Cleric challenges WTO to “put people first”

The Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndungane, speaking at a High Level Session of the World Trade Organization’s annual public symposium recently in Geneva, challenged the institution to put concern for human rights at its core in order to implement trade policies that will truly address human needs.

Citing statistics indicating the growing problems of hunger and poverty and how current international financial and trading systems disproportionately favor the rich, Ndungane stated that the WTO has a choice: “Through its policies, the WTO can perpetuate the current system.

Or it can choose to make a difference to the availability of food, clothing, housing, medical care and social services – the fundamentals of life, in Article 25 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]”. “Riches for all through ever freer trade”, Ndungane stated, “is demonstrably a myth.”

There were signs of hope, he said, that the world would deal with the real needs of humanity, speaking specifically of a growing commitment to realizing the Millennium Development Goals, the report from the Commission for Africa and other international intergovernmental initiatives, as well as growing public opinion demonstrated last week through the “Global Week of Action on Trade.”

Ndungane acknowledged that other forums besides the WTO dealt specifically with human rights issues.

“But this does not mean bodies with other primary objectives can neglect the human dimension as if it were not their concern” he declared. “Upholding this commitment must be integral to all policy making, in every sector, and in every organization,” he stated.
The Archbishop spoke at the symposium as a representative of the “Trade for People Campaign” of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance.

The theme this year is: "WTO after 10 years: Global Problems and Multilateral Solutions”, and continues through 22 April.

Archbishop Ndungane’s presence follows the presentation of the Trade for People petition by religious leaders to Alain Frank, WTO director of external relations on 13 April.

Leading that delegation, World Council of Churches general secretary Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, stressed that, for Christians, "trade is not just a matter of economics but of faith".

Since "biblical standards for economic activity are justice and taking the side of the poor," Kobia said, "we seek a world where global trade systems give priority to people who live in poverty."

Comment on the Bomas Draft, the National Constitutional Conference and the Law

By Winluck Wahiu

Principles of Review Process

The core principles of the review process were agreed in diverse stakeholder fora and partly reduced through the series of laws that culminated after two revisions and two amendments into the Constitution of Kenya Review Act. 2001 (Cap 3A). These principles were the following:

The review process would be people-centered and demand led.

It would be independent from politics and insulated from external pressure through independent tenured commissioners and financing.
Collation of popular views would be the baseline for the new constitution. The views would be collated from individuals and representative organizations.

The final constitution would be liberal and uphold rule of law, human rights, democracy, separation of powers, secularism and citizenship.

Cap 3A was meant to provide only the institutional infrastructure that would permit all of the above. The debate over process was always tied to the debate over substantive outcomes.


Are the National Constitutional Conference and the Bomas Draft Constitution Paths to legitimacy under the review laws?

What was the objective of cap3A?

In terms of the review principle, Cap 3A serves as a bridge between principle and text of the new constitution. It cannot serve as the bridge to the new constitution since that constitution must be made as an expression of an absolute constitutional right independently of Cap 3A and Sections 47[1] and 123[2] of the existing constitution, although the statute can be a road map.

Cap 3A not the only legal means to a negotiated text

The approval of a national constitutional conference[3] to study the report of a statutory commission was only one of the options facing constitutional reformers. A constituency assembly could have been created.

An interim constitution could have been adopted. The commission could have been entrenched in the constitution together with the NCC. None of these other legal options was chosen. But the NCC was a deliberate choice.

The choice of this process was tied to the debate over legitimacy and included aspects of legitimization of key proposals as well as the procedural mechanisms themselves. The commission and its processes eventually unfolded as parliamentary mechanisms.

When the Njoya case established that parliament could not make a new constitution, that prohibition included ipso facto overreaching parliamentary mechanisms.

CKRC was ultimately a statutory administrative mechanism as was the NCC, both tasked by parliament in terms of statute to create a constitution for parliamentary approval.

This is clear from the Constitution of Kenya Review Act, 1997[5] whose preamble stated it was an ‘Act of Parliament to facilitate review of the Constitution by the people of Kenya and its eventual alteration by Parliament; to provide for the establishment, powers and functions of the Commission, District Constitutional Forums and the National Consultative Forum and connected purpose.”

The Review Act,1998 on the other hand proclaimed its objective as an ‘Act of Parliament to facilitate review of the Constitution by the people and its eventual alteration by Parliament; to provide for the establishment, powers and functions of the Commission and the national Conference and connected purposes’.

