrutiny since the start of this year, 2024. It has been so sad to see the head of the Executive threatening to ignore the Court orders (Contempt of Court) that he feels they are delaying his planned public developments. This has therefore interfered with the independence of the judiciary.This research paper aims at recognizing the doctrine of Separation of powers and the Constitutional provisions of the Independence of the judiciary. It discusses the challenges that the judiciary is likely to encounter when its independence is interfered with. This paper finds the need to uphold the rule of law and respect the Judiciary and other arms of government.

Electoral democracy in most post-colonial countries such as Nigeria has not been successful in terms of reducing the incidence of electoral malfeasance. Thus, electoral democracy in these countries is inseparable from monumental and brazen electoral manipulations. To surmount these challenges successive governments in Nigeria have launched various innovative ideas and most recently is the introduction of information communication technology (ICT) in the conduct of elections in Nigeria. This paper examines the relevancy of the integration of ICT in the conduct of elections in Nigeria. The paper finds that the integration of ICT in the conduct of elections in Nigeria, instead of rekindling the confidence of most Nigerian voters and international partners in Nigerian democracy, has rather dwindled their confidence, as electoral stakeholders now use ICT as a new tool in perpetrating electoral fraud. The paper therefore recommends that the scope of utility of ICT in the conduct of elections in Nigeria should be clearly defined in the electoral laws, INEC officials adequately trained on the use of these modern technologies and electoral stakeholders should avoid sabotaging the technologies.

One of the most unexplored areas of Ghanaian jurisprudence is the law on domicile and jurisdiction of companies, and essentially legal persons. The Court of Appeal in Sanyo Electric Trading v Quarcoopome was given the opportunity to state what the law is in relation to these matters. While the court may have seized this opportunity, the decision of the court still leaves important questions unanswered as well as issues that teases the mind of the reader. This paper argues that the court in the Quarcoopome case in setting out the factors for determining whether it had jurisdiction over the defendant focused solely on the domicile of the defendant company thereby ignoring other factors relevant for determining whether the defendant was subject to the used for determining jurisdiction and not applied as a choice of law rule. In doing this, the paper xplains that the domicile test set by the court in addition to other factors are relevant for determining the jurisdiction of companies and that the test, however is not to be applied as a choice of law rule.