Fisher women play a vital role in sustaining household food security, yet remain under‑recognised, excluded from permits, and denied equal income opportunities in the fishing sector.Photo Credit: The Green Connection.

By Witness Radio team.

South Africa produces enough food to feed its population, yet millions go to bed hungry every night.

According to Statistics South Africa’s General Household Survey 2024, released in 2025, about 14 million people experienced hunger, representing 22.2% of households reporting inadequate or severely inadequate access to food. The Northern Cape (34.3%), Eastern Cape (31.3%), and Mpumalanga (30.4%) recorded the highest levels of food insecurity.

One in four children in South Africa is stunted due to chronic malnutrition. In the Eastern Cape alone, 70 children under the age of five reportedly died from malnutrition-related complications between January and July 2025.

In response to the growing problem, the South African Human Rights Commission, a national institution established to support constitutional democracy, declared last year that it would hold a National Public Inquiry into the Constitutional Right to Food. This inquiry will examine how communities, corporations, laws, and policies shape food systems and seek to address the structural causes of hunger.

As a result, the investigation will try to describe a future in which food is once again understood as sustenance, dignity, and justice.

Thousands of small-scale fishers along South Africa’s 3,000 km coastline depend on marine resources for their livelihoods, highlighting their vital role in the nation’s food security and cultural fabric.

Many fishing families struggle to make ends meet, even though they harvest food from the ocean. The livelihoods and food security of about 28,000 small-scale fishermen are directly reliant on marine resources. Yet, existing policies-such as restrictive permits and limited market access-exclude them from full participation, perpetuating food insecurity.

For these communities, food systems are not abstract policy concepts. They shape daily survival, dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity.

“As part of our submission, we emphasize that concrete policy changes-such as recognizing customary fishing rights and improving market access-will directly enhance the livelihoods and food security of small-scale fishers and coastal communities, making the case for urgent reform.” Says Buthelezi

The Green Connection, a registered non-profit organisation, works with coastal communities to promote environmental justice, human rights, and accountable governance.

In the submission, the Green Connection states that the inquiry is timely as it will examine the structural and economic dynamics that perpetuate hunger. “It will assess the concentration of power in the food value chain, affordability and access, land and tenure security, policy coordination, and the realization of the constitutional right to food. This includes its links to dignity, health, water, culture, and a healthy environment.” The submission reads.

The Green Connection further argues that the Commission’s examination of governance, participation, and accountability must include scrutiny of marine and ocean policy.

“Poor implementation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy, limited market access, inadequate infrastructure, and weak consultation processes continue to undermine the sector. Women – who make up less than 30% of participants – remain under-recognised. At the same time, young people leave coastal communities due to declining economic prospects,” says Khetha Buthelezi, Economics Officer at The Green Connection, adding that, “Food and the systems we put in place to produce it cannot be separated from human dignity, livelihoods, and cultural rights. These issues are not abstract policy debates. For small-scale fishing communities, food from the ocean is not merely a commodity – it is a foundation of identity, survival, and social cohesion.”

The organisation also raises concerns about the potential impacts of offshore oil and gas expansion under Operation Phakisa. It further adds that Seismic surveys, drilling, and increased shipping activity can threaten fish stocks and restrict access to traditional fishing grounds, thereby directly affecting food security and livelihoods.

“For small-scale fishers, these are not abstract environmental issues. It is about income stability, cultural survival, and the constitutional rights to food, livelihoods, and participation in decision-making, and protecting these rights and resources for future generations,” says Buthelezi

Several fishing communities consulted shared testimonies describing worsening conditions.

“While small‑scale fishers support around 28000 people in South Africa, many of us can no longer catch or sell enough fish to feed our own families. Walter Steenkamp says on behalf of Aukotowa Small‑Scale Fishers Co‑operative in Port Nolloth, Northern Cape.

Steenkamp adds that Decisions are often made without consulting them, which reflects an intended exclusion from decision-making. “We hope this inquiry will result in the recognition of our customary rights, the return of our fishing grounds, and for the government to listen to those of us who live from the sea, so that we can feed our families with dignity.”

According to Kristie Links from the Sal-Diaz Small-Scale Fisher Co-operative in Saldanha Bay, Western Cape, farmers are forced to use larger boats that they cannot afford. “We have no money for the bigger boats they want us to use, and the areas we are given have little or no fish.

Industrial boats continue to overfish, especially at night, while our communities struggle to put food on the table. This situation is destroying our livelihoods, our food security, and our right to be recognised as small-scale fishers,” Kristie adds.

The organisation argues that poor implementation of the Small-Scale Fisheries Policy, weak consultation processes, and inadequate infrastructure continue to undermine the sector.

“Our message to the SAHRC is clear. If South Africa is serious about tackling hunger and inequality, it must ensure food systems governance is transparent, inclusive, and accountable. Coastal communities are not asking for charity – they are demanding justice.” Buthelezi concludes

The deadline for written submissions has been extended to 27 February 2026, with public hearings scheduled for March during Human Rights Month.

By Witness Radio team.

Mr. Francis Njiri, a small-scale farmer from Makongo and a member of the Seed Savers Network Kenya, questions the spirit behind the Kenyan government and the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) in appealing against the recent High Court ruling on seed rights, including saving and exchange.