The district forums and the national consultative forum changed in this revision.

There aren’t substantive differences between this 1998 Act after its revision in 2001 to become the parent Cap 3A.

Both the pre-Bomas and the Bomas processes are the result of legal flaws

The same legal factors behind the original review laws continued to bedevil the review process from 2001 to 2005. Indeed the flaws in the laws have continued to be mutually reinforcing culminating in an impasse. In all the laws, the president appointed a commission, which collated views and wrote a first text of the constitution.

The first text was then reviewed by a body formed by the same commission in terms of representation maps set by a statute. The commission then provided the expertise to this body to review its text.

The first reveals gaps between its provisions and collated views, some substantial. The first text is different from the second text that was adopted by the conference, and the conference was found by the courts to be unrepresentative and without proper mandate to make the constitution.

Both the first and second texts are often criticized for their obstacles to stable and effective government. In order to circumvent the legal flaws giving rise to these texts, it is now proposed to use the referendum mechanism, albeit expanded, within the same law.

Manipulation of the law aimed at influencing outcome of Bomas and referendum

In the Review Act,1997 the functions of the Bomas talks were defined. The forum was to study the report of the CKRC together with the draft Bill and to debate, amend and adopt the proposals therein subject to important decisions being arrived at on the basis of a 2/3rds majority of the members if there was no unanimity.

The majority appears to apply to all the members in plenary. In the Review Act,1998, the functions of amending and adopting were omitted.

Moreover, important decisions were to be arrived at by a simple majority of the members present.

The revised Review Act 1998 became the parent Cap 3A after 2000. Bomas was retained in the revision with new qualifications on its composition and quorum fixed at one half of the members.

Questions were to be determined by a simple majority of members present and voting.

However, there was a new provision that in case of an inclusion proposal, it should be supported by 2/3rds vote of all members. If the inclusion proposal was opposed by more than 1/3rd of all members, the vote could be repeated. If the question was not agreed, it was to be submitted referendum at a later date.

In an amendment to Cap 3A in 2001, the Bomas talks along with the other organs were directed to be accountable to the people of Kenya and respect transparency and human rights.

However, the Amendment Review Act of 2001 retained the provisions of Cap 3A regarding voting at Bomas and the referendum and are therefore also overtaken by the court decisions.

In conclusion, the review laws initially provided for the national forum and deliberately spelt out their functions and powers, then subsequently omitted these functions and powers after 2000, leaving the CKRC to make the important determinations.

The CKRC used the statutory vacuum to legitimize predetermined issues and force consensus by applying the simple majority rule to members present and voting a committee stages as the fora to debate and settle the constitutional proposals.

When the outcome of Bomas was cont clear because two versions of the draft Bill were introduce, the CKRCA held an exercise to ‘verify and confirm’ what is now touted as the Bomas Draft Constitution.

The CKRC did not have this power under Cap 3A to verify and confirm what Bomas decided, and from the reading of the 1997 statute, it was Bomas that was to verify and confirm what CKRC reported and put into the draft bill.

What were the standards for the Bomas Draft Constitution?

The standards were not fixed by Cap. 3A. However, Cap 3A required that the first text of the constitution be based on collated views. The standards for the second constitution text appear to be whatever the CKRC decided during its confirmation and verification after the close of Bomas in March 2005.

This is not subject to the statutory provisions. Under the law, Bomas no longer had the inherent power to revise the draft before it, and to seek clarifications and order additional inquiries, but relied entirely on the CKRC for its questions and methodology.

What were the standards for the Bomas talks?

After the revision in 2000, the law did not specify functions and powers of Bomas talks. These have been done post facto in the Wakarenga and Njoya decisions on the basis of constitutional standards for a) the power and functions of a constituent assembly, b) the universal right of referendum.

Njoya delivered on March 25, 2004 found that Bomas was not representative and that it could not itself have the power to make the constitution, since it was not a constituent assembly, and at any rate, that power was reserved to the people acting in a plebiscite.

Contrary to this, the impact of the several amendments and revisions to the review law as to increase the powers the functions of the statutory organs of control, but not the content of democratic control by the people.

The actual process of discussion at the NCC was determined by broader political changes and bellicosity dissent, although in principle it was to be insulated from such practices.

