Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

How food and water are driving a 21st-century African land grab

Published

on

A woman tends vegetables at a giant Saudi-financed farm in Ethiopia.

An Observer investigation reveals how rich countries faced by a global food shortage now farm an area double the size of the UK to guarantee supplies for their citizens.

We turned off the main road to Awassa, talked our way past security guards and drove a mile across empty land before we found what will soon be Ethiopia’s largest greenhouse. Nestling below an escarpment of the Rift Valley, the development is far from finished, but the plastic and steel structure already stretches over 20 hectares – the size of 20 football pitches.

The farm manager shows us millions of tomatoes, peppers and other vegetables being grown in 500m rows in computer controlled conditions. Spanish engineers are building the steel structure, Dutch technology minimises water use from two bore-holes and 1,000 women pick and pack 50 tonnes of food a day. Within 24 hours, it has been driven 200 miles to Addis Ababa and flown 1,000 miles to the shops and restaurants of Dubai, Jeddah and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Ethiopia is one of the hungriest countries in the world with 2.8 million people needing food aid, but paradoxically the government is offering at least 3m hectares of its most fertile land to rich countries and some of the world’s most wealthy individuals to export food for their own populations.

The 1,000 hectares of land which contain the Awassa greenhouses are leased for 99 years to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Ethiopian-born Sheikh Mohammed al-Amoudi, one of the 50 richest men in the world. His Saudi Star company plans to spend up to $2bn acquiring and developing 500,000 hectares of land in Ethiopia in the next few years. So far, it has bought four farms and is already growing wheat, rice, vegetables and flowers for the Saudi market. It expects eventually to employ more than 10,000 people.

But Ethiopia is only one of 20 or more African countries where land is being bought or leased for intensive agriculture on an immense scale in what may be the greatest change of ownership since the colonial era.

An Observer investigation estimates that up to 50m hectares of land – an area more than double the size of the UK – has been acquired in the last few years or is in the process of being negotiated by governments and wealthy investors working with state subsidies. The data used was collected by Grain, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the International Land Coalition, ActionAid and other non-governmental groups.

The land rush, which is still accelerating, has been triggered by the worldwide food shortages which followed the sharp oil price rises in 2008, growing water shortages and the European Union’s insistence that 10% of all transport fuel must come from plant-based biofuels by 2015.

In many areas the deals have led to evictions, civil unrest and complaints of “land grabbing”.

The experience of Nyikaw Ochalla, an indigenous Anuak from the Gambella region of Ethiopia now living in Britain but who is in regular contact with farmers in his region, is typical. He said: “All of the land in the Gambella region is utilised. Each community has and looks after its own territory and the rivers and farmlands within it. It is a myth propagated by the government and investors to say that there is waste land or land that is not utilised in Gambella.

“The foreign companies are arriving in large numbers, depriving people of land they have used for centuries. There is no consultation with the indigenous population. The deals are done secretly. The only thing the local people see is people coming with lots of tractors to invade their lands.

“All the land round my family village of Illia has been taken over and is being cleared. People now have to work for an Indian company. Their land has been compulsorily taken and they have been given no compensation. People cannot believe what is happening. Thousands of people will be affected and people will go hungry.”

It is not known if the acquisitions will improve or worsen food security in Africa, or if they will stimulate separatist conflicts, but a major World Bank report due to be published this month is expected to warn of both the potential benefits and the immense dangers they represent to people and nature.

Leading the rush are international agribusinesses, investment banks, hedge funds, commodity traders, sovereign wealth funds as well as UK pension funds, foundations and individuals attracted by some of the world’s cheapest land.

Together they are scouring Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Ethiopia, Congo, Zambia, Uganda, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mali, Sierra Leone, Ghana and elsewhere. Ethiopia alone has approved 815 foreign-financed agricultural projects since 2007. Any land there, which investors have not been able to buy, is being leased for approximately $1 per year per hectare.

