AU and SADC: Leading by example on disability

The African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community

The African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are intergovernmental organizations whose territorial units largely begin and end with the geography and history of Africa.

However, with liquid modernity, they now find themselves in a heightened connection with geoeconomics and geopolitics that dates back to the Berlin Conference of 1884-885, where Africa was defined and governed according to borders. Africa will not be an island in itself because of its historicity.

Africa, by definition, is a polymorphic continent comprising 55 countries (AU) and within Africa there is a sub-regional grouping, called SADC, comprising 16 countries. The purpose of this opinion piece is to question the seriousness with which the AU and SADC approach disability in general and persons with albinism in particular.

It should be noted from the outset that the rights of disabled people in general and of people with albinism are not a luxury that is achieved in good times. Essentially, equality rights are human rights in both good and bad times.

It is contrary to the above argument that the AU came up with the 2018 African Union Protocol on Disability and that SADC, at its recent summit in Harare, Zimbabwe (17-18 August 2024), adopted a declaration on the protection of persons with albinism.

A careful analysis of the initiatives of these intergovernmental organizations shows that the intentions are good, but the results of these intentions are regrettably poor when measured by quantitative and qualitative indicators.

For example, the African Union Protocol on Disabilities was drafted in 2018 and has so far only been signed and ratified by 14 African countries.

The protocol under discussion can only enter into force after it has been signed and ratified by 15 AU member states.

In examining the protocol, one finds progressive and unique provisions that address the structural, behavioural and attitudinal conditions that lead to abuse, murder, oppression, discrimination, segregation, othering, objectification and reification of persons with disabilities in general and persons with albinism in particular.

In response to the above controversy, in some parts of Africa people with disabilities are considered a threat to the human gene pool and are therefore hidden from public view or killed.

A 2020 Amnesty International report states that approximately 151 people with albinism have been killed in countries including Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania since 2014 and that 76 of these are attributed to Tanzania. People with albinism are killed due to socio-cultural beliefs that associate their body parts with improving luck in business and love.

The AU and SADC drafted the protocol and declaration respectively, against the above-mentioned conception of what society can do for persons with disabilities in general and for persons with albinism in particular. However, this author would like to assert that for a goose to lay golden eggs, food and nutritional security must be ensured.

The AU and SADC initiatives in relation to persons with disabilities in general and persons with albinism in particular are good in theory, but the implementation matrix is ​​pathetic. Implementation is a function of planning and budgetary provisions at the country level, however, the AU and SADC should incorporate monitoring and evaluation mechanisms into their programming as feedback loops on their spending efforts.

It is a fact that a country’s plans and votes (budget allocations) towards a particular cause, program, project, goal or objective constitute public declarations of political will and commitment.

In both documents, the AU and SADC are not clear about the financing of the popularisation and implementation matrix of the instruments under discussion.

If, for example, as a matter of policy, I want my wife to be curvy or even voluptuous, it will be my obligation to finance my policy by purchasing brains, potatoes, eggs, vegetables and meat and also to provide an emotional and psychological environment as a catalyst for the fulfillment of my policy.

This is not what the AU and SADC have done in relation to disability. If, for example, the AU can ask for $5.5 billion and SADC $3.3 billion from the UN and other do-gooders to feed starving Africans, why can’t the same supranational bodies seek financial support to prevent the killing and abuse of disabled people in general and people with albinism in particular?

People with albinism are marginalized in multiple ways due to the color of their skin, which is susceptible to cancer, their poor vision, their gender, their age and their class, among other interrelated variables that combine to oppress and complicate their lives.

People with albinism need mobile clinics for cancer treatment, sunscreen lotion, glasses and protective clothing, among other things. In some countries such as Zimbabwe, which has a population of approximately 10,000 people with albinism, sunscreen lotion is not exempt from taxes when imported.

There is a two-way link between disability and poverty: most people with albinism cannot afford to import sunscreen lotions, let alone buy them in their local territorial units, because the prices are beyond their reach.

This leads this writer to believe that the fact that SADC adopted a declaration on the protection of persons with albinism is a demonstration of a lack of political will and commitment towards the safeguarding and protection of persons with albinism because a declaration is not legally binding as it depends on the probity of a country.

Summit diplomacy is associated with the adoption of statements and arguments that generate confidence and which in most cases are empty.

The AU protocol on disability in its entirety is a solid instrument that only needs to be ratified and naturalized by each of the African countries, placing disability close to the sphere of power.

The AU and SADC are long on planning and short on implementation; their thinking on paper is impeccable, but this thinking without implementation is like a pig’s tail that covers nothing.

• Cyprian Muketiwa Ndawana is a public speaking coach, motivational speaker, speechwriter and newspaper columnist.

Related Topics