The New ECOWAS Action Plan on the Drug Problem in West Africa

Experts and ministers on drugs from the 15 ECOWAS countries met in Abuja, Nigeria on 5th September as part of an on-going effort to address the drug problem and organised crime within the region. The meeting sought to appraise and review the implementation of the current ECOWAS “Regional Action Plan on Illicit Drug Trafficking, Organised Crime and Drug Abuse within West Africa”, and to approve its successor.

Governments within the sub-region have always made efforts to address the drug problem through the adoption of various methods and strategies over the years. ECOWAS initially put in place, adopted and endorsed its Political Declaration and Regional Action Plan on drugs for 2008 to 2011, which was then extended until 2015.

Prior to the ministerial meeting, experts on the subject matter – as well as stakeholders from member states, the African Union (AU), the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), INTERPOL and the European Union (EU) – deliberated on strategies to address the drug problem in West Africa, and to agree a new Regional Action Plan for 2016-2021.

The new Action Plan has seen some improvements in terms of the strategies to be adopted by Governments of the sub-region in addressing the global drug problem. For example, it specifically targets high and middle-level drug offenders, while offering alternatives to incarceration for people who use drugs – including treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration services where needed.

ECOWAS continues to demonstrate a strong commitment to addressing the drug problem in the region by facilitating the availability of a wide range of evidence-based treatment options, including opioid substitution therapy. The Action Plan also calls for harm reduction services to be made available, which is a great step taken by ECOWAS. It also includes a commitment to review and collate drug policies across the region.

In addition, ECOWAS has set up the West African Epidemiology Network on Drug Use (WENDU) for the collection and collation of epidemiological data at the regional and national levels. The Network is present in all 15 ECOWAS members states and includes a focus on drug treatment demand indicators and aggregate data on drug supply to inform policies.

The key role of civil society in the fight against drugs cannot be downplayed, not least because civil society organisations often offer services for marginalised groups that most governments are unable to provide themselves. The Action Plan recognises this, and clearly calls for strong partnerships with civil society as well as continued work with the West Africa Commission on Drugs.

In as much as ECOWAS is to be commended for these efforts and positive steps taken, there is still the need to address key issues like the need for decriminalisation (which is distinct from legalisation), proportionality in our sentencing, and government support for proven harm reduction services. These need to be strong calls made by ECOWAS, as people continue to be punished, marginalised and tormented through inhumane criminal justice responses, with lives being ruined just for the possession of small amounts of a drug. 

One other issue that has not been given enough attention in the ECOWAS Action Plan is needed to protect the basic human rights of people who use drugs. Everyone has the right to life, to health and to freedom from persecution: it is no different when it comes to people who use drugs. Yet in most West African countries, these people are considered violent and a threat to society, and are denied access to quality healthcare facilities. ECOWAS needs to urgently address the lack of quality health services available for people who use drugs, and work to make them accessible.

Finally, West African governments should also be providing alternative livelihoods for people who engage in cannabis cultivation in the region. Even though the ECOWAS Action Plan seeks to create employment avenues for people who grow cannabis as a source of livelihood, the on-going criminalisation of subsistent farmers needs to be critically reviewed.

By Maria-Goretti Ane, 

Will Ghana be in breach of the international drug conventions if they decriminalize drugs for personal use?

In my opinion, I do not see Ghana being at risk of violating the conventions by moving towards decriminalization of drugs for personal use. Many are those who fear that Ghana risk being painted by the International  Narcotics Control Board  as they  descended on Switzerland and Uruguay years back when the two nations legalized the narcotic product where it was alleged that, The International Narcotic Control Board (INCB) accused Uruguay of ‘’Pirate attitude.''

Ghana does not stand being painted with same brush – mainly because the INCB itself has significantly changed and updated its narrative on this topic in recent years (and since the “pirate” comments were made by the previous President). INCB is now supportive of harm reduction responses and the removal of criminal sanctions in favor of alternative measures.

