Latest news with #civilSociety
Mail & Guardian
10 hours ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
New law: Protecting South Africans from tobacco is no foreign agenda
Vaping among young people has reached an all-time high, The passage of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill is a decisive moment for public health in South Africa. Yet, as we edge closer to enacting life-saving legislation, a familiar narrative has emerged, one that is designed to sow confusion and delay progress. Accusations suggesting that the drafting of this legislation is influenced by foreign NGOs are not only baseless but strategically designed to detract from the real issue at hand: protecting our people, especially youth, from the harmful effects of tobacco. South Africa ratified the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005. The treaty obliges its signatories to adopt stringent public health measures and safeguard them from interference by the tobacco industry. These obligations include consulting technical experts, researchers and civil society organisations to develop sound, evidence-based policies. This is not foreign meddling; it is the global standard for formulating robust tobacco control legislation. The department of health led the drafting of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill, working through established channels. Stakeholders across sectors as well as the broader public have weighed in, and parliament will review every aspect of the bill before its passage. The narrative that South Africa is ceding its policymaking to external agendas is nothing more than an industry-led distraction. It is designed to confuse, politicise and derail a procedurally sound process that aligns with our constitutional and international commitments. For decades, the tobacco industry has relied on diversion tactics, questioning the integrity of organisations and individuals who are advocating for public health reforms. South Africa is merely the latest chapter in this global playbook. But make no mistake, this bill is neither a foreign imposition nor the product of external pressure. It is the culmination of years of evidence-based recommendations and domestic public input, aligned with South Africa's sovereign obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The tobacco industry thrives not only on selling products that harm health but also on derailing policies that could save lives. Around the world, the industry has wielded its significant resources to manufacture doubt, discredit public health advocates and shift attention away from the substance of legislation — all to pave the way to profit from deadly tobacco and nicotine products, which include cigarettes, heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. Whether in Pakistan, the Philippines or South Africa, the playbook remains the same: scatter unfounded accusations of foreign interference, ignite nationalist sentiments and bury meaningful discourse on protecting lives beneath conspiracy theories. The industry will use any tactic, including mischaracterising the policy process, to try to stop legislation that has an impact on its business. South Africa is witnessing this tactic up close. Shifting the conversation away from the bill's purpose, the industry claims that the government's policymaking is compromised by external influence, even threatening litigation to challenge the legislation. Specifically, it is targeting the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which, together with other experts, provided technical guidance during discussions on the bill. But this is what's not being said. The campaign consultant involved is a South African citizen, a former director in the department of health, and someone with decades of experience in public health at both national and global levels. She is not a 'foreign operative' but a lifelong servant to the health of this country. The real purpose of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill is to curb the harm caused by tobacco and nicotine products, particularly among the youth. Young people in South Africa are under siege; they're targeted by an industry that relies on addiction to sustain its multibillion-dollar business model. Emerging nicotine products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco are marketed with flavours, slick designs and celebrity endorsements that glamourise use while increasing dependence. According to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey of 2021, 29.4% of adults in South Africa use tobacco products, smoked and non-smoked. A new national survey conducted for the African Centre for Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Policy Research, based at the University of Pretoria, shows that this had increased significantly, to 36.8% in 2024. Tobacco smoking, specifically, has hit a high of 33.9% or 14.9 million, a prevalence level last seen in 1993. Use of novel tobacco products like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and oral nicotine pouches among young people aged 16 to 34 has risen to 13.5% or 2.6 million young people. This burden translates to thousands of preventable deaths and a strained healthcare system. The new bill takes critical steps forward by proposing a comprehensive ban on smoking in public spaces, mandating standardised packaging, curbing advertising and prohibiting sales to children, as well as regulating unregulated novel products that didn't exist when the legislation was passed. Ironically, while lobbyists accuse public health advocates of being controlled by foreign entities, the tobacco industry itself is dominated by multinational corporations like British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco. These profit-driven conglomerates, which operate in South Africa, are the real foreign entities that are prioritising shareholder returns over the health of the general population. Their financial interests lie in keeping South Africa addicted, not free from tobacco harm. Time is critical when it comes to public health policymaking. Any delay in passing the bill equates to more lives being lost and more young South Africans becoming hooked on harmful products. By politicising public health discussions, the tobacco industry and its allies aim to manipulate timelines and erode momentum. Since the first publication of the bill in 2018 up to 2024, the total number of smokers has increased from 9.5 million to 14.9 million and vaping among young people has reached an all-time high. At its core, this issue is simple — as South Africans, do we want to prioritise the profits of multinational tobacco companies or the health of our people? The delay tactics and conspiracy theories detract from the real questions we must ask our policymakers and ourselves as a nation. How do we safeguard future generations from the harm caused by tobacco? How do we align our policies with science and evidence? How do we ensure that multinational corporations cannot exploit our youth for profit? The bill before parliament reflects a long-standing public health mandate, shaped by years of domestic input and aligned with our international obligations. Smoking-related illnesses claim about 40 000 South African lives annually. This bill offers a way forward and is a chance to break cycles of addiction, disease and suffering. The time for decisive action has arrived. It is incumbent upon all of us to reject tactics that perpetuate harm and support measures that secure the well-being of our nation. The science is settled. The need is urgent. The delay is political. Choosing health is not only the right thing to do; it is the only thing to do. Professor Lekan Ayo-Yusuf is the head of the School of Health Systems and Public Health at the University of Pretoria, director of the National Council Against Smoking and director of the Africa Centre for Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Policy Research.
