Category: Governance

Straight from the Strait of Hormuz

No matter the reason for warfare the environment and the innocent end up bearing the brunt of the inevitable destruction. This fact is clearly illustrated by the several ongoing smoldering and open conflicts that have led to this season being described as one of endless conflicts and violence. Many of these conflicts and wars have crude oil footprints, suggesting an underlying connection between energy grabbing and wars. The most glaring examples are the situations with Venezuela and Iran.

In all these situations of conflict the war waged by the USA and Israel on Iran highlights many distinct concerns. First, the shifting explanations as to why the first shots were fired suggest to some observers that crude oil and gas are major motivations. Crude oil, more than a drive for democracy, turned out to be the major reason for the assault on Venezuela. For Iran we are told they must not develop an atomic bomb. Indeed no nation should develop atomic bombs. Reality is that there are already about 13,400 nuclear weapons in the world today and these have a combined explosive yield of more than 360,000 times than the bombs detonated at Hiroshima during the Second World War. 

Second, it is much easier to find funds for destruction than for construction or building of lives. This explains why wars gulp close to $3 trillion a year while the budget for development and for tackling the climate chaos and loss of biodiversity hovers in the range of just billions of dollars. 

At a time when the world should be investing in climate adaptation and mitigation, funds are being gulped by the weapons industry and the oil moguls. At a time when talks should be on how to recover our collective humanity we are hearing moans over a depletion of stocks of missiles, suicide drones and sundry weapons of mass destruction. We are seeing the bombing of civilian infrastructure, chemical factories, hospitals, and schools. We are seeing ecocide planned, executed and bragged about without consequence. 

Unfortunately, one acknowledged common attribute of war mongers is that they know how to start wars but hardly ever how to end them. This may be because they are never in the line of fire, besides those from opinion polls.

The tourniquet introduced by Iran at the Strait of Hormuz should drive a strong message to every nation — that we live in a common ecosystem of interdependences. The Strait gets shut and straightaway the world feels the shock. While the missiles fly and sorrow, blood and tears afflict the innocent, the oil companies smile to the bank alongside the players in the military industrial complex. It is estimated, U.S. oil companies may garner up to $63 billion in excess profits from the price increases this year driven by the Iran war.    Experts also estimate that the U.S. may gain additional federal revenue of approximately $600 million/day from its output of 20 million barrels of crude oil per day. With a war that may end up costing an estimated $200 billion, would oil cushion the impact of deaths and destruction?

The paradoxical situation for Nigeria is that the sharp rise in the price of oil does not suggest more revenue for social services for the population. With a poor capacity in local refining, the nation depends on the importation of refined products and is thus totally exposed to the shocks related to global oil conflicts. Privately owned Dangote Refinery that could have cushioned the shocks is forced to import crude oil due to insufficient receipts of locally extracted crude which stands at less than the nation’s OPEC quota. Moreover, according to reports, 400,000 barrels of the 1.5 million barrels of Nigeria’s daily crude oil production goes to paying debts owed to international oil majors, banks and traders. Thus the pump price of petroleum products is translating to rising costs across board in an unregulated and evidently inefficient economic environment.

Added to the economic quagmire is the reality of the violence inflicted by crude oil extraction and refining on the environment of the Niger Delta. The region experienced an equivalent of one Exxon Valdez oil spill annually for close to 70 years. This level of violence is an undeclared war against the people and the environment.

Back in the Middle East, the explosion of missiles guided by artificial intelligence illustrate the artificiality of warfare fought without conscience and notions of accountability. It is a season of barbarism. Might is not always right. Stealth may sometimes be visible.

The shutting of the Strait of Hormuz (and possibly others) should wake the world from slumber to the essential need to phase out fossil fuels and invest in ecologically sensible alternative energy sources. The release of huge strategic reserves of oil by members of the International Energy Agency may bring a small respite, but the increasing price of oil has not appeared to abate. How much more barrels will be released when the reserves runs dry? Moreover, experts have noted that the current energy instability introduced by the war against Iran will not easily overcome even after the last missile has exploded. Reasons for this include the huge reconstruction that will be needed to restore damaged or obliterated infrastructure and to rebuild confidence in challenged geopolitical alliances and among sectoral players. 

The famous invisible hands of the market has been exposed by the apparent open manipulation of oil prices by statements made, sometimes on social media posts, by political leaders. This underscores the need for energy democracy and an end to dependence on energy resources that plungers the world into conflicts, financial turmoil, social disruptions and unimaginable destruction. The world needs an urgent phase out of fossil fuels, not digging in and fighting over them. This is the lesson straight from the Strait of Hormuz. 

Defensive GMO regulators

The deployment of products of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) continues to raise concerns and resistance, not only in Nigeria but across the world among consumers, researchers, public health experts, food sovereignty campaigners and others. Nigeria’s National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) however, has continued to take on a defensive front on the matter rather than acknowledging and addressing critical concerns that are quite fundamental and evident. This we believe comes from a mindset that assumes science and technology especially such as is approved by some foreign entities cannot be flawed and that Nigeria or Africa cannot make a headway in agriculture without without deploying biotechnology.

A recent article in The Guardian titled Nigeria Is Not Experimenting With GMOs, It Is Regulating Them, presents genetically engineered crops as a fait accompli and the NBMA as adequately defending Nigeria’s biosafety.  The article almost reads like an NBMA public relations piece. The fact we must not forget is that  the agency is saddled with the  mandate to ensure that the practice of, and products from modern biotechnology do not harm human, animals, or plants health or the environment and they have said in the past that they are not set up to stop the deployment of GMOs but to regulate them. This begs for an interrogation of what regulation actually means. Shouldn’t regulation mean that GMOs should be banned altogether if they pose significant risks to humans and the environment? The the Precautionary Principle, a key principle of the Cartagena Protocol to which Nigeria is signatory, specifically advises caution and a halt in adoption of GMOs where there are threats to human and environmental safety.

One of the fundamental questions that the Nigerian government through the NBMA is yet to respond to is “ where are the results of long term and independent/peer reviewed risk assessment including feeding tests conducted that informs the safety of the four officially approved products for commercial planting in Nigeria and the 10 or more others approved for food, feed and processing? This is unarguably the surest way to build trust in the regulatory architecture, but such information is not on the website of the NBMA as of 6 March 2026. We cannot but say the country is experimenting with GMOs using Nigerians as test subjects with our soils/environment as the laboratory. This is clearly not the way to defend biosafety.