The INCB’s role is to monitor and enforce implementation of the First of all, the objective of the three international drug conventions, and the main objective of these conventions is the health and welfare of mankind-centered. Their original intention was to make essential medications available for the relief of pain and the alleviation of suffering, while preventing their non-medical or recreational use protecting the people, particularly the most vulnerable, from the potentially dangerous effects of these controlled drugs. Crucially, and has been repeatedly acknowledged by INCB and the UNODC.

The preamble of the 1961 Convention indicates that the main reason to consider these drugs as dangerous is their capacity to induce “addiction.” The drafters of the 1961 Convention were aware of the risk of those controlled drugs to affected individuals, and, in turn, the social and economic dangers related to addictive behavior.  Regarding possession, purchase or cultivation of controlled drugs for personal consumption, i.e. not for medical or scientific purposes, the 1988 Convention determines that these actions shall be established as criminal offenses. However, this obligation is subject to States parties’ constitutional principles or basic concepts of their legal systems. 

The same Convention also indicates that States parties may provide measures for treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social reintegration as an alternative to conviction or punishment. Therefore, the Conventions do not require the punishment of possession, purchase or cultivation for personal use. That is why, under the Conventions, de-penalisation of possession, purchase or cultivation of controlled drugs for personal use is possible, under specific circumstances.

It should be noted that decriminalization (de facto): -drug possession for personal use remains illegal (a punishable offense), but the action taken in response to this offense does not necessarily lead to punishment. In fact, a more effective alternative to punishment can be social protection and detoxification services, health care, treatment of dependence and reintegration into society. 

Also, the 1988 Convention indicates that in cases focused on drug dealers, the legislation should identify and divert cases of a minor nature from the criminal justice system. For example, as has  already happened  in many countries, individuals selling a small amount of drugs with the intent to obtain the money to maintain their habit as drug addicts do not receive the same institutional response given to criminals managing drugs as an illicit and profitable business. For these reasons, Article 3, Paragraph 4 (c) of the 1988 Convention states that “in appropriate cases of a minor nature,”  the parties may provide “as alternatives to conviction or punishment” measures such as education, rehabilitation or social reintegration, as well as treatment and aftercare. 

Treatment, as an alternative to prison, is mentioned in many provisions of the Conventions, clearly indicating that individuals affected by drug use disorders do not need to be criminally punished. See Art. 36, para. 1 (b) of the 1961 Convention; Art. 22, para. 2 (b) of the 1971 Convention; Art. 3, para. 4 (b) of the 1988 Convention. So clearly, the conventions in their clear language allows for decriminalization and so Ghana will not be in breach of the said conventions if they do so.

CANNABIS MAY BE HARMFUL, BUT CRIMINALIZATION IS MORE HARMFUL

I have read the article by Dr. Kwasi Osei, Acting Chief Executive Officer for Mental Health Authority where he raised concerns about cannabis legalization in Ghana. I will like to assure him and others that, civil society in Ghana are NOT CALLING FOR LEGALIZATION. What we are calling for is DECRIMINALIZATION of drugs for personal use.

Let me assure our readers that; the two models are never the same thing as many writers have deliberately chosen to confuse the debate. In these debates, decriminalization is often confused with legalization.  Under legalization, the sale, acquisition, use and possession of drugs are legal and regulated by Government. Our current policies regulating alcohol and tobacco are core examples of this approach in practice. Under this regime, the drug trade is taken away from criminal gangs, whose lucrative illegal markets are undercut and reduced.

On the other hand, under the decriminalization model adopted by a number of countries around the world, the use and personal possession of drugs remain prohibited – but is no longer a crime: it is instead punishable by administrative sanctions much like traffic violation offenses.  Sanctions may include fines, community-based service orders, warnings, education classes, – or no penalty at all.

The said article also points to the fact that he is to some extent, in favor of decriminalization, however, our only point of disagreement is his view that decriminalization should only apply to problematic drug users. In our view, decriminalization should apply to anyone who uses drugs irrespective of whether you are a recreational or a problematic user.

