· JUST IN ·
Brazil’s supreme court has blocked efforts to dramatically strip back Indigenous land rights in what activists called a historic victory for the South American country’s original inhabitants: Nine of the court’s 11 members voted against what rights groups had dubbed the “time limit trick” – an agribusiness-backed attempt to prevent Indigenous communities claiming land they did not physically occupy in 1988. Continue reading
Dear comrade, hello and welcome to another busy month. This edition focuses on the Jagersfontein tailings disaster and, related to this, our work at the United Nations level where tailings was a strong feature. Once again, we highlight the importance of the Bench Marks Foundation Conference (10-11 October 2023), which deals with critical minerals (you will find the concept note in the resources section). Soon after the Conference, close to 30 delegates from Africa will travel to Indonesia to participate in the Thematic Social Forum on MIning and Extractivism,.
And in case one thought the campaigning around the European Union (EU) is only focussed on mining, you are wrong. Other activists, such as the Women on Farms, have spoken out and organised against dumping. They informed us that pesticides that are banned in the EU are being exported to South Africa by pharmaceutical and biotechnology company Bayer.
Enjoy, Read and Pass it On.
· COMMENT ·
Water or Mining?
More often than not, those of us who have questioned the assumed benefits of mining by various corporate propagandists are accused of being neanderthals or luddites. The simple way for us – and as this new edition of the bulletin confirms – is this as we all agreed: Water is Life. In the recent launch of our study Jagersfontein Report: One Year After we learnt how waste water (tailings) is managed. Jagersfontein is essentially about poorly constructed and maintained tailings, which led to a number of other fallouts and blame shifting. We share below the executive summary and refer you to the full study on our website. And we note that we still await the full forensic report – a year after the disaster.
These concerns of tailings and water and sanitation management were raised at a United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) meeting where the Bench Marks Foundation participated – there is an excellent report back for you contained here. Mapping where these tailings are is but a first step at transparency.
This follows media stories on two South African villages, Maswanganyi and Muyexe, and a third village, Tomu, as DM recently reported, where drinking water was contaminated with arsenic. Earlier editions of the Bulletin highlighted the return of Cholera in many places which remains a matter of grave concern.
How do we deal with water and how do we deal with tailings that will sooner or later burst because of the extremities of heat, climate change, poor construction and or lack of civic participation and poor maintenance amongst others? Anyone who seeks to harm the access or the right to water in a semi-arid region as we are in South Africa, is working against the collective good, the public and national interest. These stories are widespread from South Africa to Brazil, and the USA.
A few days after our conference, similar debates will be taking place at an international gathering of mining communities, and social movements working on land, the environment, water – including water justice for the poor and marginalised, and not to exclude the rights of nature. This is the Thematic Social Forum on Mining and Extractivism (TSF) that will be held in Semarang, Indonesia on 16-20 October 2023.
An important part of the deliberations will be how we protect our water resources and life from mining. One campaign is the Right to Say No inspired by the struggles of the Xolobeni community to determine the developmental objectives and not to have mining imposed upon them. The campaign notes the devastating impacts of corporate extractives, which violate human rights and the rights of nature. State laws and mechanisms are far from protecting peoples and places. Although in many countries, the law provides communities and nature with several safeguards, they are being ignored or partially enforced. Importantly, the campaigners of the “Right to Say No” demand that a Just Transition must include the “full restitution for violations and socio-environmental impacts, in the struggle for territories free from mining”.
These are real struggles and result in the injury, death and marginalisation of those who survive. As we journey, we learn how to defend ourselves and, when we win, we must celebrate. Case in point, the recent victory for indigenous peoples and human rights activists the world over: Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled against efforts to restrict native peoples’ rights to reservations on their ancestral lands in Brasilia on September 21, 2023.
So to return to the boast that mining has brought us all this modernity and this development, we ask: what is Mining doing to our water resources (use in production, waste management, and so), now and in the future? If water gives life, what is the future for humans, animal and plant life without good quality drinking water?
This will be explored in our future editions.