The loudest argument about the need for GMOs in Nigeria is that there is no other way to feed a burgeoning population. The fact that these artificial crops do not have a yield advantage over natural varieties when cultivated under similar conditions is simply overlooked. The overriding impetus for the broadcasting of the GMOs in Nigeria is the economic benefits the speculators and manufacturers of the seeds would reap, riding on their power and control over policy formulation and implementation. Profit at what cost? Or is it true as an official of the All Farmers Association of Nigeria (AFAN) stated at a public hearing organised by the House of Representatives in December 2024 that “it is better to eat and die than not to eat and die”? Meaning that because Nigeria’s population is huge, we should keep deploying GMOs irrespective of the quality of the food and the long-term impacts whether social, health or environmental, as long as food is available. 

But we must dig deeper even on the economic front. The cotton farmers who have planted GMOs for the longest time in Nigeria noted in 2024 that the GM Cotton (Bt Cotton) after 3 odd years of planting has not outperformed the conventional variety. They lamented that their soil was instead being degraded. This is possibly a result of the release of the CRY1Ab toxins (from Bacillus thuringiensis) in the Bt Cotton into the soils. Again, what cost are we willing to pay just to be in the league of countries deploying so-called cutting edge modern biotechnology in agriculture?

A second fundamental question that remains unanswered is who controls the GM seed market? This gives rise to several other questions: Who owns the intellectual property rights over the genetically modified seeds?  Here’s the catch: GMOs can and will contaminate our local varieties through cross pollination and other processes. What safeguards has the NBMA put in place to prevent gene transfer and contamination of Nigeria’s local seed varieties? Or are we content with depending solely on the intentional seed companies for seeds and for our subsistence in the long run?

A number of other countries have put in place total or partial bans on GMOs based on this risk of genetic contamination. In 2024, Mexico placed an indefinite ban on genetically engineered corn. The courts said from the evidence before it, genetically engineered corn posed “the risk of imminent harm to the environment.” Furthermore, they will “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings.” This ruling provided a protection for the 20,000 varieties of corn grown in Mexico and Central America. What are we doing to protect Nigeria’s genetic resources from GMOs contamination? Mexico is the centre of origin of maize and this reality places responsibility on her to protect natural maize varieties from the corruption of transgenic varieties. Nigeria is the centre of origin of beans/cowpea, and yet our farms and markets are open to insecticidal GMO beans.

On this note we encourage the government at all levels to invest in the setting up of seed banks to ensure the preservation of local and high performing indigenous seed varieties.

Nigerians reserve the right to choose their food. GMOs approved for commercial cultivation and sale are not labeled. Although we do not believe labelling will be effective considering our socio-economic context, the absence of labelling signals a disregard for the rights of consumers and an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the producers GMOs. Releasing GMOs into the market without labels is against the spirit and intent of the biosafety law in Nigeria. This explains why the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act lacks provision on strict liability. 

Many Nigerians are consuming imported processed foods bought from supermarkets without any idea that they are made from the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The manner in which these items are imported into the country needs to be interrogated. Although the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) has said illegal importation of GMOs into the country is being checked, these products are abundant in our market shelves (over 50 different brands including cereals, vegetable oils, spices, ice-cream, cake mixes etc) as revealed by a survey which Health of Mother Earth Foundation carried out across 10 Nigerian cities in 2018, 2019 and 2023.

We reinforce the call for a ban on GMOs in Nigeria. As recommended by the House of Representatives in 2024, no new GMOs should be approved in Nigeria pending a proper interrogation of the processes of approvals so far. We add that such an interrogation must include long term impacts on human and environmental health. The output of this exercise should be critically reviewed by independent scientists and other food system stakeholders. 

Nigeria’s approach to tackling food insecurity should be such that address the root causes of the problem. We cannot overlook the poor budgetary allocation to agriculture or the heightened insecurity that keeps farmers out of farms or the lack of basic infrastructure or the poor extension service etc and claim to be addressing food insecurity.

It is time to transition back to agroecology -which simply means farming in line with nature and in the light of our socio-cultural, economic and ecological context. Farming that ensures that science recognises local knowledge and that it serves the interest of the people. We must promote and protect farming that assures food security but much better food sovereignty by ensuring shorter value chains/better access to food, improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers and a protection of the rights of peoples.

GMOs only attempt to address the symptoms of major underlying food system issues while increasing profit for their proponents. The price to pay in terms of ecological damage, loss of biodiversity, health and economic implications far outweigh any fickle advantages they may seem to have. It is time to decolonize our food systems. 

People over profits!

Co-authored with Joyce Brown, a Public Health Scientist, Food Sovereignty Campaigner, and Director of Programmes at Health of Mother Earth Foundation 

Crimes of Colonialism

The African Union (AU) has “Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations” as its theme of the year 2025. This theme arose from the Accra 2023 Reparations Conference. In line with the theme, the government of Algeria and the African Union co-hosted a conference on Crimes of Colonialism: Towards Redressing Historical Injustices through the Criminalisation of Colonialism in Algiers on 30th November and 1st December 2025.

Working towards fair reparations for harms and the exploitation suffered by Africans and peoples of African decent over the past four centuries has been a key concern for the AU and the Organization for African Unity (OAU) before it.  The first Pan African conference on reparations held in Abuja, Nigeria, in April 1993 resulted in the first collective position of African political leadership as captured in the Abuja Proclamation on Reparations. That declaration stated that “the issue of reparations is an important question requiring the united action of Africa and its Diaspora…” being “fully persuaded that the damage sustained by the African peoples is not a ‘thing of the past’ but is painfully manifest in the damaged lives of contemporary Africans from Harlem to Harare, in the damaged economies of the Black World from Guinea to Guyana, from Somalia to Surinam.” The Abuja Proclamation called “upon the international community to recognize that there is a unique and unprecedented moral debt owed to the African peoples which has yet to be paid – the debt of compensation to the Africans as the most humiliated and exploited people of the last four centuries of modern history.”

A number of conferences have since been held on reparations and on racism as well. The Algiers conference on the Crime of Colonialism can be said to have stood on the shoulders of those earlier endeavours. I participated on a panel that focused on the Environmental Impacts of Colonialism at this conference. Delegates included ambassadors, ministers of foreign affairs, and experts drawn from across Africa and the diaspora.

Algeria was praised for hosting the historic and strategic conference aimed at seeking a recognition of the crime of colonialism and seeking reparations as the basis for sustained peace and healing.  The conference advanced Africa’s position on crimes of colonialism as systemic violence and exploitation that, alongside slavery, qualify as crimes against humanity. A call was made for a declaration of an African Day for the remembrance of the victims of transatlantic enslavement and colonialism. It was also noted that colonialism has not ended and that there are still 20 colonies in the Caribbean besides those in Africa and elsewhere. 

