Follow Us on Google
A coalition of legal and child rights organisations has expressed concerns over the potential negative impacts of several international agreements on Nigeria and the African continent. The experts argued that treaties, including the Samoa Agreement, surrogacy regulations, and the proposed pandemic treaty, not only infringe on societal moral values but could also undermine national sovereignty and pose significant risks to vulnerable populations.
The coalition, which comprises 25 legal, civil rights, and religious groups, raised their concerns during a recent press conference organised by the Foundation for African Cultural Heritage (FACH) in Lagos.
The Samoa Agreement is a trade pact between the European Union (EU) and the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS). In addition to promoting trade and investment, the agreement aims to combat climate change and enhance human rights, democracy, security, and migration.
However, experts warned that certain clauses in the agreement might promote LGBT rights and abortion. Despite denials from the Nigerian government regarding the inclusion of LGBT-related clauses, the country has signed the Samoa Agreement.
Sonnie Ekwowusi of the African Bar Association (AfBA) criticised Nigeria and other African governments for endorsing the Samoa Agreement. He argued that the agreement contains provisions that are inconsistent with Nigeria’s laws and cultural values and that some of the provisions violate national sovereignty by imposing external values that conflict with local identity.
Ekwowusi stated: “The Nigerian government’s denial that the Samoa Agreement includes LGBT provisions is untrue. Articles 2.5, 29.5, 36.2, 88, and 97 endorse LGBT rights, abortion, and the sexualisation of children, thus violating Nigeria’s laws, sovereignty, and the African Charter on People’s and Human Rights. Signing that agreement is completely unacceptable.
“Additionally, Article 36(2) of the Samoa Agreement commits the parties to fully implement the Beijing Declaration and the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development, emphasising sexual and reproductive health and rights.
“The term sexual and reproductive health and rights is defined by the EU to include LGBT rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity, thereby respecting individuals’ rights to these identities.
“Furthermore, Article 97 states that no treaty or agreement between European member states and OACPS members shall hinder the implementation of this Agreement.
“This supremacy clause asserts that the agreement takes precedence over any prior treaties or agreements, thus violating Nigeria’s sovereignty by making African nations accountable to the EU.”
Other News
Ekwowusi urged the Nigerian and OACPS governments to withdraw from the agreement or negotiate the inclusion of a reservation clause to clarify that nothing in the agreement promotes LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, comprehensive sexuality education, abortion, or transgender rights in the signatory countries.
He noted: “European countries are facing population decline as a result of promoting LGBT rights, abortion, and sterilisation. The Samoa Agreement represents an effort by the West to impose its ideological values on Africa. We must protect families in Nigeria and across Africa. If this is merely a trade agreement, the clauses related to LGBT rights should be removed or clarified to ensure they do not imply support for LGBT.”
Ekwowusi concluded: “The Nigerian government, in its pursuit of foreign grants, has signed this agreement and is now trying to justify it. This is unacceptable. Nigeria should either withdraw its signature or push for the addition of a reservation clause.”
The coalition also expressed concerns regarding the Surrogacy Regulation Bill, which has passed its second reading in the House of Representatives in Abuja. According to Mrs Omoye Oleye, a child advocate from the Parental Care Initiative for Future Leaders, establishing legislation to support surrogacy in Nigeria could lead to ethical dilemmas, particularly in terms of child rights and potential exploitation. She warned that relaxed surrogacy regulations could result in the exploitation of vulnerable women and the commodification of children.
She said: “Although surrogacy used to be seen as a way for couples struggling with fertility to have children, that concept has been abused today because people now see surrogacy as renting a girl’s womb to bear children for them. Many celebrities and wealthy women, because they want to keep their shape, would pay a girl to get pregnant so they carry the baby and leave. Surrogacy now is the exploitation and objectification of women and girls’ bodies with the commercialisation of childbirth. This practice diminishes the humanity of the women and girls who bear the child.”
Oleye argued that Nigeria, because of its huge population, could struggle with regulating surrogacy, thereby exposing it to becoming a target for international surrogacy operations that would flock in to exploit women and engage in child trafficking. “With surrogacy being illegal in Nigeria, the government cannot regulate it. Rather than seeking to regulate an inherently illegal and exploitative industry, we call for its outright ban.”
Also, on the proposed Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance, the experts worry that the treaty could grant excessive power to international organisations, potentially infringing on national sovereignty in health matters. The Pandemic Treaty, currently being deliberated at the World Health Organisation (WHO), aims to strengthen global health security and preparedness, but the coalition warned that signing the treaty could lead to the imposition of harmful policies and restrictions on African countries, impacting their ability to respond to health crises effectively.
“Under the Pandemic Treaty, the WHO would be empowered to tell countries to lock down and close businesses, schools, pubs, churches, and mosques. Citizens would be forced to take injections and wear masks whether they want to or not. It also gives unprecedented power to the WHO because the treaty also contains worrying aspects of universal health coverage. The Pandemic Treaty also gives the WHO the authority to decide how and which medical supplies are distributed when they decide there is a pandemic. These medical supplies can range from vaccines to abortion kits or contraceptives, since no exhaustive terminology is used. These products are also distributed via stakeholders which the WHO deems relevant, including stakeholders that promote the controversial sexual and reproductive health and rights,” Dr Obielumani Ideh, a consultant gynaecologist, stated.
She also queried the seeming hush around the treaty. “There’s a lack of public discussion or debate on the matter. I have not heard about this Pandemic Treaty being discussed by our lawmakers. Decisions that could deeply affect global health should not be made behind closed doors without engaging the public.”
The coalition concluded by urging the Nigerian government to prioritise the nation’s sovereignty, moral values, and cultural identity when considering international treaties or agreements. They stressed the need for thorough public consultation and transparent debate on any international commitments that could potentially impact the country’s legal, ethical, or social landscape.