The Annual Conference at a glance
“Humans have always sought to use raw materials to ensure their needs and their survival. However, the current renewed neoliberal thrust driven by the motives of profits and greed suggests that no place on earth is safe from this rush.Everything appears mine-able and at the mercy of extractivism. The argument that these raw materials are needed for a green new deal, does not speak of mining that will continue to threaten the forests, soils, seas, and waterways and most importantly drinking water. It does not speak of mining that has led to conflicts, in particular wars and coup de etats, and that definitely undermines national sovereignty and delays justice and equity for the poorest in the communities. Of particular concern is that this new scramble for Africa’s and the raw materials of the Global South will continue not to break the paradigms of exploitation that keep nations and the communities (where these minerals are extracted) subjugated and Impoverished.”
🔴 CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS: FOR WHOM? AT WHAT COST?
📅 Tuesday 10 and Wednesday 11 October 2023
The physical attendees have already been confirmed. The annual conference takes place on 10 & 11 October 2023, at the Sunnyside Park Hotel, Johannesburg. To attend online, please register here.
The concept note and all other information may be obtained in the Bench Marks website. It asks many questions such as: Will the renewed scramble for raw materials continue to keep nations and communities affected by extraction subjugated and impoverished? Will communities benefit or will they be trampled by this new rush to riches? These questions our conference will boldly engage with, also featuring a number of national and international speakers.
Photo: Ashraf Hendricks
Farm Workers March Against Pesticides
They call on European company to stop exporting EU-banned pesticides to South Africa
About 200 women working in agriculture held a protest march in Paarl on Friday, calling on European company Bayer to stop producing and exporting pesticides to South Africa.
Scores of pesticide products that are banned from use in the European Union are being exported to and used in South Africa.
The protesters marched to the head office of Bayer, a German pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. They carried placards that read: “Bayer, your pesticides are deadly” and “End double standards”.
The march was organised by the Women on Farms Project (WFP), an organisation working with women farm workers and farm dwellers in the Western Cape.
The WFP memorandum demands Bayer immediately end production and exports of pesticides currently banned in the EU but sold to South Africa and other developing countries. The memorandum, handed over at Bayer’s office gate to a company representative, stated there are at least 54 such products.
WFP labour programme organiser Katrina Claasen said they get a lot of complaints from women on the farms women about asthma, sinus problems, and skin irritation on their hands after working with crops that had been sprayed with pesticides.
Read the full article in the GroundUp website.
For the past 11 years, Global Witness has documented and denounced waves of threats, violence and killings of land and environmental defenders across the world, and 2022 marks the beginning of our second decade documenting lethal attacks. The world has changed dramatically since we started documenting these in 2012. But one thing that has not changed is the relentlessness of the killings.
Last year, at least 177 defenders lost their lives for protecting our planet, bringing the total number of killings to 1,910 since 2012. At least 1,390 of these killings took place between the adoption of the Paris Agreement on 12 December 2015 and 31 December 2022.
On average, a defender was killed every other day in 2022, just as was the case in 2021. Although the overall figure is slightly lower last year than in 2021, when we recorded 200 killings, this does not mean that the situation has significantly improved. The worsening climate crisis and the ever-increasing demand for agricultural commodities, fuel and minerals will only intensify the pressure on the environment – and those who risk their lives to defend it. Increasingly, non-lethal strategies such as criminalisation, harassment and digital attacks are also being used to silence defenders.
In its recommendations, the report stresses that: Urgent action is needed to hold companies and governments to account for the violence, criminalisation and other attacks faced by land and environmental defenders as they seek to protect their land, their communities and our planet. Governments and businesses must take the following actions to tackle the key drivers and enablers of attacks against defenders:
- Governments should:
- Create a safe environment for defenders and civic space to thrive;
- Demonstrate leadership to report, investigate and seek accountability for reprisals against defenders; and
- Promote companies’ legal accountability.
- Businesses should:
- Identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy any harms in their operations against defenders;
- Ensure legal compliance and corporate responsibility at all levels.
- Governments and businesses should:
- Implement a rights-based approach for addressing climate change.
August 2008. Amadiba Crisis Committee chair Sikosiphe Bazooka Rhadebe calms angry local residents protesting against the government awarding of mining rights at Xolobeni without their consent. Photo. Ken Gaze, courtesy John Clarke.