My notes from the event included the fact that colonialism was not a civilising process but one of wanton extraction, exploitation, humiliation and abuse of rights. It embodied the great crimes against humanity including those perpetrated in Congo, Cameroon, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, and other places. References were frequently made to the nuclear tests that the French carried out in Algeria during the colonial days. The contributions of Frantz Fanon, author of “The Wretched of the Earth”, an internationalist African anti-colonial activist and revolutionary were acknowledged. The impacts of colonialism on education, economy and other spheres of life were stressed and disruption of African or Africa’s? culture was highlighted as the destruction of the glue that holds African peoples together. 

The high-level ministerial panel on the topic From Recognition to Codification: Criminalising Colonialism in International Law showed that colonialism is a system and not an event and cannot be successfully fought without strategic plans. Such plans and actions must include ways of bringing back African systems of governance through education. Discussions around the human and generational impacts of colonialism underscored the health and genetic effects of nuclear tests as well as intentional spread of disease, displacements and other acts of violence. 

Permit me to share some points I put across on the panel on Environmental Impacts of Colonialism. The first point was that colonialism and neocolonialism will not end except coloniality is erased. The persistence of colonialty of power and knowledge reinforces the continuation of colonialism in new forms. These produce extreme and destructive exploitation. And we must not forget, as Kwame Nkrumah stated in his book on Neocolonialism, that the worst form of imperialism is exploitation without responsibility. This mode of rapacious exploitation persists on the continent.

Another key point is that colonialism was birthed and nourished by extractivism. It was all about controlling the colonies or sacrifice zones to the benefit of the colonizers’ home territories which were considered sacred and untouchable.  Colonialism extracts nearly anything: labour, data, cultures, minerals, finance and is virtually insatiable. Colonialism’s emphasis on land dispossession, resource extraction, and cultural destruction frequently resulted in ecocidal practices as they were extensive, intentional, persistent and often irreversible. The fact that the environmental crimes are continuous and persistent can be seen in the ongoing degradation of the Niger Delta where oil and gas has been destructively extracted from colonial times to the present. Other examples include extraction of gold in Obuasi in Ghana, coal in Whitbank in South Africa, oil in the Sudd, South Sudan, gas in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, colonial extraction of so-called critical minerals in DR Congo and the notorious extraction of uranium in Niger Republic. 

The environmental impacts of colonialism also appear through carbon colonialism which is also manifesting as a continent-scale land grab. The time has come for the halting of colonial extraction in all ramifications and a recognition of the ecological/climate debt being owed Africa, as part of the needed reparations. In other words, climate finance should be approached from the platform of ecological and climate debt.

To get off the rut, the AU should produce a model law on Rights of Nature to be adopted by all African nations. Secondly, the AU should promote the codification and utilisation of African environmentalism built on African philosophies, culture and cosmology. The AU should also recognize and promote grassroots initiatives for halting expansion of fossil fuels sacrifice zones and towards resource democracy using the Ogoni example in Nigeria and the Yasuni experience in Ecuador as examples. Finally, the map of Africa requires urgent review with the abolition and erasure of divisive, thoughtless, colonial boundaries, as those were mere demarcations of zones of ownership, control and exploitation by the colonialists. 

Coming away from the conference I kept ruminating on a strong advice offered by Eric Phillips, Vice Chair, CARICOM Slavery Reparation Commission. He said, “We must not be prisoners of our past, but architects of our future.” It was a call for action for all, but the tasks rest especially on African political leaders. Will they rise to the occasion and show leadership?

The Force and the Fire at COP30

The opening and closing of COP30 were marked by significant events. Not about climate ambition or high sounding speeches but by unplanned events. First was the determined entry into the COP venue by indigenous protesters who felt excluded from the conference and needed to be heard. They charged through the security and raised the critical question about who is really at the table and whose cause they were negotiating on. One of their demands was that they want their lands “free from agribusiness, oil exploration, illegal miners and illegal loggers.” The second  event was the fire outbreak at one of the pavilions within the Blue Zone in the morning of 20 November, a day before the scheduled closure of the conference. As the flames leapt through the fabric of the ceiling delegates and observers scrambled for the exits.

While the forced entry of unbadged persons into the COP venue was followed by a high level of militarization of the  conference premises, it was not clear if the fire in the conference venue would make the negotiators and politicians recognize the climate emergency for what it is. Nothing could be more poignant than lapping flames at a climate conference. As the flames leapt, and teams of volunteers fought the fire, the temperature in the already hot venue literally leapt  through the roof. More than a dozen individuals were treated for smoke inhalation from the fire that was contained within minutes.

COP30 formally opened on 10 November but was preceded by a leaders conference on the 6th of November. At that conference, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil laid out his key ideas and hopes regarding CO-30. Two of these were the TFFF or the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and the need for the COP to get serious about phasing out fossil fuels.  While the TFFF sounded poetic, even lyrical, it is nothing more than another variety of carbon deals or false climate solution mechanism. It basically will not tackle the root cause of deforestation but will serve as a tool for the financialization of Nature and may benefit carbon speculators more than forest dependent communities or even highly forested nations. It sounded new, but its antecedents date back more than a decade. It has been fiercely opposed by many.

For thirty years the Conference of Parties has skirted around recognizing the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is the major driver of the climate crisis. Call it willful denial. You would be right. Petrostates have regularly hosted the COPs and fossil lobbyists literally swarm the COP venues. Competing with the 1773 fossil fuel lobbyists that were at the COP29 in Baku, COP30 had 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists in its halls and lobbies, with the obvious objective of erasing any mention of fossil fuels in outcome documents or demanding its phasing out as an energy source. When fossil fuels were highlighted in the books at COP 26 in Glasgow the reference was restricted to phasing down unabated coal. When it raised its head at COP28 in UAE the reference was to “transitioning from fossil fuels” in energy. A more determined effort to push for a phase out of fossil fuels got some life from President Lula’s candle even though he is reportedly keen on extending the fossil fuels frontier in his country. As COP29 progressed more than 80 countries joined the call for transitioning from fossil fuels, while almost 30 others are strongly opposed to such a roadmap. While this could make or mar the COP outcome, a global conference on this subject will be hosted by Colombia on April 2026.

The draft outcome of COP30 was framed in a 9-paged document titled Muritao Text. It recognized and celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement and pushed for a new season of implementation beyond wordsmithing. Suggested focus areas for implementation in the draft text got interestingly spiced with options, and even blank ones at places. The text appeared to have carefully crafted so as not to ruffle fathers of those who hold the purse strings and power. And so rather than denouncing the slow pace of raising climate finance and condemning the lack of readiness to meet agreed targets, the text sought to accommodate everyone and even left blank options for those who care to fill.