It is an undeniable fact that cannabis may be harmful to the consumer, but we need to understand that we do not need to add to this harm by criminalizing people who use them. Criminalization has proven to be worse. Criminalization poses both social and health harms and risks to Ghanaians, so we must make sure we mitigate those risks and take an effective harm reduction approach to protecting our communities,  our kids, and the health of Ghanaians by decriminalizing use.

What we need to ask ourselves now is, If drugs are primarily a health issue, why is the primary response punitive or repressive in nature, involving the police and military, rather than doctors and health professionals? In which other areas of public health do we criminalize patients we are aiming to help?

Drug-related issues are cross-cutting, they are a range of policy areas, but for illegal drugs, the balance has shifted to the point where consideration of public health has been increasingly marginalized by an excessive focus on enforcement, as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has itself noted.

The rationale behind decriminalization is to reduce the harms associated with criminalizing people who use drugs because there are several risks associated with drug use – not least HIV and other infections, and the thousands of drug-related deaths every year.

The negative impact of criminalizing people who use drugs continues to be an area of serious concerns. Individuals have a right to access life-saving health services without fear of punishment or discrimination.  However, the fear of criminal sanctions drives people who use drugs away from life-saving harm reduction services, leading to infections and premature death from HIV and Hepatic C. This notion has been recognized by many UN agencies such as, UNODC, WHO, and the UNDP.

Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and incarceration of people who use drugs and peddlers have proved not only ineffective and enormously expensive as means of correcting the problem, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims.

Prohibitionism has failed to curb or diminish drug use and associated problems, failing even by its metrics and standards; the astronomical numbers of people who use drugs speak for themselves, where estimates point to strikingly high levels of global drug use.

Drug use is never a police problem; it has never been, and never can be solved by police officers. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution, it will be discovered not by police officers, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite.

Despite the fact that most drug offenders are non-violent, the stigma attached to a conviction can prevent employment and education opportunities. Stigma can be compounded and intersected, with drug use becoming a double, triple, or quadruple. Have we thought about the damage done to families by the millions of criminal records handed down to adults as if they do not have wider consequences for children?

Globally, the repressive approaches to drug use continue to be implemented, in spite of there being little evidence to suggest that these policies have yielded positive results, with it being argued by many that the global war on drugs has failed. (Global Commission on Drug Policy 2011:4)

Portugal has gone down the decriminalization route with some success. This has freed up the legal system and cut the cost to the government.

I will like to reiterate for the purpose of the records that, civil society in Ghana is not calling for the legalization of cannabis but rather to decriminalize drug use. This has been extensively discussed in my earlier articles trying to distinguish the two models that has created some confusion in the minds of many Ghanaians. THE CALL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO DECRIMINALIZE to reduce the harm that the laws themselves are causing to the individuals. It is always good to remember what Kofi Annan said, that “ drugs  have harmed many but bad government policies have harmed many more.”  Support Don’t Punish!!          

BY

By Maria-Goretti Ane Loglo                                                                                                           

mariagorettiane.loglo@gmail.com

SETTING THE RECORDS STRAIGHT: DECRIMINALIZATION IS NOT LEGALIZATION OF CONTROLLED DRUGS

The war on drugs represents more than 50 years of wasted resources, lost lives and preventable harms in the lives of people around the world. It has been a war on human beings since the coming into force of the UN Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs in 1961.

Rather than reduce drug use or drug markets, this war has simply washed immense amounts of money down the drain through adopting repressive measures – mainly directed at what has described as the ‘small fry’ (small scale producers and consumers of illicit drugs), rather than the ‘big fish’ who are profiting from this global illicit economy. 

All over the world, repressive drug policies are mostly an ideological and reactionary response to the situation on the ground and are not based on evidence.