SLAPP in Africa: An Introduction
In Southern Africa, when we talk of Slapp suits we will invariably land around the struggles around Xolobeni (Eastern Cape, South Africa) or those of Kansanshi (Zambia). But with repression by means of the gun, propaganda and or law growing rapidly, we believe it is important to put Slapps once again on the agenda. SLAPP is short for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation or, in other words, exaggerated defamation lawsuits, brought with the intention of intimidating and discouraging individuals and or groups from challenging the organisation in question. These are often regarded as cases without merit, but the perpetrators will drag the matter and, when finally decided, the defendant’s / the individual or NGOs resources will be drained and as a result the plaintiff/ the company will have achieved its main goal of silencing and frustrating the critic.
The notorious Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Limited and Mineral Commodities Limited (South Africa) as well as the First Quantum Minerals (Zambia) have been in the public eye for long. The actions of the former President Jacob Zuma, who is personally prosecuting News24’s political journalist Karyn Maughan and Billy Downer, lead state prosecutor in the criminal corruption case against Zuma has been defined as a Slapp attack. This matter is related to the 1999 arms deal case which the former president continues to resist. As part of his strategy, he has attempted the personal prosecution, which followed the refusal of the National Prosecuting Authority to prosecute the case.
There is a growing awareness of Slapps in the Southern African subregion because of these various activities and organisation building. One new development is the formation of Coalition Against Slapps in Africa (CASA), which seeks to harness and work towards justice for victims of Slapps. CASA is co-managed by SARW and the Bench Marks Foundation and are engaged in the process of launching the East Africa region, and hopes to launch the continental organisation after the sub-continental consultations have been completed. Meanwhile CASA members and allies groundWork, the Centre for Environmental Rights, Earthlife Africa have initiated a campaign to legal protection of Human Rights Defenders in South Africa. A national gathering is planned for October 19 at the Union buildings in Pretoria.This action is worth supporting as it would advance the struggles against repression and Slapp suits in South Africa and the subregion.
I now turn to provide a broader context for the repression of critical voices and the closing down of civic space for civil society organisations and individuals.
Some African Case Studies
A recent report by Global Witness confirms that nearly 200 environmentalists were murdered for their work in 2022. They report that since they commenced doing research on the subject, they have counted nearly 2,000 environmental defenders murdered for their work. Laura Furones, lead author of the 2022 report, says that this may be an underestimate, particularly in Africa and Asia: “We fear there are many more defenders being killed every year that we never hear about.”
As in past years, Latin America was the deadliest region for environmental activists in 2022, with 9 out of 10 of the documented killings: 60 environmental activists were murdered in Colombia, 31 in Mexico, and 34 in Brazil. Nearly 40 of the murders took place in the Amazon rainforest, which covers parts of Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname.
Whilst these studies are important, we must point out that murder is an extreme case and often the ones that get international media coverage. What is missing though is the low intensity repression that continues unrecognised or hidden by fear of reprisals. To date there is no index or accounting for the daily threats, assaults including sexual assault, or even attempted murder that activists face. Similarly for the seemingly “non-violent” threats, bullying and harassments that result in mental distress and even loss of earnings/livelihoods.
Another form of repression is the use of legal threats or use of the law or in the “image of law and the criminal justice system”, which we know as Slapp suits. Slapp suits are becoming more and more common on our continent and they survive alongside the outright repression and elimination of opponents, mostly in civil society.
Simply put, if the police visit activists about a planned march against the company, it is a representation of law and order. Hence for us in Africa, we have sought to enhance the traditional definition of Slapp suits to include these practices.
These cases are more numerous than before. In February 2019 Belgium and Cameroonian NGOs were delighted when Socfin and Socapalm withdrew their appeal in the defamation proceedings against Sherpa, ReAct and Mediapart. The NGO wrote that “in 2016, the Luxembourg holding company Socfin and its Cameroonian subsidiary Socapalm, linked to the Bolloré group, sued for defamation three media (Mediapart, L’Obs, Le Point) and two NGOs (Sherpa and ReAct) over articles about protests by rural residents and farmers who live near plantations run by these two companies in West Africa.”
Sherpa noted that this was a Slapp suit that was “brought by the Bolloré group, but also by other multinationals, aimed to put pressure on journalists, whistleblowers and NGOs which try to highlight misconduct of these companies in order to silence. Heavy and costly procedures can discourage journalists and NGOs from conducting investigations or denouncing situations related to these major groups.” They further noted that these actions did not seek justice but were a strategy designed to “drain immense resources and time from even the most well funded news organisations, with the risk of criminal prosecution still a reality across numerous jurisdictions. Even the mere prospect of facing costly and lengthy legal proceedings can be enough to bury a story.”