The political correctness of climate negotiations, the deference to power and the sheer lethargy that engulfs every session are alarming considering that the voluntary actions of nations and other entities are driving the world to a heating of more than 3 degrees above the emergence of capitalism. Even if humans can survive such a furnace, should we not realize there are billions of other beings that we share the planet with?

It is not surprising that funding adaptation remains a sticky issue while more funding goes to mitigation efforts. Adaptation mostly concerns helping the vulnerable to cope with a crisis they did not create, while mitigation often offers options of investing in ideas and infrastructure that maintain current polluting paradigms and frees polluters to keep plying their trade. The rich and powerful nations spend up to 2.7 trillion dollars on warfare annually and a fraction of that, coupled with a little shift towards peaceful coexistence would definitely reduce the impacts of the climate crisis and move the world towards resilience built on solidarity. Will the petro-military complex allow this sensible path?

While negotiators dithered, the outside spaces raised serious and fundamental solutions to the climate crisis. Such outputs include A New Pledge For Mother Nature by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) and the Declaration by the People’s Summit Towards COP30 which had up to 70,000 participants.

As COP30 drew towards the finish line the key issues that would mark it out as an “implementation” COP and as a conference that showed more seriousness towards far reaching decisions, remain an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, finance for adaptation, a truly just energy transition and a climate finance that does not come as loans and other instruments that push vulnerable nations into further debt and further exacerbate geopolitical imbalances.

Ogonize and Yasunize!

(A raging Battle of Words)

We have always been concerned about words. Words are powerful. They help us communicate events that unfold around us. They are building blocks for action. They aid mobilisation. They can be tools for organizing, control, or even of colonization and exploitation. Negotiations at local, national and global levels often enter quagmires due to disputes over words and their meanings. A word can have multiple meanings and with a little inflection a benign word can turn into an insult and ignite a wildfire.

Global actions can be forever delayed due to manipulation of perceptions that make emergencies appear to be less so. An example is the framing of the climate crisis as global warming. If the crisis had been labelled global heating or climate chaos, it would probably have garnered serious attention. Warming can be a nice thing because most people love keeping warm.

For years, climate campaigners have demanded a fossil fuels phase out. Rather than do that, COP26 came up with the idea of a phase down of unabated coal power and phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, not phasing out of fossil fuels. A phase down should have pulled someone’s face down in shame. After kicking and screaming, COP28 in the United Arab Emirates ended up with an agreement to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems with the objective of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. This was the agreement that the UNFCCC characterised as a pointer to the “Beginning of the End” of the Fossil Fuel Era.

With that sort of wordsmithing negotiators and some campaigners came off celebrating that the word ‘fossil’ was mentioned, not caring whether it would be phased down or phase out. To avoid dumping coal, we were told we can have clean coal. Cutting carbon emission at source was suddenly considered an uneconomic way of thinking and the preferred path became carbon offsetting. So, polluters are permitted to carry on polluting provided they can show that an equivalent of their emissions is compensated for by those who pollute less or by mechanisms that can capture or bury such pollutions. Another sleight of hand was played by pushing a concept of net zero down gullible throats even though everyone knows that net zero is not zero.

At another level we have seen how colours have been used to lull the world to sleep while escalating the exploitation and marketisation of Nature. The green economy was quickly followed by the blue economy. There are blue, green, grey, turquoise, and other colours of hydrogen. All these are plied to show that a choice of colour can clear your conscience and allow a particular action to be acceptable or to attain certain degrees of acceptability.

It was in recognition of the potency of words that Oil Companies turned to calling themselves Energy Companies. If oil tends to soil anyone’s hand, certainly what energy does is to strengthen you. So, Energy Corporations swagger into the communities and continue their polluting activities with reckless abandon.

Polluters have not only adopted colours and words to hide their crimes, sometimes they simply subvert the meaning of words that previously provided moorings for a drifting world. A key word in this bracket is sustainability. Truth be told, the meaning of the word is now thrown into the air. The United Nations Brundtland Commission in 1987 defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” That original definition ought to stick to our memories and keep us on guard so that subverted definitions do not become acceptable and thus aid dysfunctions to become normalized. An example is when an oil company issues an annual “sustainability report” while mindlessly engaging in persistent ecological destruction or ecocide. This led Health of Mother Earth Foundation to adopt a hyphenated Sustain-Ability so that we emphasise that anything that does not sustain the ability cannot be termed sustainability. Another hyphenated word is re-source which eliminates the consideration of the gifts of nature as mere commodities but require that we recognize the sources, return to the sources and see them as what they are both tangibly or otherwise.

How about when a military establishment announces that they would carry out an environment-friendly warfare?

The climate arena births many words, besides the ones already mentioned, that we must be wary of. Such words include decarbonisation as a process of moving in a low carbon economy. The wedlock to carbon is so strongly welded by capital that there appears to be no life beyond carbon. This is why the possibility of defossilization appears anathema to carbon moguls.

Most people agree that an energy transition is vitally essential if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. That transition basically refers to a shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. There is however plenty of acrobatics over what constitutes green or renewable energy resources. There are pundits who argue that nuclear power is renewable, ignoring its hazardous life cycle — from cradle to its dubious grave. Someone may even argue that hydroelectric energy, hydrogen, nuclear or thermonuclear energy are clean energy modes.

The necessity of a shift from dirty to renewable energy has triggered a rush for the minerals required for the process. The extractivist mindset that drives capitalism, and violence threw up a powerful word to numb the sensibilities and permit destructive mining of the minerals. That word is “critical”. The key resources needed for renewable energy components are thus termed critical minerals. The connotation is that if you stop or slow down the extraction of these minerals you can be accused of being against the transition to renewable energy. This subtle label permits violence, displacement and environmental genocide in many nations and territories, but especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Nothing is clean or “renewable” if it reproduces patterns of territorial exploitation and degradation epitomized by fossil fuels extraction.

The power in the use of words and the subversive twist of meanings requires epistemic challenges, including the creation of new words and phrases. New words are birthed so regularly that older people sometimes have difficulties understanding the language of youths. In Nigeria words creep into common vocabulary through music, movies and street yarns. Such new words include japa and kpai. To japa means to emigrate out of one’s country, while kpai means to die, and to kpai something means to kill that thing.

