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.

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