Saudi Arabia, along with other Middle Eastern emirate states such as Qatar, Kuwait and Abu Dhabi, is thought to be the biggest buyer. In 2008 the Saudi government, which was one of the Middle East’s largest wheat-growers, announced it was to reduce its domestic cereal production by 12% a year to conserve its water. It earmarked $5bn to provide loans at preferential rates to Saudi companies which wanted to invest in countries with strong agricultural potential .

Meanwhile, the Saudi investment company Foras, backed by the Islamic Development Bank and wealthy Saudi investors, plans to spend $1bn buying land and growing 7m tonnes of rice for the Saudi market within seven years. The company says it is investigating buying land in Mali, Senegal, Sudan and Uganda. By turning to Africa to grow its staple crops, Saudi Arabia is not just acquiring Africa’s land but is securing itself the equivalent of hundreds of millions of gallons of scarce water a year. Water, says the UN, will be the defining resource of the next 100 years.

Since 2008 Saudi investors have bought heavily in Sudan, Egypt, Ethiopia and Kenya. Last year the first sacks of wheat grown in Ethiopia for the Saudi market were presented by al-Amoudi to King Abdullah.

Some of the African deals lined up are eye-wateringly large: China has signed a contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to grow 2.8m hectares of palm oil for biofuels. Before it fell apart after riots, a proposed 1.2m hectares deal between Madagascar and the South Korean company Daewoo would have included nearly half of the country’s arable land.

Land to grow biofuel crops is also in demand. “European biofuel companies have acquired or requested about 3.9m hectares in Africa. This has led to displacement of people, lack of consultation and compensation, broken promises about wages and job opportunities,” said Tim Rice, author of an ActionAid report which estimates that the EU needs to grow crops on 17.5m hectares, well over half the size of Italy, if it is to meet its 10% biofuel target by 2015.

“The biofuel land grab in Africa is already displacing farmers and food production. The number of people going hungry will increase,” he said. British firms have secured tracts of land in Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria and Tanzania to grow flowers and vegetables.

Indian companies, backed by government loans, have bought or leased hundreds of thousands of hectares in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal and Mozambique, where they are growing rice, sugar cane, maize and lentils to feed their domestic market.

Nowhere is now out of bounds. Sudan, emerging from civil war and mostly bereft of development for a generation, is one of the new hot spots. South Korean companies last year bought 700,000 hectares of northern Sudan for wheat cultivation; the United Arab Emirates have acquired 750,000 hectares and Saudi Arabia last month concluded a 42,000-hectare deal in Nile province.

The government of southern Sudan says many companies are now trying to acquire land. “We have had many requests from many developers. Negotiations are going on,” said Peter Chooli, director of water resources and irrigation, in Juba last week. “A Danish group is in discussions with the state and another wants to use land near the Nile.”

In one of the most extraordinary deals, buccaneering New York investment firm Jarch Capital, run by a former commodities trader, Philip Heilberg, has leased 800,000 hectares in southern Sudan near Darfur. Heilberg has promised not only to create jobs but also to put 10% or more of his profits back into the local community. But he has been accused by Sudanese of “grabbing” communal land and leading an American attempt to fragment Sudan and exploit its resources.

Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher with Grain, said investing in Africa was now seen as a new food supply strategy by many governments. “Rich countries are eyeing Africa not just for a healthy return on capital, but also as an insurance policy. Food shortages and riots in 28 countries in 2008, declining water supplies, climate change and huge population growth have together made land attractive. Africa has the most land and, compared with other continents, is cheap,” he said.

“Farmland in sub-Saharan Africa is giving 25% returns a year and new technology can treble crop yields in short time frames,” said Susan Payne, chief executive of Emergent Asset Management, a UK investment fund seeking to spend $50m on African land, which, she said, was attracting governments, corporations, multinationals and other investors. “Agricultural development is not only sustainable, it is our future. If we do not pay great care and attention now to increase food production by over 50% before 2050, we will face serious food shortages globally,” she said.

But many of the deals are widely condemned by both western non-government groups and nationals as “new colonialism”, driving people off the land and taking scarce resources away from people.