It is a massive failure: this situation has not only stigmatized people who use drugs, it has also led to misguided and harmful policy making, an ongoing concerted effort to overstate the dangers of drugs – the primary actors being politicians, law enforcement agencies, and an ill-informed media – and led to a situation where billions of people are unable to access essential medicines for pain relief and palliative care.

The current policy discourages people who use drugs from accessing health services through fear of arrest, and there have been countless violations of the human rights of people in the name of the war on drugs. As a result, the war on drugs is fueling the global HIV epidemic as drug using communities are driven underground and faced with increased risks such as the sharing of needles and syringes that can lead to blood-borne infections.

Mounting evidence shows that there is the need to move towards a new policy approach – one in which progress is measured by public health indicators such as the number of people receiving drug treatment, rather than being measured by seizures and arrests.

New policy initiatives around the world have taken the form of reducing punitive penalties for minor, non-violent drug offenses, and stepping up harm reduction and public health measures to protect people who use drugs (and their communities) from harms such as HIV.

In these debates, decriminalization is often confused with legalization – sometimes by accident, but sometimes on purpose to confuse the discussions. They are not the same thing. Under legalization, the sale, acquisition, use and possession of drugs are legal and regulated by Government. Our current policies regulating alcohol and tobacco are core examples of this approach in practice. Under this regime, the drug trade is taken away from criminal gangs, whose lucrative illegal markets are undercut and reduced.

On the other hand, under the decriminalization model adopted by a number of countries around the world, the use and personal possession of drugs remains prohibited – but is no longer a crime: it is instead punishable by administrative sanctions much like traffic violation offenses are. Sanctions may include fines, community-based service orders, warnings, education classes, – or no penalty at all.

The crucial difference is that, under this regime, drugs are still illegal, but violations do not attract criminal sanctions or criminal records which can create significant barriers to obtaining employment, housing, government benefits, treatment, etc. At the same time, the supply, production, and trafficking of these drugs remain illegal and criminal – and greater law enforcement resources can be focused on these ‘big fish’ instead of the ‘small fry’.

Decriminalization is not a new concept. Some countries never actually criminalized drug use in the first place, and the much-documented experiences of Portugal date back to 2001 when the Government made the decision to decriminalize all drugs for personal use and reinvest the criminal justice savings into health and treatment services.

This debate globally has often generated more heat than light. You often hear questions like "So, are you saying that we should legalize drugs? Should we create a free-for-all for drug users and drug dealers in our communities?” But we just need to look at how this has worked out for Portugal: they have been able to: increase their spending on prevention and treatment; decreased spending for criminal prosecutions and incarceration; dramatically reduce levels of drug-related deaths, and reduce drug use itself among certain age groups. Drug use remains an issue in Portugal, but they have tackled the confounding challenges of stigmatization, marginalization and high incarceration of a substantial proportion of their population just for minor drug offenses.

The rationale behind decriminalization is to reduce the harms associated with criminalizing people who use drugs because there are several risks associated with drug use – not least HIV and other infections, and the thousands of drug-related deaths every year.

Although the international drug control Conventions restrict the use of controlled drugs to medical and scientific purposes, they should not be interpreted as a validation for the repressive war on drugs. The criminalisation of the possession of illicit drugs for personal use was introduced by the 1988 UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances – with Article 3(2) stating:

‘...each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish as a criminal offense under its domestic law when committed intentionally, the possession, purchase or cultivation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances for personal consumption”.

As has been noted by Release and others, the commentary for this Convention says plainly that this paragraph “amounts in fact also to a penalization of personal use.” However, Article 3(2) begins with the statement that any measures adopted shall be "subject to its constitutional principles and the basic concepts of its legal systems." 

Furthermore, Article 36 of the 1961 Convention states that countries “may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment or in addition to conviction or punishment, that such abusers shall undergo measures of treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation and social reintegration.”

