Connect with us

NGO WORK

Repression for land and profits

Published

3 years ago

on

Over the past five years, at least two people from rural communities have been killed weekly in the struggles against land grabs, based on estimates by the Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP). More than eight are arrested and detained weekly, and more than two are harassed or assaulted.

On Sept. 2, Nigerian security forces and police arrived on a boat in the village of Agbede. They fired in the air to scatter the villagers and then burned at least nine houses.

On June 15, a violent confrontation between the Paraguay police and farmers in the town of Edelira ended with the killing of Édgar Centurión, a local farmer.

On June 12, the police arrested 91 people, including several members of a local peasant group, in Hacienda (a large estate or plantation) Tinang in a Philippine province. Eighty-three were detained and charged with trumped-up cases of illegal assembly and obstruction of justice, among others.

Systematic attacks

These attacks on rural communities are not isolated incidents of violence. They form part of the systematic repression of peasants fighting land grabs by big foreign corporations and the local elite.

The Agbede case, for instance, is tied to the ongoing land conflict between the local people and the Okomu Oil Palm Company (OOPC). The people claim that OOPC grabbed their lands and blocked their villages’ only public road. OOPC is a unit of the Socfin Group, a Luxembourg-based palm oil and rubber plantation operator notorious for its ruthless methods against local communities. Aside from Nigeria, Socfin units operate in Cameroon, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, and Cambodia, among others.

Meanwhile, a land dispute between some 80 farming families and an agro-livestock firm is the backdrop of Centurión’s killing. Armed with shotguns, the local police destroyed the homes and crops of the settlement where Centurión lived to clear the land for the company. When the farmers resisted, the police opened fire, resulting in the 29-year-old farmer’s death.

The mass arrests in Hacienda Tinang happened amid a nearly three-decade dispute over 200 hectares of land between 236 peasant beneficiaries of the government’s land reform program and an influential political clan, which includes the incumbent town mayor. The farmers and their supporters were doing a collective farming activity as part of the assertion of their right to the disputed land when the police dispersed and arrested them.

Two killings a week

Over the past five years, at least two individuals from rural communities have been killed weekly in struggles against land grabbing, based on estimates by the PAN Asia Pacific (PANAP). More than eight are arrested and detained, and more than two are harassed or assaulted weekly.

Under its No Land, No Life! campaign, PANAP has been monitoring cases of human rights violations (HRVs) against farmers, farm workers, indigenous people, and land activists. From January 2017 to the latest available data (as of Oct. 20, 2022), PANAP has monitored 417 cases of killings that resulted in 610 deaths. Of the victims, 238 or 39 percent were farmers.

During the same period, there were 260 cases of arrests and detention, with 2,565 victims, and farmers comprised 45 percent of the total. For threats, harassment, and assault, PANAP has monitored 127 cases with 719 victims, of whom 60 percent were farmers.

As the village of Agbede, the farming settlement in Edelira, and Hacienda Tinang show, these numbers represent the lives and aspirations of rural peoples violently crushed by powerful forces with vested interests in their lands.

More alarming is that, as these particular cases of political repression against peasants show, state forces are often involved. Of the land conflict-related human rights abuses where reports or accounts identified the perpetrators, the police, military, and state-sanctioned paramilitary groups were implicated in 133 cases of killings, 258 cases of arrests and detention, and 49 cases of threats, harassment, and assault.

Greater unrest amid crises

Peasant repression in the context of land conflicts and struggles is a global phenomenon that intensifies amid the worsening crises of the world economy and politics, hunger and food insecurity, and climate and environment.

As global monopoly capitalism navigates its latest bout with an economic crisis lingering since 2008, the world’s wealthiest capitalists are looking for ways to protect their investments and make more money. The financialization of the global economy allows them to turn to assets such as farmlands, even when the likes of giant property holder BlackRock or mega-billionaire Bill Gates have no interest in producing food or engaging in agriculture but merely hedge their other investments or squeeze profits from the land’s value and rent. Through various financial firms, Gates has amassed almost 98,000 hectares of farmlands in the US alone, worth more than USD 690 million.

These financial groups and the capital they manage and represent invest in massive corporate plantations that concentrate lands, displace farmers, and commit violence against rural communities. For example, BlackRock and JP Morgan, along with other financial firms, have almost USD 13 billion in palm oil investments globally. Through his capital management firms, Gates also invests in palm oil, which one study shows is the commodity most exposed to land grabs.

These giant corporations even use the climate crisis they caused to justify more land concentration. They peddle so-called nature-based solutions (NBS) to address the climate crisis, such as through investments in biofuels, green finance, carbon credits, ecotourism, profit-driven conservation, and large-scale infrastructure supposedly for renewable energy.

PANAP has compiled 32 cases of NBS (ongoing or planned), which cover almost four million hectares, to highlight the extent of land grabbing and mass displacement among rural communities worldwide due to the supposed climate actions of monopoly corporations and their local agents. In just five of the NBS projects compiled from Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Tanzania, the number of displaced or potentially displaced farmers and indigenous people could reach almost 300,000.

Land concentration is already very severe. In its 2020 report, the International Land Coalition noted that while small-scale farmers run 80 percent of farms, the largest one percent of farming enterprises manage more than 70 percent of farmlands worldwide.

With the wave of more monopoly capital pouring into farmlands through financialization and greenwashing, such concentration can only get even more intense in the coming years and fuel greater rural unrest. (RVO)

Original Source: Farm Land Grab

Related posts:

Tanzanian Government Continues Violent Repression of the Maasai in Loliondo Despite Worldwide Condemnation Corporates count profits from palm oil plantations grown on a grabbed land, as former landowners reduced to a poverty-stricken community… Resisting Oil Palm Plantations in Uganda Uganda: Resisting Industrial Oil Palm Plantations Roundup on Repression: On the continuing IPHRD attacks

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Peace in DRC Requires More than Symbolic US Sanctions on Rwanda

Published

14 hours ago

on

March 12, 2026

By

  • On March 2, 2026, the US Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its senior officials following their “blatant violations of the Washington Peace Accords.”
  • The step remains symbolic and unlikely to meaningfully deter the actors exploiting Congolese minerals who are fueling the war.
  • The sanctions neither affect the deals made by the US with critical mineral companies tied to the Rwandan government nor does it impact American foreign assistance to the country.
  • As long as the US continues to support Rwanda as a business hub for refinery and reexport of smuggled Congolese minerals, there will be no incentive for RDF/M23 to return valuable mines and lands to the Congolese and end the conflict.

Oakland, CA – On March 2, 2026, the US Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its senior officials following their “blatant violations of the Washington Peace Accords” signed between Rwanda and the DRC in December 2025.

The RDF has been actively supporting, training, and fighting alongside its proxy, the March 23 Movement (M23), waging a war that has led to countless deaths, mass atrocities and displacement in eastern DRC. Together, they have seized the provincial capitals of Goma and Bukavu and strategic mining sites in South and North Kivu.

“Sanctioning the RDF is an important step but is unlikely to meaningfully deter the actors exploiting Congolese minerals that are fueling the war,” said Frédéric Mousseau, Policy Director of the Oakland Institute. “As long as the US continues to support Rwanda as a business hub for refinery and reexport of smuggled Congolese minerals, there is no incentive for RDF/M23 to return valuable mines and lands and end the conflict that has been decimating the Congolese people for over three decades.”

While applying sanctions, the US continues to make deals with critical mineral companies tied to the Rwandan government. In May 2025, Rwanda’s Trinity Metals signed a letter of intent with the US Department of State to establish a new supply chain of tin from Rwanda to the US. In October 2025, Rwanda exported tungsten to the US for the first time through a partnership involving Trinity Metals, Pennsylvania-based Global Tungsten & Powders, and the international commodities trading firm Traxys. Under this ongoing deal, between four and seven containers of tungsten concentrate will be shipped every quarter to the US for two years, offering a strategic alternative source for a mineral largely produced by China.

According to the most recently available ownership information, Ngali Holdings holds 5 percent of Trinity Metals and 25 percent of the company’s Rutongo tin mines. State-owned with reported ties to the RDF, Ngali Holdings was established in 2015 to undertake the “exploration, extraction/exploitation and commercialization of strategic mineral resources.” While the RDF’s minority stake in Trinity Metals does not make the company eligible for sanctions, it shows the limitations of the sanctions’ overall impact. Rwanda’s role in the US plan to seize control of Congolese minerals remains intact.

The US sanctions also fail to confront the massive financial benefits Rwanda/M23 gain from occupying eastern DRC. Since M23 seized the Rubaya mine in eastern DRC in 2024, the group has ensured a monopoly on the export of coltan to Rwanda to collect an estimated US$800,000 monthly from the taxation of coltan production and trade. Rebels have also funneled gold into Rwanda, driving a record US$2 billion in exports in 2025.

Moreover, Rwanda still receives substantial foreign assistance from the US, its largest bilateral donor,  with just under US$200 million in 2024 and US$174 million for 2025 – a partial, not fully reported, estimate. With a US$3.37 billion World Bank portfolio for a country of just 14 million people, Rwanda is also among the highest per-capita recipients of World Bank financing –  receiving almost four times more per capita than DRC. Horizon Construction, a consortium with links to the RDF, has reportedly been awarded several contracts as part of the Bank’s multi-million dollar road improvement project that is active today.

In October 2025, the Oakland Institute released Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, warning that US diplomatic initiatives, including the Rwanda-DRC peace deal – were being used to advance mineral extraction interests under the guise of bringing peace to the region. The Institute further documented how the RDF Commander in chief, President Paul Kagame has been a champion of impunity despite repeatedly violating peace and ceasefire agreements over the years.

“Rwanda’s violations of the Washington Accord and continued occupation of DRC point to the inherent contradictions of the US-brokered “peace deal” added Mousseau. “The deal granted Rwanda privileged access to Congolese resources and a key role in their refining and reexport – a reward for an aggressor who has made hundreds of millions of dollars from the plundering of Congolese minerals. This impunity and injustice can’t bring peace to Congo,” he concluded.

Source: www.oaklandinstitute.org/

Related posts:

Failed US-Brokered “Peace” Deal Was Never About Peace in DRC Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal Discover How Foreign Interests and Resource Extraction Continue to Drive Congo’s Crisis US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement Faces Constitutional Challenge in Court DR Congo crisis: Washington’s brokered peace agreement is rendered useless as fighting, forced land displacement, and mineral exploitation persist…
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement Faces Constitutional Challenge in Court

Published

1 month ago

on

February 6, 2026

By

Top photo: President Donald Trump participates in a trilateral signing ceremony of a peace and economic agreement with President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda and President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Thursday, December 4, 2025, at the United States Peace Institute in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

  • In a landmark legal action, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders have filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.
  • A recent report from the Oakland Institute exposed how the US-brokered “peace” deal between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the latest US maneuver to control Congolese critical minerals.
  • While US mining firms secure privileged access to vast reserves of copper, cobalt, lithium, and tantalum, promises of peace and security remain hollow as Rwanda and its proxy M23 armed group continue to occupy large swaths of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC.

Oakland, CA – In a landmark legal action in January 2026, Congolese lawyers and human rights defenders filed a constitutional challenge against the US-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement, signed on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Signed alongside the US-brokered “peace deal” between Rwanda and the DRC – known as the Washington Accord – the agreement grants the United States preferential access to Congolese mineral reserves and requires the DRC to amend its national laws and potentially its Constitution. The agreement further establishes a joint governance mechanism that gives Washington a direct role in overseeing the management of Congo’s mining sector.

The lawyers argue that the agreement violates the Congolese Constitution, which requires that any amendment to national laws and/or the Constitution be subject to democratic review and approval by Parliament or by popular referendum.  In particular, the agreement contravenes Article 214 of the DRC’s Constitution, which governs the ratification of international agreements that alter domestic law. The petition also contends that the agreement violates Articles 9 and 217, which enshrine national sovereignty over natural resources, as well as Article 12, which guarantees equality before the law.

“By filing this case with the Constitutional Court, we are assuming our responsibility as Congolese citizens to protect the sovereignty of our country and safeguard our patrimony for future generations,” said Attorney Jean-Marie Kalonji, one of the plaintiffs.

In October 2025, the Oakland Institute released Shafted: The Scramble for Critical Minerals in the DRC, warning that US diplomatic initiatives, including the Rwanda-DRC peace deal — were being used to advance mineral extraction interests under the guise of bringing peace to the region.

“The Partnership Agreement makes it clear that these concerns were legitimate. The Congolese people have been sidelined, with an agreement focused on extraction and exploitation and a peace deal that shockingly overlooks the need for justice and for holding perpetrators accountable,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “While the US mining firms secure privileged access to Congo’s vast reserves of critical minerals, promises of peace and security remain hollow with Rwanda and M23 still occupying large swaths of land in mineral-rich eastern DRC,” Mittal continued.

In mid-January 2026, the DRC government took a major step towards implementing the agreement by providing Washington with a shortlist of state-owned assets — including manganese, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium projects – marked for potential US investment.

The lawyers and human rights defenders behind this case are calling for a nationwide mobilization to defend Congolese sovereignty and are urging the international community to support their legal action and uphold international law at a time when it faces an unprecedented threat.

“The Oakland Institute will continue to stand by its partners to support this mobilization and promote a Congolese-led path for peace, justice, and prosperity for the DRC instead of Trump’s hyperbole of peace and security accomplished through its mineral deal,” concluded Mittal.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

Internally displaced people at Rusayo 2 Camp, November 2024. FAO/Alessandra Benedetti.
Discover How Foreign Interests and Resource Extraction Continue to Drive Congo’s Crisis Failed US-Brokered “Peace” Deal Was Never About Peace in DRC Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal Grain trader Cargill faces legal challenge in US over Brazilian soya supply chain Mps Are Likely To Defy Electorates On Age-Limit Constitutional Amendment – Survey
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Violations against Kenya’s indigenous Ogiek condemned yet again by African Court

Published

2 months ago

on

January 13, 2026

By

Minority Rights Group welcomes today’s decision by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in the case of Ogiek people v. Government of Kenya. The decision reiterates previous findings of more than a decade of unremedied violations against the indigenous Ogiek people, centred on forced evictions from their ancestral lands in the Mau forest.

The Court showed clear impatience concerning Kenya’s failure to implement two landmark rulings in favour of the indigenous Ogiek people: in a 2017 judgment, that their human rights had been violated by Kenya’s denial of access to their land, and in a 2022 judgment, which ordered Kenya to pay nearly 160 million Kenyan shillings (about 1.3 million USD) in compensation and to restitute their ancestral lands, enabling them to enjoy the human rights that have been denied them.

Despite tireless activism from the community and the historic nature of both judgments, Kenya has not implemented any part of either decision. The community remains socioeconomically marginalized as a result of their eviction and dispossession. Evictions have continued, notably in 2023 with 700 community members made homeless and their property destroyed, and in 2020 evicting about 600, destroying their homes in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Daniel Kobei, Executive Director of the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program stated, ‘We have been at the African Court six times to fight for our rights to live on our lands as an indigenous people – rights which our government has denied us and continues to violate, compounding our plights and marginalization, despite clear orders from the African Court for our government to remedy the violations. This is the seventh time, and we were hopeful that the Court would be more strict to the government of Kenya in ensuring that a workable roadmap be followed in implementation of the two judgments.’

Image: The Ogiek delegation outside the African Court after the delivery of the decision. 4 December 2025.

Kenya has repeatedly justified the eviction of Ogiek as necessary for conservation, although the forest has seen significant harm since evictions began. Many in the community see a connection between their eviction and Kenya’s participation in lucrative carbon credit schemes.

‘The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely and full implementation of measures imposed on a state which has been found to be in breach of their internationally agreed obligations. Kenya must now repay its debt to the indigenous Ogiek by restituting their land and making reparations, among other remedies ordered by the Court’, said Samuel Ade Ndasi, African Union Advocacy and Litigation Officer at Minority Rights Group.

The decision states, ‘the court orders the respondent state to immediately take all necessary steps, be they legislative or administrative or otherwise, to remedy all the violations established in the judgment on merits.’ The court also reaffirmed that no state can invoke domestic laws to justifiy a breach of international obligations.

Both of the original judgments were historic precedents, breaking new ground on the issue of restitution and compensation for collective violations experienced by indigenous peoples and confirming the vital role of indigenous peoples in safeguarding ecosystems, that states must respect and protect their land rights, that lands appropriated from them in the name of conservation without free, prior and informed consent must be returned, and their right to be the ultimate decision makers about what happens on their lands. Today’s decision adds to this tally of precedents as it is the first decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights concerning the record of a state in implementing a binding decision.

The case

In October 2009, the Kenyan government, through the Kenya Forestry Service, issued a 30-day eviction notice to the Ogiek and other settlers of the Mau Forest, demanding that they leave the forest. Concerned that this was a perpetuation of the historical land injustices already suffered, and having failed to resolve these injustices through repeated national litigation and advocacy efforts, the Ogiek decided to lodge a case against their government before the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights with the assistance of Minority Rights Group, the Ogiek Peoples’ Development Program and the Centre for Minority Rights Development. The African Commission issued interim measures, which were flouted by the Government of Kenya and thereafter referred the case to the African Court based on the complementarity relationship between the African Commission and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and on the grounds that there was evidence of serious or massive human rights violations.

On 26 May 2017, after years of litigation, a failed attempt at amicable settlement and an oral hearing on the merits, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights rendered a merits judgment in favour of the Ogiek people. It held that the government had violated the Ogiek’s rights to communal ownership of their ancestral lands, to culture, development and use of natural resources, as well as to be free from discrimination and practise their religion or belief. On 23 June 2022, the Court rejected Kenya’s objections and set out the reparations owed for the violations established in the 2017 judgment.

Source: minorityrights.org

Related posts:

Kenya: Court halts flagship carbon offset project used by Meta, Netflix and British Airways over unlawfully acquiring community land without consent Trauma and Land Loss: New Study Focuses on Mental Health of Evicted Indigenous People Justice Denied: East African Court of Justice Grants Tanzanian Government Impunity to Trample Human Rights of the Maasai EACOP: East African Court of Justice will hear arguments on court’s jurisdiction Tanzanian High Court Tramples Rights of Indigenous Maasai Pastoralists to Boost Tourism Revenues
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter