The right to vote in South Africa is one of the fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution. South Africa ran its sixth election on 8 May 2019. Since the birth of democracy in 1994, it has had four presidents, two of whom did not serve their full term in office. Former President Thabo Mbeki resigned after he was recalled for using the country’s law enforcement system to undermine Jacob Zuma’s chances of succeeding him. He resigned with nine months to go in his second term in office. Mbeki’s successor, former President Jacob Zuma, also resigned from office during his second term with 14 months to go. Several stinging criticisms were levelled against him. For example, he was accused of tribalism and being a “ruralitarian” who lacked urban sophistication to understand and lead a large economy such as South Africa. He was also accused of benefiting his family through creating business opportunities for them and directing development projects to his home village. Furthermore, his government was accused of being weak on corruption, and being easily influenced by the communists. In light of the above, the question that begs for an answer is: does the current South African system of government and electoral system provide for high-level political accountability? In answering this question, further ancillary questions are posed throughout the article. What informed the drafters of the Electoral Amendment Act 73 of 1998 to choose the current electoral system? Is it time for South Africa to review its electoral system? How can South Africa increase the level of political accountability of the President?

Traditional African structures, customs, and values had been altered by the colonial authority. Around 1958, post-colonial regimes began to emerge as colonialism began to destabilise. A series of Pan-African Congresses (PAC) were held to explore African concerns and measures for attaining African unity. The PAC’s 5th Congress of Manchester, when most African states earned their independence, is significant for this paper. The PAC argued for the African continent’s full independence and a total rejection of colonialism and exploitation in all forms. As a result, when African governments recovered their independence, they prioritised sovereignty over re-identification in the post-colonial era. However, the African Union (which replaced the Organisation of African Unity) to a certain level, provided Africa with identity through Agenda 2063. Nevertheless, international investment agreements (IIAs) that African states conclude do not contain values or African cultures. The main question in this paper is how can Africa infuse culture and values in its IIAs? The paper seeks to find a way to include African identity, cultures and values in IIAs in a way that would increase the implementation of these instruments.

In late 2016, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in a case, Wickham v Magistrate, Stellenbosch 2017 1 BCLR 121 (CC), involving Wayne Anthony Wickham (an aggrieved father and applicant in this case), who appealed against the decision of the Magistrate's Court in which he was denied the opportunity to hand up a victim impact statement. The thrust of his application was that his rights, as a victim of the crime in which his son was negligently killed by the fourth respondent, had been violated, and that this raised an arguable point of law of general public importance. The respondents, however, argued that the applicant lacked standing as the dominus litis in culpable homicide cases is the public prosecutor, and not the relatives of the deceased, or the victim. The case turned on whether the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate in denying Wickham the right to be heard was performed correctly; and whether a non-party to criminal proceedings could make an application for the review of the Magistrate's conduct. The article seeks to interrogate the rights of victims in criminal proceedings and aptly poses the following question: Do victims of crimes have a locus standi to be part of criminal proceedings?

In 2010, South Africa reviewed its foreign investment legal framework and during this process, it terminated most of its bilateral investment treaties. For a period, there was no piece of legislation that dealt with the regulation of investment in South Africa and investors had to comply with commercial laws. To solve this problem, South Africa introduced the Investment Act in 2015 aimed at regulating both domestic and foreign investment within its territory. In light of the above, the questions central to the article are whether the Investment Act in its current form balances the rights and obligations of foreign investors and that of host states. If not, what can be added or deleted from the Investment Act in order to balance these two competing rights? The article first looks at why South Africa terminated the bilateral investment treaties. It then compares the Investment Act with the SADC FIP to ascertain if the Investment Act is aligned with the sub-regional standard of foreign investment protection. Finally, recommendations are made which include suggested amendments to improve the Investment Act.

Since taking office in 2017, the president of the United States of America (US), Donald Trump has been on an offensive on the trade front. His administration has levied tariffs on goods coming from China, which retaliated by levying tariffs against the US. This has led to a trade war between these two economies. The economic warring took a turn for the worse with the arrest of Chinese financial executive for Huawei, Meng Wanzhou in Canada on request from the US Department of Justice. She was accused of making false statements to HSBC Bank in 2013 which significantly understated Huawei’s relationship with Skycom. The arrest came after the US levied tariffs on Chinese goods, and also attempted to bar imports of Huawei products. In light of the above, the question that begs for an answer is: Does the US-China trade war undermine the principles of international law and the WTO rules? The article aims to answer the question of the propriety or otherwise of the ongoing US-China trade war within the ambit of international law and the World Trade Organisation economic framework.