Mail & Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Can military ruler Traoré be the leader Burkinabè hope for?
The Burkina Faso coup reflected a frustration with governance failure but even well-intentioned military regimes have a tendency towards repression and violence. In September 2022, Captain Ibrahim Traoré seized power in Burkina Faso through a military The strong The But history is clear: military regimes, however well-intentioned at first, often Africa must reject the false choice between broken elections and military takeovers. The real issue is not democracy itself, but how leaders practice it and, more importantly, how some actively undermine it. It is also about the Burkina Faso offers a clear example of this broader struggle. Traoré rose to power amid growing anger over France's But leadership alone is not enough. Returning to corrupt political systems or unquestioningly trusting military rule will not solve Burkina Faso's challenges. It requires systemic change — transparent governance, reduced foreign dependence, empowered civil society and economic diversification. History is filled with A people-centred path forward To move forward, Burkina Faso must adhere to the agreed 60-month transition and avoid further amendments that could entrench military rule. The security Traoré must demonstrate that security efforts and democratic reform can advance together. This means strengthening local security with community input, restoring basic services in affected areas and ensuring all political voices are included in the transition process. Regional cooperation can also play a pivotal role. Past joint cross-border The Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) must rethink its approach. Relying on If Traoré is to succeed where others have failed, his cooperation with Ecowas must be genuine and rooted in accountability. Beyond crisis response, Ecowas needs to tackle the deeper causes of instability: corruption, weak institutions and citizen exclusion. The priority should be building consensus around a clear, time-bound return to civilian rule, without sidelining urgent security needs. At the continental level, the African Union must treat failed governance as seriously as violent threats. Enforcing the African Charter on Democracy, Elections, and Governance with real consequences for violations is critical. For Traoré, strong AU oversight could reinforce his reform agenda and help distinguish his leadership from authoritarian regimes of the past. As such, outside pressure and strong leadership are necessary conditions for change in Burkina Faso. But they are only sufficient if they back reforms that include the people and rebuild trust in a people-centred government. The rise of strongmen signals the failure of many countries to serve their people. But replacing elections with the military is not a solution. Only by rebuilding institutions, empowering citizens, and ensuring accountability can Africa break this cycle. For Traoré, the question is clear: will he rise as the bold, accountable leader Burkina Faso needs, or will he become another footnote in Africa's history of missed opportunities? His decisions in the coming years will answer that question, not just for Burkina Faso, but for a continent yearning for lasting change. Tinashe Sithole is a post doctoral research fellow at the SARChI Chair African Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the University of Johannesburg.