We met Tegenu Morku, a land agent, in a roadside cafe on his way to the region of Oromia in Ethiopia to find 500 hectares of land for a group of Egyptian investors. They planned to fatten cattle, grow cereals and spices and export as much as possible to Egypt. There had to be water available and he expected the price to be about 15 birr (75p) per hectare per year – less than a quarter of the cost of land in Egypt and a tenth of the price of land in Asia.

“The land and labour is cheap and the climate is good here. Everyone – Saudis, Turks, Chinese, Egyptians – is looking. The farmers do not like it because they get displaced, but they can find land elsewhere and, besides, they get compensation, equivalent to about 10 years’ crop yield,” he said.

Oromia is one of the centres of the African land rush. Haile Hirpa, president of the Oromia studies’ association, said last week in a letter of protest to UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon that India had acquired 1m hectares, Djibouti 10,000 hectares, Saudi Arabia 100,000 hectares, and that Egyptian, South Korean, Chinese, Nigerian and other Arab investors were all active in the state.

“This is the new, 21st-century colonisation. The Saudis are enjoying the rice harvest, while the Oromos are dying from man-made famine as we speak,” he said.

The Ethiopian government denied the deals were causing hunger and said that the land deals were attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign investments and tens of thousands of jobs. A spokesman said: “Ethiopia has 74m hectares of fertile land, of which only 15% is currently in use – mainly by subsistence farmers. Of the remaining land, only a small percentage – 3 to 4% – is offered to foreign investors. Investors are never given land that belongs to Ethiopian farmers. The government also encourages Ethiopians in the diaspora to invest in their homeland. They bring badly needed technology, they offer jobs and training to Ethiopians, they operate in areas where there is suitable land and access to water.”

The reality on the ground is different, according to Michael Taylor, a policy specialist at the International Land Coalition. “If land in Africa hasn’t been planted, it’s probably for a reason. Maybe it’s used to graze livestock or deliberately left fallow to prevent nutrient depletion and erosion. Anybody who has seen these areas identified as unused understands that there is no land in Ethiopia that has no owners and users.”

Development experts are divided on the benefits of large-scale, intensive farming. Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva said in London last week that large-scale industrial agriculture not only threw people off the land but also required chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, intensive water use, and large-scale transport, storage and distribution which together turned landscapes into enormous mono-cultural plantations.

“We are seeing dispossession on a massive scale. It means less food is available and local people will have less. There will be more conflict and political instability and cultures will be uprooted. The small farmers of Africa are the basis of food security. The food availability of the planet will decline,” she says. But Rodney Cooke, director at the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development, sees potential benefits. “I would avoid the blanket term ‘land-grabbing’. Done the right way, these deals can bring benefits for all parties and be a tool for development.”

Lorenzo Cotula, senior researcher with the International Institute for Environment and Development, who co-authored a report on African land exchanges with the UN fund last year, found that well-structured deals could guarantee employment, better infrastructures and better crop yields. But badly handled they could cause great harm, especially if local people were excluded from decisions about allocating land and if their land rights were not protected.

Water is also controversial. Local government officers in Ethiopia told the Observer that foreign companies that set up flower farms and other large intensive farms were not being charged for water. “We would like to, but the deal is made by central government,” said one. In Awassa, the al-Amouni farm uses as much water a year as 100,000 Ethiopians.

• This article was amended on 22 March 2011. Owing to an editing error the original said that more than 13 million people in Ethiopia need food aid. This has been corrected.

Original Post: The Guardian

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Climate Change and Conflict : The Agony of Kasese Farmers.

Published

on

As climate change impacts various parts of the globe, Kasese District in South-Western Uganda serves as a stark example of environmental vulnerability. Global warming has accelerated the melting of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains. Satellite data from scientific monitoring groups reveals a striking 30% reduction in ice surface area between 2020 and 2024.

For the farming communities of Munkunyu Sub-county, this environmental challenge has created a complex crisis. The altered landscape has heightened resource competition between local Bakonzo crop farmers and Basongora cattle keepers from neighbouring Nyakatonzi Sub-county, as both communities navigate severe strains put on nature and land.

