Oil Pollution and the Coastal State

It will be the purpose of this paper to pose and answer this question...How has the legal competence of a coastal state been strengthened with respect to that state\u27s ability to prevent marine oil pollution? The question by implication presupposes that a certain change in legal competence is in fact occurring. The legal and historical baseline from which to gauge this gradual change will be established by reviewing past milestones in oil pollution law. A closer examination will then be made of recent evolutionary changes in both international and national oil pollution law subsequent to the Torrey Canyon Disaster of 1967. The very global nature of marine oil pollution predicates eventual conflict between national interests and existing international law

Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General 2019/CC/009

The Constitutional Court on 18th February 2020 rendered its judgment in the case of Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/009. The petitioner, then an estranged Member of Parliament for the ruling Patriotic Front (PF), had his seat declared vacant in February 2019 by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Patrick Matibini, on the ground that by acting as a consultant for an opposition party (under which he was not elected to Parliament), he had crossed the floor. The Constitutional Court found the action of the Speaker to have been unconstitutional as the office is not vested with power to interpret or resolve constitutional problems. This power is vested in the judiciary and the Speaker, therefore, usurped the powers of the judiciary. However, despite finding that the Speaker acted unconstitutionally in unseating the petitioner, the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant any remedy. This commentary argues that the decision of the Constitutional Court in this respect is incorrect, negates the supremacy of the Constitution and demonstrates lack of appreciation of basic considerations for constitutional adjudication

Using Assessment Practice to Evaluate the Legal Skills Curriculum

A comprehensive audit of the skills curriculum offered to students in a Bachelor of Laws program yielded important insights about the collective impact of assessment tasks on the hidden and operational skills curriculum. This qualitative case study supports the views (1) that assessment tasks provide significant skills practice and performance opportunities for students; (2) that assessment provides students with important cues about what type of learning is valued; and (3) that review of assessment practices across the curriculum can provide important information for curricular reform

Empowering Faculty Using Distance Learning Mentoring Programs

This article discusses the value of developing mentoring programs for the empowerment of distance learning faculty. The paper describes various ways mentoring relationships enhance the development and teaching of distance learning courses. Distance learning faculty mentoring programs consist of a process where a more experienced faculty member assists a newer faculty member in developing a distance learning course. By creating and supporting distance learning faculty mentoring programs, higher education institutions can provide an efficient and valuable way for new distance learning faculty to gain empowerment as well as the skills and knowledge they need to teach online. This article asserts that mentoring programs for faculty interested in teaching online may help transform universities from archaic institutions reliant on paper and pencil into living entities that meet the needs of the modern learner

Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General 2019/CC/009

The Constitutional Court on 18th February 2020 rendered its judgment in the case of Chishimba Kambwili v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/009. The petitioner, then an estranged Member of Parliament for the ruling Patriotic Front (PF), had his seat declared vacant in February 2019 by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Patrick Matibini, on the ground that by acting as a consultant for an opposition party (under which he was not elected to Parliament), he had crossed the floor. The Constitutional Court found the action of the Speaker to have been unconstitutional as the office is not vested with power to interpret or resolve constitutional problems. This power is vested in the judiciary and the Speaker, therefore, usurped the powers of the judiciary. However, despite finding that the Speaker acted unconstitutionally in unseating the petitioner, the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition and declined to grant any remedy. This commentary argues that the decision of the Constitutional Court in this respect is incorrect, negates the supremacy of the Constitution and demonstrates lack of appreciation of basic considerations for constitutional adjudication

Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/0013/0014

The Constitutional Court of Zambia on 29th November 2019 rendered its highly anticipated (abridged) judgment in the case of Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/0013/0014. In June 2019 the Minister of Justice introduced into the National Assembly the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10 (generally referred to as Bill 10) intended to extensively amend the Constitution. The Bill had been criticized by many stakeholders as it is seen as an attempt to enhance executive powers and undermine constitutionalism. In August 2019, the Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited commenced action in the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. The petitioners argued that the manner in which the Bill sought to introduce amendments violated fundamental tenets that protect the substance and integrity of the Constitution. It is important to bear in mind that the petitioners did not challenge the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, at least not directly. The focus of the petition was on constitutional safeguards for ensuring that arbitrary amendment of the Constitution was forestalled

Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/0013/0014

The Constitutional Court of Zambia on 29th November 2019 rendered its highly anticipated (abridged) judgment in the case of Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited v Attorney General 2019/CCZ/0013/0014. In June 2019 the Minister of Justice introduced into the National Assembly the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Bill No. 10 (generally referred to as Bill 10) intended to extensively amend the Constitution. The Bill had been criticized by many stakeholders as it is seen as an attempt to enhance executive powers and undermine constitutionalism. In August 2019, the Law Association of Zambia and Chapter One Foundation Limited commenced action in the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the Bill. The petitioners argued that the manner in which the Bill sought to introduce amendments violated fundamental tenets that protect the substance and integrity of the Constitution. It is important to bear in mind that the petitioners did not challenge the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, at least not directly. The focus of the petition was on constitutional safeguards for ensuring that arbitrary amendment of the Constitution was forestalled