The Independent
4 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Feminist professor loses job after Islamist group demands her removal
A college professor in Bangladesh says the authorities have yielded to the demands of Islamist groups and removed her from her post for being vocal about women's property rights. Nadira Yeasmin, an assistant professor of Bangla language at Narsingdi Government College, was transferred about 270km away to another college near the border with India after a 48-hour ultimatum was issued by Hefazat-e-Islam. Activists and civil society groups in Bangladesh have expressed concern over religious hardliners exploiting the fragile law and order situation in the aftermath of last year's monsoon protest to curtail women's rights. Ms Yeasmin, a vocal women's rights activist, was removed from her post after Hefazat-e-Islam protested against the professor's articles in a local magazine titled ' Hisya ' (rights). The Islamist outfit claimed that articles published in the magazine calling for equal inheritance rights for men and women – a longstanding demand in Bangladesh – were contradictory to Islamic inheritance laws. The Hefazat earlier in April had staged massive protests against the Women's Affairs Reform Commission, which the interim government had installed to ensure equal rights for women. Ms Yeasmin has now been appointed an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) at the Satkhira Government Mahila College in Dhulna district, a move that is being viewed as disciplinary action against her. While professors are routinely transferred to new roles, OSD postings usually remove them from active duties while keeping them on the payroll, according to local media reports. Ms Yeasmin, in a post on Facebook, said her "freedom of expression has been violated". "As a woman, I protest this incident. However, no force can suppress my voice when it comes to speaking up for human rights," she added. The professor said Bangladesh's education department could have transferred her to any college in Dhaka or other districts, but they moved her to Satkhira – an area of strong support for the right-wing outfit Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. "What is the real goal of those who transferred me to Satkhira?" she asked. Her transfer has triggered a conversation about the shrinking space for women's freedom of speech in Bangladesh since the ousting of the authoritarian regime of Sheikh Hasina emboldened radical religious groups. Maleka Banu, secretary general of the Bangladesh Mahila Parishad, earlier told The Independent that Islamists were using their increased visibility since last year's popular protests to create an environment of fear so that women were confined to their homes. Last year's student protests snowballed into a bloody revolution against Ms Hasina's Awami League government. It forced Ms Hasina to flee to India on a helicopter as an angry mob overran the presidential palace. The power vacuum was quickly filled with a caretaker government led by long-time Hasina critic and Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, who returned to the country to be named interim leader. After Ms Hasina fled, law and order collapsed in Bangladesh as police refused to return to the streets, citing targeted violence. While the law enforcement apparatus has since limped back to work, the situation remains grim, with reports of women being publicly humiliated because of their clothes, appearances and movements. Dr Banu had accused Bangladesh's past and present governments of bowing down before the "right-wing and forgetting women's rights". Ms Yaesmin's transfer was criticised by academics, activists and civil society members, who asked the government to roll back the decision. Samantha Sharmin, senior joint convener of the newly-formed National Citizens' Party, said: "I strongly protest the decision to transfer Nadira Yasmin by surrendering to mob violence. This decision should be reversed immediately." Social media group Bangladesh Feminist Archives condemned the government's move, which it said goes against the values of democracy and principles of free speech. The group said the professor faced both physical and online intimidation for her advocacy of equal property rights between men and women. "Nadira Yasmin committed no crime. She simply voiced an opinion in a public debate. Even if her position were controversial, she had every right to express it," the group said. "The state's duty was to protect her, not surrender to mob pressure." Academic Tanveer Hossain Anoy warned that "what begins as a protest against one woman's voice ends as a warning to every woman who dares to speak". Anu Muhammad, professor and member of the Democratic Rights Committee, a civil society group, said that although the Hasina regime has been ousted the situation for freedom of speech remains the same. "The people of the discriminatory Hefazat are unable to answer words with words, and write with writing. That is why they resort to force, shouting, threats, and attacks," he was quoted by Prothom Alo as saying. In a statement to the Daily Star, a Hefazat spokesperson said that they were "happy" that a "solution had been reached" with the transfer of Ms Yeasmin.