It was not neutral. But the reason why Wakarega and Njoya are important is because they were not concerned with whether Cap 3A and Bomas were appropriate or inappropriate, but whether they were constitutional and adhered to established constitutional principles.

Furthermore, the unconstitutionality was not based merely on failure to meet constitutional standards, but cardinal standards with deeply foundational or organic value – that of the sovereignty of the people.

The role of the NCC in creating an organic law was not justified by Cap 3A which is silent on the matter. The role was an interpretation of the CKRC and Bomas, which was faulted by the courts. If Cap 3A vested that power, it would be unconstitutional.

Essentially, the judicial/legal reasoning reduces the construed status of the Bomas draft constitution as an alternative constitution.



Referendum Right and the Bomas Constitution: the Final path to Legitimacy?

Post Bomas amendments to Cap 3A and the so-called Consensus Act propose to incorporate the right to referendum into the review process. However, this is not a statutory right but a constitutional one based on the now affirmed doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.

What the review law could achieve in terms of this right is an infrastructure for its implementation.

That infrastructure must then meet constitutional standards of independence, timing, neutrality of facilitator, universality, assurance of constitutional validity and broad stakeholder legitimization.

The Bomas draft that has now been ‘certified’ by the CKRC is the residue of the faulty law and Bomas processes, which did not even arrive at a consensus. Basing the right of referendum on the documented outcome of this process will continue to perpetuate all the residual flows.

That the Bomas certified draft as a referendum question is to be accredited by a parliamentary committee (a non neutral facilitator) ahead of the referendum infringes on the notion of political neutrality of referendum question, which will consequently be merely no more than an endorsement or rejection of a political program.

The right to referendum exists in the constitution and cannot be written out of the constitution. It is a right of sovereignty to establish a constitution and republic.

Cap 3A was and is a mechanism for a crafting process, based on collation of views and ultimately, parliamentary certification.

That philosophy is continuously present in the review laws. Cap 3A had self imposed limits even before the limits imposed by the courts to safeguard the people’s rights.

This is why the referendum should not be tied to outcomes of Cap 3A. 1st, it is absolute right. Whether or not consensus was reached at Bomas, the right was and is still established and entrenched.

Second , it is a right independence of Cap 3A and cannot be inserted at the tail end of this flawed process. Moreover, both the Bomas talks and drafts are results that arise from their statutory antecedents and the existing provisions of the review law. As a result, bringing in the referendum right as a universal validation action in Cap 3A will amount to a post facto ratification of Bomas and Cap 3A.

That is not the meaning of the right in the context of constitution making. It is not to correct statutory and process based errors but to agree to a new constitution freely and transparently, without coercion and on the basis of equality.

There are no legal circumstances that justify the draft constitution that emerged from Bomas and was later ‘certified’ by the CKRC, a power that the CKRCA does not have under the law, to exercise over a document produced from a flawed legal process whose methodology was not defined by the parent law, or any other law.

Nor should the right to referendum be used merely to ratify a fait accompli.

[1] Under Section 47,parliament can amend the constitution.

[2] Under Section 123, amendment powers are framed by the definitions.

[3] In the Review Act, 1997, the conference was simply termed as a national forum. The terminology of national constitutional conference emerged in the revised review Act,2001 when the idea of a national constituent assembly was rejected by parliament and the government.

[4] Timothy Njoya and others vs. Attorney General and others, HCCCNo.82 of 2004. the majority decision was found that parliament had no power under the constitution to make a new constitution and that this right was reserved by virtue of Section 1 to the sovereignty of the people.

[5] Act No.13 of 1997 assented on 7 November 1997 and gazetted on 30 December 1998.

[6] Act No.6 of 1998 which commenced on 25 January 1999.

[7] Published on September 30, 2002

[8] Published after March 15,2004

[9] Section 16A

[10] Section 27 (1)

[11] Section 27 (3)

[12] Section 27 (2) and (4) respectively.

[13] Section 27 (5).

[14] This reference to a conditional referendum was struck down in the Njoya decision.

[15] Section 5 of the Amendment Review Act, 2001

Land, Conflict and Livelihoods in the Great Lakes Region: Testing Policies to the Limit

By Chris Huggins, with Prisca Kamungi, Joan Kariuki, Herman Musahara, Johnstone Summit Oketch, and Koen Vlassenroot



This publication looks at the relationship between land tenure, land use, and population movements, and conflict, defined here as large-scale, violent conflict. The concepts are illustrated with case studies by the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) on Rwanda, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.