The call for epistemic reclamation of the true meaning of certain words is an anti-colonial enterprise. We also see this in the concept of thingification as espoused by Aimé Césaire in his  “Discourse on Colonialism,” where he characterized thingification as a situation where a colonized subject is reduced to a thing, objectified along with the land and resources, and used as a commodity. Our reading here is that we can forfeit our very being when words are used to invisibilize us or our territories.

In our struggle to have community-centered just energy transition we believe that the primary focus must be to keep fossils in the ground. To do this requires bold actions and a robust challenge on our imaginaries. One approach is to learn from the David and Goliath battles that communities and territories have successfully waged against corporate giants and their allied political structures. We propose a learning from the Ogoni people of the Niger Delta, Nigeria and the Waraoni people in the Yasuni territory of Ecuador. With due deference to their rugged resistance to the claws of fossil fuel extraction machines we call this resistance Ogonizing and Yasunizing. The clarion call is for the world to Ogonize and Yasunize.

As a working definition we see Ogonize and Yasunize to mean “a call for the protection of territories with natural or cultural diversity threatened by serious environmental impacts such as from oil and gas extraction, open cast mining, and other mega-projects.”

Here is the background to the birthing of these words. Yasuni is a territory in Ecuador where the people voted in a national referendum in 2023 to keep the oil in the ground. Over 59% of voters chose to end oil extraction activities in the Ishpingo, Tiputini, and Tambococha (ITT) oil fields, located inside the Yasuni Park. Ogoni is a territory in the Niger Delta where the people halted oil extraction in 1993 by declaring Shell a persona non grata. This move led to the militarization of Ogoniland and the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa who was the leader of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) and eight other Ogoni leaders on 10 November 1995. Because the people have remained ogonized (and are not agonizing) they have stood their ground and rejected efforts by colonial extractors to return to the oil fields of Ogoniland.

To Ogonize and to Yasunize is to reject the culture of poverty and death and to stand for the wellbeing of Mother Earth and her children. It is to stand for Ubuntu, Etiuwem and buen vivre.

It is a decolonial struggle against authoritarian extractivism and other socioecological misbehaviours.

Rejecting Food Colonialism

According to a popular adage, “when solving a problem, dig at the roots instead of just hacking at the leaves”. The challenge of food insecurity in Nigeria/Africa requires a deliberate pause and critical thinking about the factors that have created it and a concerted effort at addressing them. Overlooking the root causes of food insecurity (including farmer-herder clashes, banditry), poor support for local farmers, poverty, inequality, inflation, climate change and others shows the lack of readiness to solve the problem.

The gates for the entry of GMOs into Nigeria were flung open in 2015 with the enactment of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act. This act was further expanded in 2019 to allow for gene editing and synthetic biology. Sadly the biosafety Act was preceded by the creation of National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA), an agency created to promote modern biotechnology. It was later christened National Biotechnology Research and Development Agency NBRDA). To be clear, this agency was established at a time there was no biosafety law in the country. The cart was clearly put before the horse and this seriously injured any effort to regulate the sector and ensure biosafety in the country. This is particularly so because the promotion agency has a deep embryonic connection with the agency that ought to regulate it. This warped governmental approach has made it impossible for policy makers to see biosafety as an existential issue.

These two agencies of government can be excused for seeing themselves as infallible and even as being the government itself. They see GMOs as a one size fits all solutions. They virtually forget other areas of modern biotechnology and set their eyes only on gutting our agricultural and food  systems,  Solutions such as the genetic engineering of plants/animals do not address these root causes and we should be worried that there is such an adamant push to entrench them in our food systems by the producers and their allies in government. There is obviously an open conspiracy to counter our best interests while locking in colonial controls over our agricultural and food systems.

GMOs are promoted in Nigeria on the premise of addressing food insecurity. However, after almost three decades since their introduction in the world, they have not eradicated or reduced hunger. Rather, they lock in the system that promotes hunger by degrading soils and poor harvests (case of Nigerian cotton farmers in 2024), reducing biodiversity, disregarding the knowledge of local food producers, and concentrating power in the hands of a few market players. 

GMOs ride on the wave of global fetishization of technology by which technology is considered a silver bullet. Besides the generally poor regulatory frameworks, GMOs directly impact on human as well as socio-economic rights of our peoples. The complex threats including environmental degradation, and loss of our food heritage make it expedient that we examine the push for GMOs on the continent more critically. We must debunk the notion that resisting GMOs is akin to opposing science or technology. Reject GMOs is also not a matter of fear, except the fear of being colonized with its attendant exploitation and humiliation.

It is important to stress that GMOs represent a paradigm shift in agriculture; they are not just an option or solution. We must think beyond the mythical temporary relief that is imagined or promised and consider what long term impacts they portend. GMOs are plants, animals, or microorganisms that have undergone fundamental changes at the cellular level and can no longer be considered natural. Most of them are engineered to withstand dangerous herbicides which kill other organisms except the engineered ones. Other crops are genetically engineered to act as pesticides aimed ostensibly to kill identified pests that would otherwise attack the crop or seeds. Examples include Bt Cotton and Bt Cowpea or beans approved for commercial planting and consumption in Nigeria.

GMOs represent the subversion of Africa’s food systems which was intentionally constructed through the colonization of thought — a phenomenon concretized through persistent coloniality of knowledge and power. You may wonder why anyone would subvert another’s food system. The reasons for this are many. The colonizers think and act in their own interests. This subversion covers every area of production and  ensures that labour is not invested for meeting local needs while expanding and consolidating labour to meet the needs of the colonizers. By emphasizing a cash economy, for instance, farmers are forced to neglect their own nutritional needs, and are derided as subsistence farmers, and are made to offer their labour in exchange for meager wages. When the exploiting colonizers are kind, they turn the farmers into mere out growers who own nothing, are given seeds to cultivate and are thereafter given a fraction of the harvests. The colonial powers scored double on this count by introducing slavish plantation agriculture which grabs lands, displaces communities and offers locals menial jobs as farm hands or guards. 

Colonial agriculture thrived not only by producing crops for export, but it also benefited from altering the appetites of the colonized. These changes did not happen only through advertisements; the indigenous foods were denigrated as uncivilized and sometimes simply forgotten due to a chronic absence of the crops or ingredients for preparing the foods. Today, the erosion of varieties is exacerbated by many related factors including genetic manipulations, hybridization of crop varieties, prevalence of junk foods and hostile seed laws.

Our farmers saved seeds are falsely deemed inefficient, whereas these seeds are indigenous and have the natural ability to adapt and thrive in prevailing circumstances in which they are grown. It must never be forgotten that our farmers have selected and preserved seeds, crops, and animal varieties over the centuries. They have kept a stock of varieties that both provide food and meet our medicinal, cultural and other needs. They kept the norms that preserved biodiversity. They practiced rotational farming, mixed cropping, strategic pastoralism, and seasonal fishing. They understood the rhythms of nature and maintained the natural equilibrium by being respectful of the Earth.

These practices are being threatened by the genetic modification of seeds particularly those that make up our staple foods. Core concerns about the control of seeds are being ignored by many but these should be confronted head on and now is the time to do so. Our farmers will be forced to depend on corporate seed entities for seeds as productivity of GM seeds typically degrades after the first planting. Overtime, we risk losing our genetic diversity and control of our seeds to these foreign entities who are merely after profits no matter the cost to human life or the environment.

Responsible use of technology in agriculture requires that we keep careful watch on their effect on human and environmental health. We also need to consider the fact that technologies that promote monoculture and erode our biodiversity are not sustain-able and must be avoided in a world that is almost at the brink of ecological collapse. We cannot afford to make a fetish of techno fixes or consider them to be silver bullets. We do not need GMOs to be able to produce enough food for our population. GMOs have not led to an increase of food production since their introduction. In 2025, it was reported that Tanzania achieved food sufficiency by 128% without GMOs and by increasing support for their local farmers and by promoting organic food production. Recent studies have revealed that more than 40% of food produced in Nigeria goes to waste due to lack of proper processing and storage facilities. This needs to be addressed.

We must decolonise our agricultural system. The ways to achieve this include the preservation of crop and animal varieties, rebuilding our food systems, thereby, recovering our culture. A decolonized agriculture invests in support systems for farmers, including by providing extension services and providing/upgrading rural infrastructure. It also means preserving local varieties, ensuring that farmers have access to land and, funding research institutions to build a knowledge base on healthy soils and resilient indigenous crops. It would also mean putting farmers on the driving seat of agricultural policy, elevating and prioritizing the precautionary principle in biosafety issues, and outlawing harmful herbicides and pesticides. It would again mean placing a swift moratorium on all types of agricultural modern biotechnology as this is a key means of eroding species varieties besides threatening outright extinctions.

Nigeria is at a critical point where we must decide on the way forward for food sovereignty. This is not just another symposium. It is a space where we must exert our rights, and demand for the liberation of our food system.

Keynote by Nnimmo Bassey, Executive Director of HOMEF, at the National Symposium on GMOs held at Qualibest Grand Hotel, Utako, Abuja, on 1 September 2025.

Needed Socioecological Cohesion

The fabric of the social and environmental conditions of Nigeria are literally stretched to the limit. The threats emanate from local and global strands of the polycrisis wracking the globe. Exploitation, displacements, conflicts, climate chaos, socioeconomic inequities combine to threaten the tenuous fabrics holding our nation and peoples together. Desertification, deforestation, extreme water and air pollution, deadly floods, coastal and gully erosion, insecure farms and diverse ecological devastations all merit a declaration of national environmental security state of emergency? The widespread environmental challenges also provide clear platforms for collective work to salvage the situation in ways that political coalitions may not.

Waiting before acting is a luxury the people cannot afford. The clarion call for action is urgent and critically existential. This reality inspired the Nigeria Socioecological Alternatives Convergence (NSAC). Regrettably at this second outing the conditions remain dire. We remain undaunted because we understand that the struggle for the change we need cannot be a sprint because it has to be a comprehensive overhaul of a system entrenched by indifference and lack of accountability. The socioecological alternatives we propagate must overturn the current predatory system of destructive extraction and shredded ecological safety nets. Our charter has to construct a Nigeria that is decolonial and post extractivist.

In the maiden national convergence, we collectively agreed to a national charter for socioecological justice.  Even as we achieved that major milestone we had hopes that at a future date, we would have participants from other African countries. That future has come faster than we expected. At this convergence we have participants from Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. We also have other international partners. The reality of having an African Socioecological Alternatives Convergence (ASAC) is drawing near. 

There are sources to learn from in efforts to overhaul environmental governance in our nation.

  • In Africa, Kenya and South Africa have constitutional provisions for environmental rights that we can learn from.
  • The South American countries of Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela have constitutional provisions for the rights of Nature.
  • The Rights of Nature includes the right for Nature to be free from pollution. It also places obligations on human at a number of levels. The Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth is yet to be universally adopted[1].
  • There is a strong campaign for the recognition of ecocide as a crime in the Rome Statute in line with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc.
  • We already have outcomes of litigations as well as reports that show evidence of ecocide in Nigeria and these could back up the urgency of the crisis . Two of such reports are the UNEP Report ( Environmental Assessment of Ogoni environment, 2011) and the Bayelsa State Oil and Environment Commission Report (Environmental Genocide, 2023). 
  • Delta State House of Assembly is working on a bill to recognize the personhood of River Ethiope. The 2014 National Confab had recommendations for justiciability of human and environmental rights 

According to the NSAC Charter, ‘Our vision is of a Nigeria where ecological integrity, social justice, and economic wellbeing coexist. We must birth a Nigeria where the rights of nature are respected, where communities have control over their resources and enjoy resource democracy, and where everyone has access to clean air, water, and a healthy environment.’

The key demands of the NSAC Charter include 

·       Access to water as a human right

·       Recognise the Rights of Nature

·       Inclusive policy development 

·       Just energy transition from a polluting and epileptic dirty energy model to renewable energy

·       Job transitioning

·       Transition to agroecology

·       Ensure biosafety and biosecurity, ban genetically modified organisms  

·       Halt deforestation, promote reforestation 

·       Protect our wetlands and halt indiscriminate land reclamation 

·       Invest in flood control infrastructure 

·       Enforcement of mining regulations 

·       Decommissioning of mines and oil wells at end of life 

·       Compensations for job losses and reparations for ecological damage to affected communities

·       Ecological audit — State of the Nigerian environment 

·       Environmental remediation 

·       Accessible and affordable clean energy. Energy democracy

·       Revamped emergency response mechanisms 

·       Reject false solutions to climate change, including carbon offsets, geoengineering, etc

·       Halt gas flaring

·       Halt and reversal of divestments by IOCs

·       Declare no mining zones

The environment supports our life and exploitation of nature’s gifts must be conducted in manners that do not disrupt or breach the cycles of nature.  As part of nature, humans have responsibilities and obligations regarding how we interact with our environment and other beings we share the planet with. Human activities contribute to the squeezing we are experiencing from desertification in northern Nigeria and the erosion washing away our communities on the coastline. Sixty-eight (68) years of extraction of fossil fuels has rendered the Niger Delta a disaster zone. Climate impacts and environmental genocide leave festering sores on the territory. Uncontrolled solid mineral extraction is poking holes across the land, and these combined with long abandoned but non-decommissioned mines are scars that we cannot ignore. 