This, therefore, allows countries to adopt less punitive approaches to drug possession and use – including decriminalization – without breaching their international responsibilities, as has been formally acknowledged by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Prohibition is built upon a premise that repression will act as a deterrence to drug use and supply. Yet no links exist between levels of criminalisation and levels of drug use – as was recently noted by the UK Home Office in their ‘Drugs: International Comparators’ report. In Ghana, prohibition has not seen a decline in drug use in the country since the coming into force of the Provisional National Defence Council Law 236 in 1990. The use of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine is on the ascendency, with thousands of people, particularly the youth, using drugs.

The current bill in Ghana focuses more on punishment than on providing a legal framework to support people who use drugs as an alternative means of curbing our drug problems. There are very few effective drug treatments available to people who suffer as a result of drug addiction. The current review process of our drug laws (for the first time since 1990) is an excellent opportunity for Ghana to make an assessment of what has worked and what has not worked over the years, and to adopt an effective drug law grounded on the health and wellbeing of its citizens.

Ghana needs to take a cue from other progressive countries and consider the decriminalization of drugs, as well as other alternatives to incarceration.

Maria-Goretti Ane Loglo, IDPC Consultant for Africa

Mariagorettiane.loglo@gmail.com

The Journey to decriminalizing Weed: Why it is important for Ghana

There is a significant academic debate about decriminalization of marijuana in the country, and this has received some degree of political and public support. Some have argued that decriminalization will open a floodgate for drug use in the country, while others (like myself), do not agree and see it instead as the best way to reduce drug use in the country. In practice, repressive drug laws have neither succeeded in reducing drug consumption nor put traffickers out of their lucrative business. Instead, these laws have only driven and expanded the trade underground.

What is the current drug policy regime in Ghana?

The current drug policy in Ghana is very repressive in nature. It is a control approach that has failed to consider the health and wellbeing of those who use drugs. It makes no room for people who need life-saving, harm reduction programs such as needle and syringe distribution and opioid substitution treatments. What this kind of regime has done over the years is to marginalize the majority of our citizens.

Studies have also shown that the criminalization of people who use drugs is often more detrimental to their health than the drug use itself and that this approach does not lower rates of drug use. Moreover, some reports show that the criminal justice response contributes to a climate of stigmatization of, and discrimination against, people who use drugs, which makes it less likely that they will receive impartial treatment from police and the judicial system. Addressing consumption through criminal justice institutions ultimately infringes on various fundamental rights of people who use drugs, including the rights to health, information, personal autonomy and self-determination.

Ghana’s current drug law also lacks proportionality in the sentencing of drug offenses. For instance, possession and trafficking both attract a minimum of 10 years in prison. You can see clearly that there is no distinction in the severity of the offenses. Many countries around the world have already taken steps to amend and update their drug laws – more in line with the ‘Support Don’t Punish’ approach that civil society is advocating for.

Why must we decriminalize drug use?

Over time, there has been an increase in drug consumption in the country. New arrivals of synthetic drugs, which are often even more dangerous, have also been on the rise. For example, HIV and hepatitis C infections have increased among people who inject drugs across West Africa. This has mainly been attributed to the sharing of needles.

Early this year, the International Narcotics Control Board presented its 2015 report in the country, and the report indicated that only 1 out of 18 people who use drugs have access to treatment, although the prevention and treatment of drug abuse are parts of the main provisions of the international drug control conventions.The Report further highlights cannabis use in Ghana as the highest and in Africa as a whole, while heroin comes second, with annual prevalence use remaining as high as 7.5 percent among the population 15- 64 years. The figure is particularly high in West and Central Africa, recording 12.4 per cent.

These statistics clearly show that repressive methods are not working, and the collateral damage that comes with the application of these laws are devastating,  hence the need to adopt approaches that are evidence-based, more humane, and have been proven to work over the years.