The relationship between land and conflict is intuitive. Historically, land has been significant in war in the form of a “prize” of territorial control enjoyed by the victors at the expense of the vanquished – losing groups would often be forced to flee, relinquishing their homes, fields and properties.

More recently however, increased interest in conflict analysis has revealed various complex relationships between control over land (and land-based resources) and conflict.

Combatants involved in conflict within states – by far the most significant kind of conflict today – often claim that unequal access to land is one of the causes of violence.

During conflict, land access is affected not just for belligerents, but for entire communities, who become targets of violence due to the ethnicization of conflict.

And in post-conflict situations, the land and shelter needs of returning internally displaced populations (IDPs) and refugees must be carefully managed in order to avoid dangerous disputes and further violence.

This problem is compounded in many developing countries by the challenging structural nature of land ownership, which may include demographic pressure, gross inequalities between and within communities, inadequate land administration and different conceptions of land tenure according to different land use norms.

Therefore, land policies in post-conflict countries – and indeed, across the world – should consider the possible destabilizing effects that can result from inequalities and inefficiencies.

In Africa as elsewhere, a key problem relates to the mismatch between customary land tenure systems, which are undergoing changes related to modernization and globalization, and state-managed systems based on western models.

For this reason, the founder of ACTS, Prof. Calestous Juma, argued in 1996 that, “the way land use is governed is not simply an economic question, but also a critical aspect of the management of political affairs. It may be argued that the governance of land use is the most important political issue in most African countries.”

This Ecopolicy is one of the outputs of a twelve-month research project, part of ACTS’ continuing work on the “Ecological Sources of Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa”.

Since September 2003, ACTS, in collaboration with other organisations including the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), has conducted research into the issue of contested rights to land and natural resources in conflict zones, with an emphasis on areas affected by waves of outward and inward migration in Burundi, Rwanda, and Eastern DRC.

Research findings will be published in various formats, including a volume to be released in early 2005.
This publication summarizes some of the findings of this latest research, and puts them into a broader context which has been developed through reference to other studies.

Evidence supports the contention that, “land issues are almost always part of the conflict, and ignoring these could lead to a non-sustainable land administration system, and even threaten the post-conflict situation in general”. The situation in any country, and indeed in different parts of single states, is unique.

However, there are some general patterns that are often evident in post-conflict situations. Access to land for many people is often fundamentally altered. The most visible aspect of this is population displacement; often due to systematic ethnic cleansing.

However, the direct use of force to alter patterns of land access is only one of a number of process involved. Land tenure is a system of rights and responsibilities–essentially, a social contract between people.

Conflict changes social relationships in profound ways, and perceptions of mutual rights and responsibilities between individuals, social groups, and the state are altered due to changes in perceived legitimacy of institutions and obligations. In countries such as DRC, Rwanda and Burundi, the role of local leaders – both traditional and “modern” – are key to this.

External support for land administration systems in Africa often focus on titling programmes and other activities which aim to provide maximum security of tenure for commercial activities in urban areas as well as large rural farms.

While there is some justification in this approach–based on the assumption that improved tenure security will lead to increased domestic and foreign investment, and hence economic growth – it should not be pursued at the expense of the rights of the rural majority.

Given the threats to rural land rights – from intimidation, from “land grabbing” by non-violent means, and from sheer lack of access to information, and justice, especially for women – these should be prioritized.

As stated earlier, the solution will not be found in the extension of “urban” solutions (i.e. titling) across the country, but rather a process of adaptation and melding of customary and “modern” systems.

The case studies demonstrate that the long-term social and political consequences of forced displacement and re-allocation of land belonging to those who have fled have been exacerbated by the lack of an effective legal framework for land allocation and distribution. This has led to great uncertainty about the security of tenure.

More profoundly perhaps, even those situations with a clear (if insufficient) legal framework have proven problematic, not just due to corruption, lack of enforcement capacity and lack of political will, but also due to a fundamental conceptual disconnect between state systems and customary systems.

Because of this, there is a need for all activities related to land to look not just at the de jure systems, but at the de facto realities on the ground, which may differ widely across a single country.

A range of important questions remain about the nature of policy reforms necessary to address land issues in order to prevent violence, during and following conflict.