Let us together ‘Yasunize’ and ‘Ogonize’ by demanding the protection of communities and territories with natural or cultural diversity against activities that cause serious environmental impacts, such as from oil and gas extraction, open cast mining, and other mega-projects. We must wake up and demand a change of mentality. Our leaders must Arise and be true compatriots, not lords or emperors, even if that anthem has been placed on the shelf. Oil for development has placed Nigeria on a treadmill surrounded by voracious and insatiable forces of exploitation, expropriation and extermination. 

The major focus of this Convergence is Examining Relevant National Policies and Frameworks for Addressing Environmental, Climate Change and Socio-ecological Challenges. We have an erudite professor and climate change expert to set the tone for our deliberations. We look forward to learning about those critical planks for addressing the subject. We will also hear how the policies and frameworks which he has helped formulate and frame over the years are faring.

NSAC is a space for the convergence of ideas, sharing of wisdom and passion. We note the critical role of communities in nation building and believe that any nation that sidelines communities is on a very slippery slope. This is why we must do all we can to stand with our peoples, build cohesion for socioecological transformation and ensure communities are embedded as key players in defining the direction of a truly just energy and social transition.

It is our collective space. It is our time. Welcome.

Welcome words by Nnimmo Bassey, Director of HOMEF, at the 2nd Nigeria Socioecological Alternatives Convergence held at Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre, Abuja, on 14 July 2025.

[1] https://www.rightsofmotherearth.com/declaration

Our Ocean and Human Rights

Today we are considering the state of our ocean—not as a commodity to be exploited, but as a common good that sustains life, livelihoods, our culture and spirituality. Our ocean is under siege, and the communities that depend on it bear the brunt of pollution, displacement, and human rights abuses.

 Across the coastline of Nigeria, community folks are being forced from their territories, deprived of their resources and left to grapple with the consequences of laxly regulated natural resource exploitation.

The economic forces driving this destruction prioritize profit over people, extracting resources beyond the ocean’s capacity, and leave behind a trail of ecological devastation. The infrastructure of Nigeria’s economy begin at our shorelines and extend to the deep waters where resources are extracted— and coastal communities who bear the pressures from the land and the sea remain trapped in poverty. We cannot ignore the countless oil well blowouts that have polluted our waters: Akaso Well 4, Atanba, Bonny Terminal, Buguma Wellhead 008, Santa Barbara, and the ongoing inferno at Ororo Oil Well 1 at Awoye, Ondo State, which has been raging for close to five years now, among others. These disasters are ecological crimes that contribute to climate instability, and a worsening scarcity of land and water, placing entire communities and livelihoods at risk.

We live with the struggles of fishermen and women who set out each day with their nets and baskets, only to find empty waters—enclosed and sacrificed for industrial dredging, multinational oil companies and corporate fishing. A Community like Aiyetoro with its history of well organized governance and industrial strides is now a ghost of its former self, bashed and washed by unrelenting waves and left to grapple with unrelenting impacts of global warming and possibly heading for complete displacement unless we act.

We acknowledge the plight of Makoko’s communities, whose rights to housing, food, and health have been trampled by forces that would be happy to have the people displaced so the waterfront can be grabbed by speculators. Overall, the destruction of marine biodiversity disproportionately affects fishing communities, making them the most vulnerable to environmental degradation.

Our fight to defend the ocean is inseparable from the fight for human rights and justice. We must resist the unchecked advances of transnational polluters in our ocean and demand accountability. We must protect our biodiversity, our land, and our water from the destructive forces of exploitative capitalism seeking to privatize the commons. It is time to rethink our relationship with nature—to take only what can be replenished and respect the delicate balance that sustains us all.

Governments must act—not as enablers of destruction, but as stewards of the environment, ensuring that decisions about natural resources are made with the full participation of the communities who rely on them. Nigeria has signed so many conventions and treaties regarding the wellbeing of marine ecosystems.We even have designated Marine Protected Areas whose protection is disputable. Our constitution may be said to have a tilt towards ensuring the right to life, but there can be no right to life without the right to a safe environment.

This workshop is more than a gathering—it is a platform for us all as oceanographers, marine scientists, government agencies, civil society organizations, and community leaders to reflect, strategize, and commit to the urgent task of defending our ocean. Coming on the heels of the International Wetlands Day, we use this opportunity to take a stand against so-called land reclamation which should rightly be named aquatic ecosystems conversion and grabbing. We have seen wetlands and dependent economies destroyed by urbanization and diverse speculators. We are also seeing swaths of the ocean and public beaches being converted into fenced housing estates or so-called superhighways. These disregard the fact that the state of the ocean directly affects the climate, reflects on the quality of our lives and the capacity of the Earth to maintain her cycles and support all beings.

Let us seize this moment to build a future where our ocean is protected, our rights are upheld, and our communities thrive.

——-

Nnimmo Bassey’s Opening Comments at the State of the Ocean Workshop held at the NIOMR on 3 February 2025

COP29 and Climate Geopolitics

Activists in an action at COP29

As COP29 dragged into overtime the expected climate finance target of at least $1.3 trillions of dollars shrunk to an offer of $250 billion per year from 2035. After much bickering  the rich countries decided to raise its offer from $250 billion to $300 billion.  This does not indicate that there is a consensus about the urgency for developed nations to pay up for squandering the carbon budget and bringing the world to the brink of climate change catastrophe. Additionally, by pushing the date for providing needed funds a decade down the road, it does appear that there is no consideration about what the scale of the climate disasters may be by 2035 and what would be the value of $250 or $300 billion then. Developing, vulnerable and poor nations have rightly insisted that whatever funds are made available must not come as loans or instruments that would increase their already huge debt burdens.

 Another sad fact is that any offer made is basically nothing more than an offer as the pledges are not enforceable by law. In 2009 the pledge was to pay $10bn dollars yearly from 2010 to 2020 and raise that to $100bn from 2020. Those targets never materialized. The polluters never want to accept responsibility for the climate crisis, or to support the poor vulnerable nations financially at scale. The COP is an arena for geopolitical games, with polluters arrogantly making it seem they are doling out charity to climate victims. When negotiators throw out statistics and speak of temperature and finance targets the tendency is for us to forget about climate change affects real people and not mere numbers. Little consideration is given to the victims, and the billions of dollars they are already investing on their own in their desperate struggles to survive the onslaught of floods, droughts and destruction. 