The landmark judgment delivered in November 2025 declared key sections of the Seed and Plant Varieties Act unconstitutional, directly affirming farmers’ rights to save, share, and exchange seeds outside formal systems, which many smallholder farmers like Mr. Njiri see as a victory for traditional practices and their livelihoods.

15 smallholder farmers from the Seed Savers Network filed a constitutional petition in 2022, claiming that Kenya’s Seeds and Plant Varieties Act (SPVA) and the Seeds and Plant Varieties (Seeds) Regulations, 2016, have restrictive provisions that violate fundamental rights protected by Kenya’s Constitution, which the Kenya’s High Court in Machakos ruled in their favor.

According to court documents seen by Witness Radio, the Kenyan government and KEPHIS have appealedagainst the court ruling, claiming that the High Court judge misinterpreted key legal provisions, underscoring the ongoing legal battle over seed rights.

“Take notice that The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service and The Attorney General, the above-named Appellants, appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the above-mentioned decision,” documents seen by Witness Radio reveal.

“The Learned Judge erred in law and in fact by misinterpreting and conflating Sections 8(1) and 8A of the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act with Article 11(3)(b) of the Constitution, and by wrongly concluding that those provisions limit or undermine Section 27A, while in fact Sections 8(1), 8A and 27A operate harmoniously to give full effect to Article 11(3)(b) of the Constitution.

The Learned Judge erred in law and in fact by holding that Sections 8(1) and 10(4)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Seeds and Plant Varieties Act, together with Regulations 6, 16 and 19 of the Seed and Plant Varieties (Seed) Regulations are unconstitutional based on discrimination under Article 27(2) of the Constitution, when no distinction had been demonstrated…” further reveals.

The government’s decision to appeal has alarmed farming communities and civil society, raising fears that their interests are being overlooked.

“I don’t think the government is working in the interests of farmers. We suspect these actions serve multinational corporations’ interests because farmers were not consulted in the first place.” Mr. Njiri says.

Mr. Njiri, who has practiced agroecological farming for years, is one of the petitioners in the case. Alongside other farmers from across the country, he challenged the constitutionality of provisions that restricted the use of farm-saved seeds. He argues that such laws disproportionately favored commercial seed companies while undermining indigenous seed systems that have sustained communities for generations.

According to him, the lack of consultation with smallholder farmers, who constitute the majority of Kenya’s agricultural producers, raises serious questions about whose interests are being prioritized.

For generations, farmers have saved, exchanged, and improved seeds-these practices are part of our heritage and vital for our survival. Decisions about seeds should involve those who depend on them most.

In the case that had been determined in favor of the local farmers, Advocate Wambugu Wanjohi says the Government of Kenya and KEPHIS were challenging mostly seed sovereignty, the right to save, share, and replant seeds, and the right to participate in seed policies.

“Now, the Seed and Plant Varieties Amendment Act aligned Kenya with UPOV of 1991, and seed exchange outside the normal certification process became illegal. And the consequence was that the government pushed indigenous seed systems underground.” He mentioned.

Wanjohi describes the High Court ruling as a constitutional milestone.

“This case was not simply about regulatory compliance. The Court approached it as a human rights matter. It examined whether criminalizing seed sharing unjustifiably limited constitutional rights such as the right to food, the protection of culture, equality, and fair administrative action,” he said.

“We argued on a constitutional basis. The farmers sought to have these sections declared unconstitutional because the Act and regulations unjustifiably limited the right to food and eroded cultural rights and equality.”

According to Wanjohi, the Court found that the impugned provisions disproportionately burdened smallholder farmers while privileging commercial seed interests.

“The Constitution does not permit legislation that effectively punishes the survival practices of small-scale farmers. The judgment reaffirmed that seed governance must align with constitutional protections,” he added.

Dr. David Kabanda, Director of the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights in Uganda, views the ruling as significant beyond Kenya’s borders.

“Seed is not merely a commercial commodity; it is the foundation of food systems and community resilience. When laws shift control of seed away from farmers without meaningful participation, they raise fundamental legal and human rights questions,” Kabanda says.

He adds that the case introduces a constitutional perspective that could influence similar debates across East Africa, particularly in countries aligning seed laws with international intellectual property standards.

“Seed determines protection of our land, because in an ordinary African city, if you don’t have seed, then you cannot plant. Seed and food give land relevance in many communities. So, if someone takes our seed from you, especially in the current region where some countries, like Kenya, want to create what they call seed merchants and impose exorbitant fees on you to operate the seed trade or business, it is alienating people from the livelihood they should have. Because if any state or multinational takes away the seed, the propagating material, whether for food or agriculture, it is touching the nerve of your existence.” Kabanda added.

As the appeal process unfolds, farmers like Mr. Njiri say they remain committed to defending what they consider fundamental rights: the right to seed, the right to food, and the right to participate in decisions that directly affect their livelihoods.

“We will continue to stand firm. Seeds are our life. Without them, there is no farming, and without farming, there is no food. We will fight and fight and fight until we win. And we believe we shall win the entire battle. Because we wouldn’t let that freedom, which God gives, be taken away from us because someone wants to protect their interests or farmers’ interests,” he concluded.

With the government and KEPHIS appealing the High Court’s landmark decision, it is now more important than ever for judges, lawyers, and civil society across Africa to actively support farmers in defending their constitutional seed rights. “Strategic litigation has set a precedent on the continent, showing that courts can and must uphold food sovereignty and protect the rights of smallholder farmers.” Advocate Wanjohi added.