The transition between “conflict” and “post-conflict” is never clear. In terms of the causes of violence, conflict may never be fully resolved; in terms of the violence itself, it may continue sporadically well past the official declaration of “peace”.

Certain areas may be particularly affected, and indeed may not come under the control of the post-conflict government for months, or years.

This is especially true in Africa, where remote areas are inaccessible due to lack of infrastructure. In such cases, given the long-term nature of insecurity, land issues in remote areas should not be neglected until “peace” comes. Solutions, no matter how imperfect, should be found.

Another issue of particular relevance in situations where transitional governments incorporate former belligerents, who remain divided in terms of the national vision and development objectives.

A common situation involves former military or political leaders being given control of particular Ministries or institutions under the terms of a peace agreement. This leads to differing objectives in government being reflected by inter-ministerial struggles.

Much more research is needed on the politics of policy-making in such difficult institutional environments, especially in terms of the role of civil society organisations, the most effective means of external support, the mechanisms for consultation and participation of local people, and the timing of policy processes in the transition from open conflict to “normal” development activities.

Finally, it is clear that despite the surge in interest in addressing land issues in post-conflict contexts, each situation is still being tackled in ad hoc ways.

There is an urgent need for the UN and other agencies to develop a systematic set of guidelines and policies for post-conflict land administration and assistance for land and property issues arising due to conflict and population displacement.

This has been recognized by experts in this field including UNHCR and UN-HABITAT personnel, and efforts are underway to develop such guidelines and policies.

Improved convergence by donors and international development agencies on best practice in conflict-sensitive land policy design is also necessary.

Conned with Corn

By Nnimmo Bassey

The onslaught of the biotech industry is a modern day scramble for Africa, with genetically modified crops being promoted as the miracle cure to hunger and poverty with little analysis of their long term impact. The people of Africa and their governments must show solidarity, ask questions, and act.


The scramble for Africa is getting hotter today than it may have been during the Berlin Conference at which she was partitioned. The partitioning of Africa sowed the seeds of discord and conflict that we are reaping today.

Today, certain concepts have been painstakingly constructed and foisted on the continent. And this has been done in order to have Africa so compromised that she would simply just beg to be colonised once more. We are talking about the onslaught by the biotech industry on the innards of this continent.

The siege is on. Many people imagine that the pressure on Africa to accept genetically modified grains or other crops as food aid ended with the widely known case with Zambia in 2002. That emblematic case rightly showed that every country has the sovereign right to determine what type of food to eat, irrespective of whether it is purchased in the market or is donated as aid.

And it demonstrated to the world that the predicted catastrophe of Zambians starving never happened. The country thereafter recorded food surpluses, besides the fact that in the heat of the crisis the shortage was limited to sections of the country and there were supplies in other regions of traditional crops like cassava and millet that simply needed to be procured for the needy areas.

Genetically engineered food has been presented as the ultimate weapon against hunger in Africa and the world. This is also seriously suggested in the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), meaning that this may be the direction efforts will be concentrated in the years to come.

African leaders have largely been co-opted into thinking this way because they are warned that since the so-called Green Revolution train left Africa standing at the station they should not miss the gene train.

It has been noted that the Green Revolution required extensive chemical and equipment inputs and although food production increased in some areas, small scale farmers were marginalised, the environment took a beating and on the aggregate hunger was boosted in the world.

The next major push has manifested in the presenting of Monsanto’s genetically engineered cotton (Bt Cotton) as the solution. This cotton variety, which has been engineered to withstand certain pests and to be suitable for use of certain herbicides, has been planted in India, Indonesia, South Africa, etc.

The biotech industry touts these as huge successes, but there are many reported cases where farmers have recorded lower yields, and have gone into debt.

The manifold cases of failure of Bt Cotton are so well documented that we may not need to go into details here. Suffice to say that industry’s underhand push and shove has been vividly illustrated in the bribery scandal that rocked Indonesia where a prominent biotech industry bribed as many as 144 serving and retired government officials in order to have approval for the commercial cultivation of the variety.

Last year, some governments in West Africa pledged to embrace this same variety of cotton. The next point of call of the proponents of Bt Cotton is Tanzania. All these efforts have been made under the direction of the USAID, one of whose major goals is promoting the spread of GMOs in the world and pointedly working to "integrate GM into local food systems."