Mail & Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Amendments to the voluntary organisations Act threatens civic space in Zimbabwe
Oppression: Zimbabwe's President Emmerson Mnangagwa. Photo: Natalia Fedosenko/Pool/Reuters In a nation where democratic space is already under suffocating pressure, Zimbabwe's new Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act, 2024 (PVO Act) arrives cloaked in the language of reform yet carries the sharp edges of state control. This is not merely a bureaucratic adjustment but a calculated move in a broader campaign to consolidate power and stifle dissent. Some justify the law as complying with the Financial Action Task Force's (FATF) Recommendation 8, which seeks to protect nonprofit organisations from being exploited for terrorist financing. But this justification rings hollow when viewed in context. The FATF explicitly cautions against overregulation and insists that any countermeasures be risk-based and proportionate. Zimbabwe's approach fails on both counts. Rather than identifying high-risk entities through a transparent process, the Act casts suspicion on all civil society organisations indiscriminately. The law requires all organisations engaged in public fundraising or receiving foreign support to register under a new regulatory regime. It grants the registrar of private voluntary organisations and the minister extensive powers to deny, suspend, or cancel registration based on vaguely defined criteria such as 'public interest', 'public morality' or the 'economic interests of the state'. These catch-all phrases have historically been used to suppress activism and silence whistleblowers. This issue extends beyond mere compliance; it is fundamentally about control. The new law also authorises government interference in NGO governance, including the power to remove elected boards and appoint trustees who would likely be loyal to the state. The implications are vast. Imagine an organisation offering legal aid to victims of political violence or a charity advocating for the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Under the new rules, such entities could be shuttered overnight based on nothing more than bureaucratic discretion. We have already glimpsed this future. The recent imprisonment of prominent journalist Blessing Mhlanga for investigative reporting reflects the trajectory Zimbabwe is on. Mhlanga was not promoting instability or inciting violence. He was doing what journalists are meant to do: holding the powerful to account through offering a platform to a political dissident. His arrest signals a government increasingly intolerant of any form of oversight or scrutiny, and the PVO Act places NGOs in the same line of fire. These measures are not only anti-democratic but also anti-development. Civil society organisations play a crucial role in Zimbabwe, particularly in addressing gaps left by an under-resourced state. They operate health clinics, educate vulnerable populations and advocate for the rights of women, children and minority groups. Curtailing their work under the pretext of anti-terrorism is not only legally dubious but morally indefensible. International best practice presents a different model. South Africa's nonprofit law permits voluntary registration and ensures civil society can operate without unwarranted state interference. Although not yet fully implemented, Kenya's Public Benefit Organisations Act was developed through extensive consultation and includes legal safeguards against political misuse. Even Zambia, once notorious for its restrictive NGO laws, has recently reduced many of its excesses. The Private Voluntary Organisations (Amendment) Act contradicts Zimbabwe's constitutional commitments and its obligations under international human rights law. section 58 of Zimbabwe's Constitution guarantees freedom of association, while section 61 protects freedom of expression. These rights are reiterated in Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to which Zimbabwe is a signatory. The Southern Africa Litigation Centre, working across the region and with the Global Campaign to Decriminalise Poverty and Status, has witnessed the devastating consequences of overregulation. In countries where civic space is stifled, human rights violations go unchallenged, corruption flourishes, and ordinary people suffer in silence. The government of Zimbabwe still has a choice. It can repeal or significantly revise the PVO Amendment Act and adopt a regulatory framework that genuinely enhances transparency while respecting constitutional freedoms. Alternatively, it can continue along a path that further isolates it from international partners and undermines its development objectives. The international community must not remain silent. Donors, multilateral institutions, and regional bodies must demand reforms that align with democratic norms. The FATF must clarify that its standards are being misused when governments adopt laws that criminalise legitimate civic engagement. Zimbabwe does not need another tool for repression. It requires institutions that foster trust, governance frameworks that enable participation and laws that reflect the values of freedom and accountability. The PVO Amendment Act is not a step forward; it is a leap backwards. Blessing Mhlanga should not be facing charges for doing his job, NGOs should not operate in fear, and Zimbabweans should not have to choose between their rights and their safety. The world is watching. And Zimbabwe must decide whether it wants to be a democracy in practice or just in name. Melusi Simelane is the civic rights cluster lead at the .
Reuters
23-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
EU watchdog launches inquiry into Commission's easing of green rules
BRUSSELS, May 23 (Reuters) - The EU's Ombudswoman said on Friday she had launched an inquiry into how the European Commission fashioned its recent proposals to simplify sustainability laws, following a complaint by campaigners accusing the EU executive of weakening the rules without first consulting the public. In February, the Commission proposed legal changes it named the "simplification omnibus" that would exempt thousands of smaller European businesses from EU sustainability reporting rules, and curb obligations for bigger firms to check their supply chains for human rights and environmental problems. "The decision to open an inquiry follows a complaint by eight civil society organisations who argue that the Commission breached its better regulation guidelines by failing to justify why it did not carry out a public consultation or impact assessment on the draft legislation," Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho said in statement. The European Ombudsman, an independent watchdog set up in 1995, investigates cases of maladministration in EU institutions, acting on its own initiative or in response to citizen complaints. Anjinho took up her post in February, taking over from Emily O'Reilly, who was the first woman to hold the post. Anjinho said she has asked the Commission a series of questions, including why it had not carried out a public consultation, and has requested more detail about which companies and stakeholders had been invited to meet with the Commission to discuss the issue. The complainants have accused the Commission of consulting industry lobbyists in closed-door meetings before publishing its proposal. A European Commission spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Commission had proposed changing the sustainability laws after European industries complained that burdensome EU rules meant they could not compete with rivals in China and the U.S., where President Donald Trump is rolling back regulation and imposing tariffs on foreign goods.