 COP29 ended on a whimper, and as a big disappointment on many fronts. It had opened with a broad acceptance of Article 6.4 thus literally opening the floodgates for carbon markets and other elements of carbon market environmentalism. Rather than cutting emissions at source, nations and carbon speculators had a field day raising the banners of false solutions including those promoting carbon colonialism through carbon trading and geoengineering. Some even projected nuclear and fossil gas as clean energy pathways. 

 Whereas at COP28 there was a decision to transition away from fossil fuels for energy, at this COP that reference is completely off the table except by merely referencing “article 28” of the UAE outcome document. That must have ranked as a huge success for the petrostates and the over 1750 fossil fuels lobbyists at the COP who do not mind burning down the planet if there is a chance of inheriting the ashes. However, there was a strong presence of civil society and indigenous activists calling for a Yasunization of the world. Their cry, Yasunize the World, echoed the decisive vote of Ecuadorians to keep crude oil in the soil at Yasuni ITT oil field.

 The COP, labeled a Climate COP, crawled on divergent tracks towards achieving a level of climate finance with parties marching without moving, regarding levels of climate action ambition. Talks of loss and damage and other instruments of climate finance became largely muted. In their place emerged a contentious concept of New Collective Quantified Goals (NCQG) – a phantom possibly aimed at erasing the justice base of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) by requiring that everyone contributes to the finance pot in the same thought pattern that birthed the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), the hallmark of voluntary emissions reduction according to convenience.

 Perhaps an extension of the NCQG logic made a Nigerian minister to contentiously claim that China and India are not developing countries. This claim aligns with the assertions of some developed nations intent on breaking the solidarity within developing nations and thereby avoiding doing their fair share regarding climate finance and other actions. Truth is that China and India remain squarely within the geopolitical and economic grouping of developing nations because “developing” cannot be a tag reserved for nations in economic stagnation or regression. Now is a critical moment for vulnerable nations and allies to stand together in the determination that justice must remain the bedrock of climate negotiations and action. Historical responsibility must align with commensurate action and everyone should humbly accept this fact because, although huge investments are being made in intergalactic pursuits, we have only one Earth.

 

 

 

Privatized and Sacrificed

The Niger Delta is a privatized zone by the simple reason that the international oil companies have since appropriated it as a wasteland suited only for dumping of toxic wastes, oil spills, gas flares and produced water.  The privatization of the region began in 1956 when the first commercially viable oil well was drilled, and has continued unabated. The privatization has been so obnoxious because since the creeks, streams, rivers and swamps became waste dumps, they have been fit for no other purpose than to serve the private needs of the polluting corporations.

The UNEP report (August 2011) on the assessment of the Ogoni environment and the Bayelsa State Oil and Environment Commission (BSOEC) report (May 2023) attest to the fact that the region has been wholly grabbed.

The total dispossession of our peoples of their environment, disconnection from their roots and despoliation of what is left is worse than slavery and colonialism. Indeed the nearest label that can be placed on the situation may be environmental racism. Colonialism could plunder and mete inhuman treatment to its subjects, but environmental racism normalizes the treatment of both the people and their environment as non-living, subhuman and fit for nothing but to be trashed.

Kwame Nkrumah wrote spoke 0f exploitation without redress in his book titled Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism (1965):

“Neo-colonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress. In the days of old-fashioned colonialism, the imperial power had at least to explain and justify at home the actions it was taking abroad. In the colony those who served the ruling imperial power could at least look to its protection against any violent move by their opponents. With neo-colonialism neither is the case.”

This gives an apt explanation of why the Niger Delta has become a sacrificed zone with ostensible acts of defense actually turning to acts of indignities and degradation. It is clear that we cannot escape or reverse the perverse situation unless we reboot our imaginaries, recreate our mindsets and reconnect ourselves to our environmental and sociocultural milieu. We need to rediscover our indigenous sovereignty as the core plank in the struggle for political as well as for socioecological liberation. Frantz Fanon in Black Skin, White Masks (1952) touched on this when he declared, “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

It is hard to find anywhere else in the world that has been so insidiously trampled underfoot than the Niger Delta and other hotspots of mineral extraction in Nigeria and also in Africa generally. In this regard we note that the tin mines of Jos have been sacrificed abandoned. The same can be said of the coal mines of Enugu and other rising zones of plunder ruled by bandits and so-called unknown gunmen. Indeed, neocolonialism would probably not have progressed the way it has without the compromise of our elites in all spheres of human endeavour. These traitors gladly take the place of slave drivers and colonial masters and ensure the privatization of our commons and our commonwealth through devious legislation and through pure elite capture of the socioeconomic systems. 

The BSOEC report titled An Environmental Genocide tells of Bayelsa State as having a per capita hydrocarbon pollution of 1.5 barrels. Pause to think of that. 

Between 2006 and 2020, Bayelsa State had 3,508 oil spill incidents or 25% of all oil spills in the Niger Delta according the data from the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (NOSDRA). It suffers an average of 234 oil spills per year. Figures from NOSDRA are notoriously unreliable as it under reports even in comparison to reports from NNPC. 

One bizarre example of a sacrificed zone is the Awoye community of Ondo State which has Ororo 1 well at Oil Mining Lease (OML) 95 in its immediate offshore. That oil well blew up in a fiery inferno in May 2020 and has been burning and spilling till date. In other words, Ororo 1 oil well has been burning and spilling crude oil for 4 years non-stop with nothing being done to halt the crime. The ongoing sacrifice has impoverished the people in the coastal communities by decimating their livelihoods — farming and fishing. 

Zones of sacrifice are dotted all over our continent with all having roots in extractivism incubated by colonialism. Here we can mention the gold mines of Ghana and South Africa; the diamond, cobalt and lithium mines of Democratic Republic of Congo; the diamond mines of Liberia and Sierra Leone; the oil fields of the Albertine Graben in Uganda,  Okavango basin  in Namibia and Botswana, the Saloum Delta of Senegal, the Sudd in South Sudan; the coal mines of South Africa; the gas fields of Cabo Delgado in Mozambique; the phosphate fields of Togo and Western Sahara, to mention a few. 

When our territories are sacrificed, it is not just that our land is debased, we are the ones being sacrificed. This becomes clearer to us when we realize that, for a fact, rather than being owners of the land we are actually the land. To liberate ourselves from this exploitative cul de sac, we must know that environmental action is an investment, not a cost. Every action we take today towards ending the sacrifice of our territories is an investment towards reinventing an environment that does not eat us up.


Welcome Words by Nnimmo Bassey at School of Ecology on Recovering Oil Sacrifice Zones  by HOMEF @ Niger Delta University, Amasoma, Bayelsa State, Nigeria, on 2nd  August 2024