The push into Tanzania gathered momentum in 2002 when USAID began meeting with Tanzanian scientists to describe the potential of engineered foods. Some of these USA advocates were also the architects of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Nigeria in 2004 for a biotech programme managed by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.

The interesting thing about the Tanzanian case is that although cotton production was suspended in the southern part of Tanzania because of the spread of redball cotton disease in 1968, the country is currently experiencing cotton production surpluses.

When this is coupled with the record low cotton price in the market, it becomes hard to see what arguments could be pushed for the genetically engineered variety of cotton.

Barring a change of heart, the government of Tanzania has already buckled under intense pressure and the country is set to join Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Burkina Faso and Kenya in conducting confined field trials (CFT) for genetically modified crops. These so-called field tests will eventually open the nation’s doors to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

As already noted, food aid is one of the main vehicles for putting GMOs on the platter of the world. Do we call that charity? Not so. One issue about some of these food aids is that citizens in the recipient country may not even know that their country receives food aid. In 2003 Nigeria received 11000.6 Metric Tons of soy meal as food aid from the United States, under the US title “Food for Progress”.

Taking into account that around 60% of soybeans in the US is genetically modified we strongly suspect Nigeria has been receiving GM products without any prior information to the Government, and with our population completely uninformed on this. In 2004 the country was billed to receive 10,500 tons of rice.

People around the world have been vocal is calling for caution in the introduction of genetic engineering in food crop propagation. The biotech industry with their powerful lobby has stoutly resisted compliance with the precautionary principle enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety.

The precautionary principle as the name implies requires that countries apply caution when considering or opening doors to bringing GMOs into their environment. One of the reasons for this is that the safety of GMOs has not been unequivocally proven.

The biotech industry thrives on subverting the ability of people to protect themselves and their environments. They do this through deliberate contamination and illegal release of genetically modified crops into the environment.

In fact, when environments are acutely contaminated, nations have no option but to legalise the illegality. Many suspect that this may have been the case with Brazil.

Also, many reports from North America show that when conventional and organic farms are contaminated by genetically modified neighbours, the innocent farmers are made liable and are forced to pay compensations to the polluter instead of the other way round. This is cowboy justice.

The argument usually put forward as a response to the insistence on caution is that GMOs have not harmed anyone. But how can we know that GMOs have not harmed anyone if there are no serious studies on the populations consuming it? How do we prove damage to human health when there is little or no serious research over the toxicological, long term impacts of GM food?

How do we know whether an allergy is caused by a GM crop where adequate tests have not been developed to prove the link between the GMO and the allergy? The large number of questions existing over the risks of GM crops clearly show that the world is not ready for its release until the questions are properly answered.

An example of this need is the attitude of the European Commission, which is about to start new studies to examine the potential “cumulative long-term effects” genetically modified (GMO) crops might have on human and animal health in the longer term.

This is coming eight years after the EU first allowed biotech crops. If the European Commission is now commissioning such studies, it shows that we still have a lot to learn from the risks of GMOs. And if that is the approach taken by Europeans, we have every reason to pause and think.

But, the biotech industry is like a bull set loose in a china shop and needs all the controls possible. Recent reports of contamination of food supplies with illegal varieties should worry everyone.

We refer to the case of Latin America where corn varieties with StarLink which are not authorised for human consumption have been found in food aid sent there in 2002 and also in 2005.

Where they cannot deny the presence of the illegal grain the response of the biotech industry has been that the illegal corn is okay for consumption. No apologies.

Africa received huge quantities of corn from the USA as food aid. From reports Africa was the top worldwide recipient of US corn as food aid in 2004. Three African countries, Angola (62.400 MT), Tanzania and Burundi (28.000 MT) were among the top five.

Other African countries included Uganda (20.900 MT), and Kenya (13,600 MT). We recall here that after the refusal of GMO grains by Zambia and Zimbabwe the shipments of food aid to these countries in 2003 and 2004 dropped to zero.

The push continues even though proponents like the USAID recognises that GM corn sent to Africa as food aid “would be expected to perform poorly in African growing conditions” and is “not well suited for planting” . Despite this, the maize keeps coming to Africa. If one country rejects it, it is channelled to another.

We have many reasons to worry. Another reason is that the industry does not have GMOs under control and the risks to health and environment are unknown. A few weeks ago it became public that an untested experimental crop, from Swiss agrochemicals multinational group, Syngenta, called Bt10, has been illegally planted from 2001 until 2004 in the USA.

This illegal variety contains antibiotic resistance marker genes, which the British Medical Association recommended not to commercialise due to the potential risks for human health. The EU, Japan and South Korea have already protested against this and are taking measures to test the grains in order to isolate and destroy the illegal variety.

All Syngenta could say is that their 1000 tons of Bt10 food entered the EU accidentally. Initially Syngenta had claimed that Bt10 and Bt11 (an already commercialised variety of GM cron) were virtually identical, and therefore there were no risks, but later on it was verified as false since Bt10 contained antibiotic resistant marker genes, while that was not the case with the Bt11 type. What other areas have confused the biotech industry?

What measures are taken by our Governments in Africa? Africa continues to be the biggest corn food aid recipient, not only of grain, but also corn soy blend and cornmeal. Are we going to continue to let our population be at risk and consume these GM products?

Genetic pollution is not comparable to oil or other environmental pollution. Chemical pollution may finally dissipate after a thousand or so years, but genetic pollution on the other hand grows exponentially with time. They simply do not diminish. The problem expands.

With the huge contamination of the world’s corn and soya stock and the risk that it may become irreversible, the biotech industry is now seriously working on commercialising GM wheat and rice.

Indeed it is reported that China may release GM rice into the market in the next year. With the bulk of rice in Nigeria coming from Asia, it is a matter of time before GM rice from China floods our supply lines. This is inevitable, unless something is done, and quickly too.

Just to think about all this makes us feel really scared about the food that is placed on our plates, and the seeds that we may be planting.

If we blindly follow the biotech agri-business path we are bound to find that all traditional food crops will be genetically engineered in no time and as we have seen already, when the plague hits, the chance of recovery will be slim.

This is the time for everyone, Nigerian, Tanzanian, Togolese, Camerounian, or Swazi to stand up and defend our collective right to live in dignity and to choose what seeds to plant and what foods to eat.

We cannot afford to place our future in the hand of an industry that has lost control of its Frankenstein. Our governments, if they represent us, must begin now to ask questions, and to act. Tomorrow will be too late.

Nnimmo Bassey is Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action and Friends of the Earth Africa GMO campaign co-ordinator

Retracing our roots to achieve the African renaissance

By Naftali Mwaura

the 21 st century and its much publicized hype of ushering a brave new world has elicited intense debate from all spheres and more than ever before, humanity is pre-occupied with efforts to unravel the mysteries that define our existence.

EVEN AS WE MARK IMPORTANT milestones, we cannot afford to sweep history under the carpet but must endeavor to take a retrospect and do a thorough review on the important episodes that defined it.

Africa is today at crossroads as many thinkers, academicians, politicians and other social scientists would aver. Having survived the painful walk in the cruel terrain that was defined by years of colonialism, slave trade, wars and pestilences of all shade and colour;ours has been a History that is dark and painful.

The Continent of Africa has been used as a Guinea pig for all manner of dirty experimentation by powerful and imperialist powers from the North.

If the History of slave trade in the Mid-centuries is anything to go by, African people have a reason to provoke them promptly to petition foreign powers on why they so demeaned, dehumanized and debased us as if we are of lesser mortal.

The west owes us apology for their dangerous but cruel adventurism on Africa for their selfish political and commercial interests. The ugly emblem of slave trade manifests itself even today and it can never be erased by shallow apologies or self-righteous atonement from Judeo-Christian West.

That the west’s economic might was wholly pegged on the backs of African slaves is no mean exxageration.

Hounded from their homesteads by savage slave masters, innocent men, women and children were bundled like common cargo in ships to destinations in the America’s where they worked as slaves in sisal, sugar and cotton plantations.

Millions died due to starvation and cruel punishment from the slave lords. The white slave owners used black slaves like beasts of burden to toil in the plantations and industries.

The call for reparation for those cruel injustices rings more loudly and Africans deserves wholesome compensation from the former slave traders and not mere apologies.

Respective Governments in Europe must own up to the evil of slave trade because Governments of the day sanctioned this gory crime against humanity.

The colonial past that charted the course of our Continent’s history for the better part of the 20th century cannot be wished away.

The Europeans used their military and economic might to impose themselves on Africa. Through conniving between Governments and missionaries, they established oppressive colonies against the will of African people.