Why the land crisis is growing

Before diving deeper into the unfolding situation on the ground, it is critical to understand the primary triggers forcing these communities into confrontation:

The Glacial Melt: A 30% loss of Rwenzori ice cover in just four years is drastically altering local river volumes and weather predictability.

The Climate Double-Whammy: Farmers and pastoralists are trapped in a punishing cycle of back-to-back disasters, first catastrophic flash floods, immediately followed by extreme dry spells that leave no grass for livestock or food for households.

How floods and hungry cattle sparked a quiet war

Just eight months ago, Munkunyu’s farming families faced severe flash floods that wiped out their entire agricultural investments. In the wake of these disasters, herdsmen seeking surviving pastures moved their cattle directly into the cultivation zones. Farmers report that on 30 May 2026, livestock grazed across 217 hectares of food crops. This created immense economic and psychological strain for hundreds of households already struggling with food insecurity and school fee obligations.

Wide acres of local farmland left bare and ruined after hungry cows moved into cultivation zones to eat growing food crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Matsiko Loyce, a local councillor and farmer, outlines the collective weight of losing both crops and land resources:

“In October last year, we lost our crops to floods. As we began to recover with hopes of feeding our families, livestock grazed on our remaining income. It is a deeply distressing situation.”

Local herds of cattle walk through agricultural fields, destroying the remaining green crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

The escalating pressure soon led to physical friction. When local youths attempted to block cattle from entering the remaining fields, a violent altercation broke out. Matsiko emphasises the critical need for peaceful intervention:

“Two young men trying to protect the crops were injured during the confrontation. The matter has been formally reported to the police to ensure a peaceful, lawful resolution.”

The broken 15 million shilling compensation deal

Following local mediation efforts, the pastoralists initially agreed to a compensation package of 15 million Ugandan Shillings (approx. $4,110 USD) for the 150 hectares of ruined crops.

However, the agreement faced a major setback when the June 12 deadline arrived. The pastoralists shifted their position, offering to pay only 5 million shillings (approx. $1,370 USD) with no clear assurance of whether or when the remaining 10 million shilling balance (approx. $2,740 USD) would be paid. The farmers reportedly refused this reduced offer, demanding the full fulfillment of the original 15 million shilling agreement. According to human rights defenders monitoring the situation, this delay has severely fractured community trust.

A history of lost grazing land

This resource competition is deeply linked to historical migration patterns. The Basongora are an ancient pastoralist community whose traditional lifestyle was disrupted between 1925 and 1954. During this time, colonial administrations gazetted over 90% of their ancestral grazing lands to establish Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Displaced and hit by a devastating rinderpest epidemic in 1931, many Basongora crossed into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) before returning to Kasese in subsequent decades. Concurrently, the Bakonzo have long cultivated food and cash crops in lowlands like Nyakatonzi and Munkunyu. While these groups have maintained a delicate coexistence for decades, accelerating climate change has disrupted that balance, renewing historical anxieties over land access.

Bakonzo and Basongora elders convene near the boundary of Queen Elizabeth National Park to initiate a collaborative resource-sharing framework aimed at preventing future land disputes. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Choosing to survive together over fighting

Kato Ronald, the Executive Director of Kasese Youth Link and a human rights defender, appeals for structured mediation over conflict:

“Both the livestock and the human populations require sustenance. There is an urgent need to resolve this climate-induced conflict through a framework that ensures human security.”

Local leaders call for dialogue

As the conflict drags on, local leaders are calling for restorative justice rather than increased criminalisation to prevent further escalation. Mr. Ndyoka Isaac Kabunzu, the LCIII Chairperson for Munkunyu Sub-county, noted that recent arrests

have only heightened anxieties.

“These developments have increased community tension. Any individuals held without sufficient evidence should be released. Sustainable peace requires structural intervention over criminalisation.”

Kabunzu strongly advocated for a transparent judicial review, urging district leaders, security agencies, cultural institutions, and all stakeholders to immediately convene a dialogue aimed at addressing the root causes.

While the air in Munkunyu remains tense as communities await a resolution to the compensation agreement, the path forward relies on restoring mutual trust, establishing green compensation frameworks, and choosing joint survival over resource division.