Xolobeni, the Amadiba Crisis Committee
If this were a play, I will have to start by laying out the various actors and, as usual, we must begin with the communities.
The community: The Amadiba Crisis Committee (ACC) represented the needs of the community, and their deputy chairperson of the ACC Mzamo Dlamini was one of the accused alongside other environmentalists including lawyers. The other key player was the Centre for Environmental Rights, who created a website to support this struggle and others providing a full background of this case. ASINA LOYIKO will now be incorporated into CASA’s work.
The company: Australian transnational corporation Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Limited and Mineral Commodities Limited.
In brief, the matter goes back to 2016, when a leader of the ACC Bazooka Radebe was killed. It is alleged that he was killed after nightly raids on the Amadiba community for a year preceding the death.
The “local police have refused to cooperate with the Umgungundlovu traditional authority of the coastal Amadiba area to stop the violence against our community, which says no to mining.” Within a week of Bazooka’s murder, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) issued a media release which highlighted concern that the “autopsy at the hospital in Bizana had been delayed for six hours by the responsible officer from Mzamba police. In endless discussions, he and the head of the morgue tried to block the independent pathologist from participating. Within two days of the murder, the Port Shepstone SAPS had released the car hijacked by the two hitmen before the murder, to its owners in Joburg. No doubt by now it has been cleaned and is at the panel beater for repair of the bullet holes. The joint examination by The Hawks and a ballistic expert called in by LRC had to be cancelled. As an important piece of evidence, it was gone forever. It is now over two months later. The Hawks have still not conducted proper interviews with leaders of the ACC, who spoke with Bazooka one hour before he was killed, when he said he knew there was a hit list.” The killing of Bazooka Radebe remains unsolved but the legal matters continued
The Court Case
The case worked its way through the court system until it reached the highest court of South Africa, which finally handed down a judgement on 14 November 2022 at 10h00. The court was deliberating on two applications for leave to appeal against the judgement and order of the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division (High Court).
Various activists were on the receiving end of the corporation’s attack. The environmental activists are Ms Christine Reddell, and Ms Tracey Davies, who then were lawyers attached to the Centre for Environmental rights, and Ms Davine Cloete and activists working with them Mr Mzamo Dlamini, Mr Cormac Cullinan, and Mr John Gerard Ingram Clarke.
The mining companies are Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Limited and Mineral Commodities Limited, joined in these proceedings by two of their office bearers, Mr Zamile Qunya and Mr Mark Victor Caruso. These corporations issued summons against the activists for defamation. The con court consolidated the various actions in the high court, which was ruled on in November 2022.
The activists campaigned for justice for the communities and spoke out against the operations of the Tormin and Xolobeni Minerals Sands Projects, on various public and social media platforms and they were surprised at the attack when it came, which amounted to R14 million. This amount they argued was excessive and undermined their rights. They based their legal defence on two grounds:
1. The activists and community leaders argued that this was a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit special plea; and
2. The corporate defamation special plea: simply put, the court had to decide whether the company could claim damages to its reputation as if it was a person. It was for the court to determine whether the corporation had the rights of persons to freedom of expression. In addition, if they had a right to a good name, reputation, etc. how much weight or protection must be given to this right?
I will return to the court ruling after briefly discussing the First Quantum Minerals, whose lawyers waited for this judgement to determine how their matter would proceed.
“Living in a Parallel Universe: First Quantum versus the mining communities in Zambia”.
Company: First Quantum Minerals (Canadian)
Community: Zambian community living around Kansanshi mine
CSO: Southern Africa Resource Watch
The first Quantum Minerals Case came to public light during 2019 following the publication of the Southern Africa Resource Watch study entitled “Living in a Parallel Universe: First Quantum versus the mining communities in Zambia”. It was based on an impact assessment study of the company’s corporation and that included the views of the affected community, CSOs and the labour unions. It focused on the FQMs one operation, the Kansanshi Mine. In their report, SARW argued that:
- The Kansanshi Copper and Gold Mine is currently owned by ZCMM/IH and FQM, with 20 percent and 80 percent of shares respectively, producing 400 000 tons of copper and more than 120 000 ounces of gold per year.
- With this production, it is the country’s largest taxpayer: between 2005 and 2015, the mine contributed more than US$3 billion in tax to the Zambian state.