Riding on the banner of civilizing Africans, white missionaries managed to obliterate our long-cherished cultural richness and ways of worship. They spread Christian dogma and convinced our fore fathers that theirs was the only true religion to reach the maker.

Our culture and religion was branded as archaic and pagan. The missionaries prevailed upon our ancestors to disown African cultures forgetting that same culture held us in perfect peace and harmony for the umpteenth period before their arrival.

Our ancestors were told that our religion, education, science and technology was archaic and that their chief mission was to bring light to an otherwise dark continent.

They incited our forefathers to disown every element of indigenous heritage. They achieved this through orchestrated hate propaganda in classrooms and Church altars. The aftermath of this brainwashing is being felt even today. Our people have been made to believe that everything West is superior. They have wholly embraced every nuance of Western culture and have relegated even the noblest tenets of African culture to the periphery.

Wearing a deceptive cloak like the biblical hyena in sheep’s skin, the missionaries` only motive was to propagate colonial interests and this they succeeded.

The chronic woes that Africa is reeling from to date can wholly be traced to our colonial past. The colonial masters ruined our social, political and economic structures and left them in shambles.

Through predatory commerce, they raped our natural resources like minerals, forests,rivers and wildlife to benefit their multi-nationals.

They brainwashed us, reduced our intellectual capabilities and made us zombies who can never think on their own but have to rely on the west to seek solution to every crises that comes to the fore.

Neo-colonialism still continue to manifest itself across Africa and the idea of freedom and independence sounds utopian when Africa has to rely on the west to seek direction and advice on how to manage her affairs.

We have regarded the white man as the messiah to redeem us from the yoke of political, economic and social upheavals that have been the hallmark of our Continent’s history.

Western imperialists have made us doubt our potential and instead we can hardly make any step without seeking their intervention.
The solution to Africa’s woes does not lie with the west. Ideologies from the North will not offer lasting solution to our pressing challenges.

The poverty, diseases, hunger and deprivation that plague African continent will not be tackled through models drawn from Western capitals in London, Paris or Washington D.C.

Donor aid, which is prescribed by self-same highly opinionated policy makers from the west, has neither succeeded in eradicating our poverty. Donor assistance has reduced us into persistent beggars.
Malignant diseases and environmental degradation still wreaks our continent. As chronic diseases torment our people, Western pharmaceutical corporations have not offered any ray of hope but are instead too busy pilling up profits only for the poor of Africa to die in their millions from preventable diseases.

These corporations are reaping immoral profits in Africa that is home to millions of people suffering from diseases like HIV/AIDS, Malaria and cancer. The corporations do not give attention to the plight of the sick that cannot afford the exorbitant cost of drugs but are busy pillaging from the same blighted souls.

The disease burden continues to weigh heavily in Africa. Diseases like Malaria, HIV/AIDS, T.B and Cancer are spiraling out of control. The Multinational drug firms are only aggravating the situation by dumping their costly concoctions that are not only exorbitant but of lower quality.

In the face of debilitating calamities of poverty, diseases and poverty that stalks Africa like a deadly python, our conscience must provoke us to rise to the occasion and seek home-grown remedy to the said catastrophes.

We as Africans must go back to the roots and retrace our steps in order to chart a new destiny. We must return to our indigenous treasures like staple food and herbal medicine that today offers a ray of hope in tackling nagging health crises.

There is need to reclaim our lost bio-diversity treasures which has been ripped off by avaricious Western multi-nationals.

There is a ray of hope in the horizon if Africans embrace their food, medicine, cultural and religious values that can give us the necessary ingredients to address our maladies.

Herbal medicine in particular is today offering hope to the poor and sick people in the continent who can not afford high cost of conventional medicine The alternative medicine has become very popular among the down trodden and it is offering them life-long cure to such debilitating ailments like cancer, Malaria and T.B.

The efficacy of herbal medicine in treating devastating ailments of our age like HIV/AIDS and Malaria is beyond reproach. More and more people are turning to herbal medicine and have discarded the archaic stereotype propagated by the west that only conventional medicine works.

Today we have practicing herbalists who can give testimony of the effectiveness of herbal medicine having spent years of hands on practice.
Africa at this juncture cannot help but rise to the occasion and assess her priorities right by going back to the basics and address her concerns through homegrown initiatives.

The Writer is a Journalist and commentates regularly on Social and Political issues.
Email: naftalimwaura@yahoo.com