The word decriminalization has received a very negative response from society, partly because of ignorance or deliberate confusion of the discussion.Decriminalization applies to the purchase, possession, and consumption of all drugs for personal use.It must be noted that, under a decriminalization model, drug possession for personal use remains illegal and prohibited –but the actions taken in response to this offense do not necessarily lead to criminal sanctions. In fact, a more effective alternative to punishment can be social protection and detoxification services, health care, treatment of dependence, fines and reintegration into society. Under this module, police resources can be channeled towards stopping more serious crimes, rather than being wasted on harassing people who use drugs. It is also crucial to remember that drug supply, trafficking, and production remain criminal actions under this approach.

By decriminalizing a drug, you are protecting young people from the harms of disproportionate and unjustifiable criminalization and harassment, as well as making it more likely that they will be able to seek help and treatment as they will no longer fear arrest or persecution.  Children are often, rightly, placed at the forefront of political justifications for the ‘war on drugs’. But the reality is that children’s rights have been increasingly violated through the current approaches and the levels of drug control measures while drug use and drug-related harms among children have continued to rise.

We need to reform the criminalization provisions in our law books for the use and possession for personal use of drugs. The longer they remain, the more we give law enforcement all the power to decide how it's going to be enforced. What that does is it creates inconsistency among enforcement practices, and it contributes to the ongoing systemic injustices around enforcement of our drug laws.

In 2001,Portugal passed a ground-breaking law when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illicit drugs. More than a decade later, the results of the Portuguese experience demonstrates that drug decriminalization – alongside a deliberate shift in public funding from law enforcement and into treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health.There were fears that Portugal might become a drug free-for-all, but that simply didn’t happen.According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Portugal’s policy has reportedly not led to an increase in drug tourism. It also appears that the number of drug-related problems has decreased including petty stealing among drug users”.

What we need to remember is that, under a decriminalization framework, drug use and possession remain prohibited. What it simply does is that criminal penalties are removed, and other sanctions (such as fines or treatment requirements) are imposed, if at all. Crucially, incarceration is no longer imposed for drug possession or use, and lives are no longer ruined with criminal records.

We should all support this reform because criminalization does not address the root causes of the problem. People who use drugs do not need jail to solve their problems – they need help and support, care and compassion, and not punishment. As we celebrate June 26th, the United Nations’ International Day against Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, the Global Punish campaign aims to raise awareness of the harms being caused by the so-called ‘war on drugs’. We call on our governments to leave behind harmful politics, ideology, and prejudices, and to prioritize the health and welfare of the affected populations, their families, and communities. Arresting and prosecuting these offenses is expensive for our criminal justice system. It traps too many young Ghanaians in the criminal justice system for minor, non-violent offenses.

The time to act is now!

Maria-Goretti Ane Loglo

IDPC CONSULTANT FOR AFRICA&A MEMBER OF THE WEST AFRICA DRUG POLICY NETWORK GHANA CHAPTER

mariagorettiane.loglo@gmail.com

Africa: THE ROAD AFTER THE UNGASS FRACAS: Are things falling apart for Africa? - allAfrica.com

Africa: THE ROAD AFTER THE UNGASS FRACAS: Are things falling apart for Africa? - allAfrica.com

Side Event: Promoting health, human rights and development through a harm reduction approach

Side Event: Promoting health, human rights and development through a harm reduction approach

West Africa Drug Policy Network: WHAT IS UNGASS: How Important is it in the convers...

West Africa Drug Policy Network: WHAT IS UNGASS: How Important is it in the convers...: In April 2016, the member states of the United Nations will gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (U...

Negotiating the UNGASS outcome document: Challenges and the way forward

Negotiating the UNGASS outcome document: Challenges and the way forward: This IDPC advocacy note offers some reflections and recommendations on the negotiation process itself, and some general recommendations on the overarching tone that should be reflected in the final document.

Drug policies in Africa: What is the 'health-based' approach?

Drug policies in Africa: What is the 'health-based' approach?: This IDPC advocacy note elaborates what a health-based approach looks like in practice in Africa, and explores five specific areas that need to be urgently addressed by governments.

[Updated] Elite ‘African Group’ in Vienna undermines AU drug policy

by Kerry Cullinan on February 7, 2016 in Alcohol & Drugs

A small group of African countries with missions in Vienna decided to submit their own document on new drug policy to the UN, despite being given a more enlightened African Union position.

South Africa’s diplomatic mission in Vienna submitted a reactionary position on drug policy to the United Nations, despite African Union member states having worked for months to draft a far more progressive stance.

This emerged at a drug policy conference in Cape Town last week, at which outraged delegates demanded an explanation for why a document from the minority “African Group” (AG) in Vienna was submitted instead of the AU’s “Common African Position” (CAP).

One of the most controversial clauses of the “AG” document is its support for stronger control overketamine, used as an anaesthetic in places without electricity or oxygen supplies.

China is lobbying for ketamine to become a scheduled medicine because of some abuse of it in its country, but this will drastically limit its availability in rural and war-torn areas.

“Hundreds of thousands of people who need emergency surgery will die or suffer intense pain if ketamine becomes a scheduled medicine that can only be prescribed by a doctor,” said Dr Liz Gwyther, CEO of theHospice Palliative Care Association of SA.

Emergency surgery

Ketamine is on the World Health Organisation’s essential medicine list, and WHO official Marie-Paule Kieny says “controlling ketamine internationally could limit access to essential and emergency surgery, which would constitute a public health crisis in countries where no affordable alternatives exist”.

“Something else drafted by Egypt was given to South Africa to submit. Africa needs to speak out. Why shelve the right document, which came out of the consultative process?”

The AG document also does not mention of “harm reduction” options in relation to addicts, focusing only on punishment for those who supply and use illegal drugs.

A UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs is being held in April and there is intense lobbying for policy change. The world is completely polarised, with some countries executing drug users and others legalising many drugs.

South Africa, as chair of the African Group in Vienna – comprised of only 15 African countries including Morocco, which is not an AU member – submitted the AG position ahead of UNGASS without the knowledge of the AU.

The AU had submitted the “CAP” document to SA Ambassador in Vienna Tebogo Seokolo, and thought this had been submitted to UNGASS on behalf of the continent.

“What went wrong?” asked Maria-Goretti Ane, a Ghana-based consultant for the International Drug Policy Consortium, at the Run2016 Cape Town conference hosted by the TB/HIV Care Association. “Something else drafted by Egypt was given to South Africa to submit. Africa needs to speak out. Why shelve the right document, which came out of the consultative process?”

Ironically, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of Social Development, Henrietta Bogopane-Zulu,* chaired the technical committee that drafted the CAP.

Diplomacy

An African Union source*  confirmed that Seokolo had been sent the CAP for submission to the UN in Vienna. On hearing that CAP had not been forwarded to UNGASS, the AU sent a delegation to Vienna in December to find out what had happened explanation, but had not received a satisfactory answer.

“As the AU, we can only engage in diplomacy. Member countries are our bosses, and it is only member states that can take up this issue,” said the source.

Meanwhile, the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) rejected claims that Seokolo had “betrayed” the African Union.

Between June and December last year, Seokolo was chairperson of the African Group, which “enjoys the formal and official negotiating status within various United Nations organisations and other international organisations based in Vienna,” DIRCO spokesperson Nelson Kgwete told Health-e News.

“The Chairperson of the African Group is accountable to the African Group in Vienna and promotes the agreed positions and interests of the Group. There is no formal relationship between the African Group in Vienna and the African Union Commission,” he added.

Parallel process

According to DIRCO, there was a parallel process with both the AG in Vienna and the AU in Addis Ababa developing positions on drugs independently.

On receiving the CAP, AG members who are also AU members (i.e. everyone except Morocco) “collectively decided that the draft CAP could not be forwarded to the UNGASS Board because the Group felt that there were was a need for further consultation on some of the elements contained in the CAP”, said Kgwete.

While UNGASS has published a new draft policy of drugs based on the submissions, there is still time for lobbying ahead of the April meeting. – Health-e News.

An edited version of this story was also published in the Sunday Independent