- FQM was failing in its commitment to CSR, its approach was top down imposed and not consulted.
- FQM mining polluted the water and land, impacting on agriculture and food security.
Finally, SARW compared the wealth of the company to the impoverishment of the communities and its surroundings.
The response of the company was drastic. They sought to prevent SARW from publishing the report, arguing that it has factual errors and that the company was not consulted. Other organisations, in particular the Bench Marks Foundation have found similar accusations when undertaking their policy gap studies. When the reports are not of the companies liking, they respond like this.
In reply, SARW confirms that “before undertaking the Solwezi study, SARW contacted the company, and requested to meet and discuss visiting the mine and the social investment projects. The company representatives agreed but then failed to show up. SARWatch again requested that the company meet researchers when they were in the field. The company responded by saying that there was nobody available to meet in Solwezi as all the key people were out of the country. They refused to provide the researchers even with Zambians managers who could speak on behalf of the company. The company tried to prevent the publication of the report, claiming that it was not consulted and that the report contains factual inaccuracies.
Although the company was able to provide broad outlines of its CSR programmes through email correspondence, and details available on websites and in annual sustainability reports, the company was not prepared to give any time to the researchers involved in assessing its CSR programmes.
Using publicly available materials is legitimate especially in a context where the company has not been forthcoming. The report highlighted a number of shortcomings and it also included recommendations. One problem highlighted involved responding to how relocation of the community was done and the needs of relocated communities. It appears that the relocations without due recognition of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the communities, as the company expanded the tailings and “pushing communities off their land and (which) affected food security”.
The community wanted quality and sustainable provision of water and that the Zambian government provide the necessary financial, human and logistical support to the Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA) to be able to discharge its duty of monitoring and evaluating the impact of mining companies’ activities without fear or favour.
The constitution court rules: The importance of debate vs the right to reputation
In the defamation suit against the ACC supporters the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that trading corporations are not constitutionally excluded from seeking general damages. However, in instances where speech forms part of public discourse on issues of public interest, the court would have the discretion to find that such an award is not warranted. The constitutional court’s judgement was carefully crafted to ensure that this legal principle could not be used to curb or restrain debate on issues of public interest, which is vital for South Africa’s democracy, as the courts will retain the discretion to determine, on the facts, whether such remedy is warranted. In its judgement, the concourt confirmed that a SLAPP suit defence may be made and, if the criteria set out above are met, the case claims may be dismissed. What was clear is that the principles and values of freedom of speech and the public interest are affirmed and they may not be muzzled by spurious litigation.
FROM THE GROUND
Photo: Mail & Guardian
Jagersfontein – one year later
The impact of the disaster was devastating. Kopanong municipality was already an impoverished and neglected community before the disaster, with an unemployment rate of more than 70% and virtually zero municipal revenue. The community tells of the psychological suffering they continue to endure, and the cloud of fear under which they exist. This is on top of the material loss – of homes, of farming livelihoods and of health. The deposits which now poison the earth and the air in all probability contain arsenic and asbestos, commonly found in diamond mine tailings. The sewage system is dysfunctional and the water is contaminated. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, Jagersfontein was visited by politicians from the President to various parliamentary committees. But the visits were more plentiful than the action. The Department of Mineral Resources has spent most of its energy ‘explaining’ why it is unable to regulate the mine – because, technically, the diamond re-processing activities are not classified as mining. Strangely, it is the same DMRE that issued a mining licence to the Jagersfontein Community Trust in 2009. The Department of Water and Sanitation initiated an official investigation to inform possible legal options. There has still been no report from this.
Find the full report on our website
FROM LEFT TO RIGHT: Jan Morrill (Earthworks), Hassen Lorgat (Bench Marks Foundation, South Africa), Edson Krenak (Cultural Survival, Brazil), Lorena Curuaia (Curuaia People, Brazil), Leoncia Ramos (CNR, Dominican Republic), Fernando Peña (ENTRE, Dominican Republic) and Diego Marin (European Environmental Bureau)
Taking the Fight for Mining Justice to the UN
From September 5-9, Earthworks was joined by community partners, Indigenous Leaders, and ally organizations in Geneva, Switzerland for the Global Intergovernmental Consultation on Environmental sustainability of Minerals and Metals Management. The global consultation was the culmination of a series of regional intergovernmental consultations held in the five UN regions.
We wanted to highlight community demands for improved tailings management, human rights due diligence, Indigenous self-determination and other critical issues. By participating in person, we were able to lobby relevant government representatives to include our key issues. These consultations also created an opportunity to provide visibility for partners and their local campaigns and create a space for community to community exchange in-person.
Comments we submitted in advance were heavily quoted in the guiding document used to frame the conversations during the consultation, and we co-hosted a side-event attended by over 30 participants from governments, NGOs and UNEP staff. We also, along with the European Environmental Bureau, submitted an op-ed on the UNEA process, and community and Indigenous participation and demands to Euractiv which was published the day before consultations.
I participated in the Technical Panel during the opening session, highlighting the need for FPIC and Indigenous self-determination, meaningful community engagement, stronger mining regulation, a reduction in primary raw materials demand, and referenced Safety First: Guidelines for Responsible Mine Tailings Management, which is linked in the report-back from the event.
Fabian Krebs, from Society for Threatened Peoples was part of our delegation. Here lobbying one of the governments
I was also able to bring comments and issues raised by Tribal Governments and partner organizations that were unable to attend the Global Consultation in Geneva. Specifically, the issues related to transboundary watershed impacts from mining operations in British Columbia, Canada and Alaska, US as presented by the Tlingit & Haida Tribes and supported by Salmon Beyond Borders. In their written comments to the U.S. Department of State, the Tlingit & Haida Tribes noted that UNEA accepts suggestions and proposals from “member states and other stakeholders” in advance of the consultation but UNEA does not request, and has no mechanism to receive, comments from sovereign tribal nations. This should be remedied by UNEP moving forward.
The group received very positive feedback from government representatives and UNEP staff about both the quality of the participation of civil society and Indigenous Leaders, as well as the need to continue to ensure our participation in future events. Specifically, the German, Dutch, Brazilian, U.S. and Chilean governments made an effort to support our group and build relationships with our participants.
The recommendations and proposals from the Global Consultation will be reviewed and considered by governments over the next couple months. Based on these recommendations and other considerations, governments will then draft proposed resolutions to be voted on at the next UNEA bi-annual assembly in Nairobi in February of 2024. There is an opportunity between now and February to advocate with governments to write and support resolutions that highlight and address the concerns raised by civil society.
Article published in the Earthworks website.
THE MEET - UP
A meeting place to learn about organisations, networks,
movements and people resisting injustices and whom we work with.
We present here the three keynote speakers of the upcoming 2023 Bench Marks Foundation Conference (10/11 October):
Dr Yao Graham
Dr Yao Graham is the Coordinator of Third World Network-Africa, a pan-African policy advocacy organisation based in Accra, Ghana. Yao studied law at the University of Ghana, the Free University of Brussels (VUB), Belgium and the University of Warwick, Coventry, UK where he obtained his PhD. He has worked on African and international development issues for many years – as a public intellectual and activist, government official and journalist. He has worked on African minerals and development issues for more than two decades. International trade and investment and minerals and development issues have been particular areas of focus in his work at TWN-Africa. He has written and lectured extensively on mineral policy issues. Yao is the Africa Editor of the journal Review of African Political Economy (ROAPE) and was the founding editor of the Ghanaian bi-weekly newspaper Public Agenda.
Rachmi Hertanti is a lawyer and has a background in International Trade Law from the Master’s School of Law at The University of Indonesia. She has been involved in several just trade initiatives and policy advocacy work as well as campaigns since 2011 with a focus on Intellectual Property Rights on seeds and medicines, Investment treaties and corporate lawsuits, and digital trade, including trade-related impacts on energy and raw materials.
Solly Afrika Mapaila
Solly Afrika Mapaila is a South African politician is the General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, he was elected unopposed on 15 July 2022 in his current position at the SACP National Congress. Solly Mapaila was appointed as the Second Deputy General Secretary of the South African Communist Party in 2012. Mapaila was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe and operated outside of South Africa prior to 1994 and is an advocate for national sovereignty and international solidarity.
Moses Cloete serves as the editor at large of this edition. Unless otherwise indicated the writing and presentation of the Bulletin is by Hassen Lorgat. Marta Garrich helped with additional editing and layout of the newsletter. Simo Gumede is responsible for the members and partners database management. Photo in the header image by USAID / Spotlight.
Copyright © 2023 Bench Marks Foundation, All rights reserved.