Source: Peace Journalism Foundation East Africa

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rights experts call for an inclusive transition as the East Africa region attracts renewable energy investments.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

NAIROBI, Kenya: As governments across East and the Horn of Africa accelerate efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, experts have warned that the shift could deepen inequality and further trigger human rights violations if affected communities are excluded from decision-making processes.

The warning came at the 5th East and Horn of Africa Business and Human Rights Conference in Nairobi, organized by Danchurch Aid and its partners. Climate justice advocates, business leaders, and human rights experts met to discuss how the increasing investments could better align with human rights standards and responsible business conduct.

Just transition was among the key issues discussed during the two-day conference held last week, with experts emphasizing the need for inclusive approaches as East Africa attracts growing investments in renewable energy.

While there is a need and an urgency to address climate change, experts argue that the global race toward clean energy is already producing unintended consequences elsewhere, offering important lessons for Africa.

“The transition to renewable energy is inevitable, whereas justice isn’t,” Mr. Andrew Byaruhanga, the Executive Director of Resource Rights Africa, said during a panel discussion on just transition pathways.

Byaruhanga said governments and investors risk prioritizing energy targets and financial returns over the rights and welfare of communities whose land and livelihoods are affected by transition-related projects.

“The finance sector must be mobilized, not just for returns, but also for impact. Public and private sectors must align their efforts, share risks, and invest in long-term partnerships. The success of this transition, therefore, depends on empowering those most affected. Governments have a role to play in making sure that the financing architecture takes cognizance of these realities,” he added.

His remarks reflected growing concerns that renewable energy projects, despite their climate benefits, can reproduce the same patterns of exclusion and dispossession that have historically accompanied large-scale development projects.

Across the world, communities are increasingly raising concerns about land acquisition, displacement, inadequate compensation, and restrictions on civic space linked to renewable energy infrastructure and critical mineral extraction.

A recent report by the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, Financing the Transition, Silencing Defenders, documented cases across Asia where communities and environmental defenders faced intimidation, arrests, displacement, and violence while opposing energy transition projects.

Among the cases highlighted was the Jalaur River Multipurpose Project in the Philippines, where Indigenous Tumandok communities reportedly faced inadequate consultations and displacement threats linked to the construction of a hydropower dam. In India’s Assam state, local communities opposed a major solar project over concerns that it would displace more than 20,000 Indigenous residents and threaten traditional livelihoods.

Although the cases occurred outside Africa, experts in Nairobi said similar risks are emerging across the continent as governments pursue investments in renewable energy, carbon markets, and climate-related infrastructure.

Florence Shako, Executive Director of the Center for Education Policy and Climate Justice, said the transition must not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.

“We can talk about decarbonization and the fact that it’s important to transition, but we must really think about what inclusivity means for the youth, for persons with disabilities, and for people in the Global South,” she said.

Shako noted that many affected communities lack access to information, legal representation, and affordable mechanisms for seeking justice when their rights are violated. She also warned that transition projects often fail to provide alternatives for people who lose land, jobs, or sources of income.

“We need to think about replacement livelihoods and access to remedies. Otherwise, communities will continue bearing the costs while others reap the benefits.” She added.

The conference also highlighted concerns about youth exclusion from transition discussions.

According to Eric Baeni, Coordinator of the Pan African Youth Alliance on Business and Human Rights (PAYA-BHR), unemployment remains one of the biggest barriers preventing young people from engaging with climate and transition agendas.

“We are the workforce of the continent, but we are unemployed. Unemployment is the key challenge that prevents many young people from understanding and participating in the just transition.” He said.

He called for deliberate efforts to involve young people in policy discussions and ensure they benefit from employment opportunities created by emerging green industries.

The concerns raised in Nairobi come at a time when African governments are under increasing pressure to pursue low-carbon development pathways while tackling poverty, unemployment, and climate vulnerability. African countries emit only a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, but are among the most vulnerable to climate-related disasters such as droughts, floods, and food insecurity.

Experts further argued that this reality requires transition strategies that prioritize local development needs rather than simply replicating models designed elsewhere.

As the conference concluded, experts called for stronger protections for human rights defenders, meaningful community participation, accessible grievance mechanisms, and investment frameworks that place affected communities at the center of decision-making.

They also urged governments to strengthen safeguards around land rights, free, prior, and informed consent, and benefit-sharing arrangements before approving major transition-related projects.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Emotions run high as Uganda Land Commission mediates S

Published

on

The Uganda Land Commission (ULC) has intensified efforts to resolve a series of longstanding land disputes in Soroti city, with cultural institutions, private sector organisations and residents seeking intervention over contested properties.

During a stakeholder engagement in Soroti city, the proceedings took an emotional turn when Iteso Cultural Union founder, Pumprus Imodot, broke down while addressing commissioners over a disputed piece of cultural land in Kichinjaji ward.

Imodot told the commission that despite submitting ownership documents to several government offices, he has not received a satisfactory response. He expressed concern that construction activities are continuing on the disputed land while the matter remains unresolved.

The meeting was attended by ULC commissioners Tom Kasenge and Christine Amongin Aporu, Soroti city leaders, and representatives from the aviation sector, who explained how they believe the land was legally allocated.

The commission later moved to the Yellow Flats area in Soroti city’s Western division to mediate another dispute involving 10 families and a claimant, Samuel Oyata, over ownership of Plot 25.

Commissioner Kasenge said attempts to reach an immediate settlement between the parties were unsuccessful, adding that further engagement would be required before a resolution could be reached.

Residents led by Allan Opolot and 81-year-old Stephen Enokikin rejected Oyata’s claim, insisting that their families possess legitimate ownership documents dating back several decades.

However, Oyata maintained that the plot was legally allocated to him through the district land board with the recommendation of the former Soroti Municipal Council.

Speaking on behalf of the affected families, Stephen Enokikin said they remain confident in their ownership documents and believe the truth will prevail.

Meanwhile, the commission also mediated a separate dispute involving property occupied by the Teso Private Sector Development Centre in Soroti city.

The contested property has attracted competing claims from the Teso Private Sector Development Centre and two individuals, Francis Omoding and George William Okwaput, who were granted a lease extension offer by the Uganda Land Commission.

During a stakeholders’ meeting attended by Soroti city mayor Francis Esudu, Soroti District Land Board chairperson Jorem Opian Obicho, opinion leaders and commission officials, Teso Private Sector chief executive officer Soyce Malinga challenged the lease offer, alleging that Omoding had a conflict of interest because he processed ownership documents while serving as treasurer of the institution’s Board of Governors.

Kasenge explained that the matter remains before the commission following applications by Omoding and Okwaput for lease extension on the property.

The discussions prompted strong reactions from stakeholders. Benson Ekue, director of Public Affairs Centre Uganda, urged the commission to revoke the lease offer granted to Omoding and Okwaput.

Ninety-five-year-old elder Mzee Amuriat appealed to the commission to reconsider its decision, arguing that the property has historically served various community and business organisations, including Teso African Traders, Uganda National Chamber of Commerce and later the Teso Private Sector Development Centre.

Following extensive deliberations, a majority of stakeholders voted in favour of recommending that the commission cancel the lease offer granted to Omoding and Okwaput and instead consider the application submitted by the Teso Private Sector Development Centre.

Commissioner Christine Amongin Aporu acknowledged concerns raised during the meeting and explained that the commission had identified procedural issues surrounding the lease allocation process that require further review.

Despite the recommendations, Okwaput rejected the resolutions reached during the engagement, insisting that all legal procedures were followed in obtaining the lease offer. He warned that any attempts to reverse the decision could result in court action and potential compensation claims exceeding Shs8 billion.

Aporu reaffirmed the commission’s commitment to peaceful dispute resolution, noting that the Uganda Land Commission will continue engaging all affected parties to find lasting solutions to the land conflicts affecting Soroti city.

The engagements underscore the growing challenge of land ownership disputes in Soroti city, where competing claims involving cultural institutions, private entities and residents continue to fuel tensions over valuable urban land.

Original Source:newvision.co.ug  Via : europesays.com

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates