Connect with us

NGO WORK

US Luxury Safari Operator Tightens Stranglehold Over Maasai Land in Tanzania

Published

2 years ago

on

Oakland, CA – Boston-based Thomson Safaris is exploiting the Tanzanian government’s brutal repression of land defenders to legitimize control over Maasai land in the Loliondo Division of the Ngorongoro District. In June 2022, the government carried out land demarcation to create a Game Reserve in Loliondo, which saw security forces fire live ammunition on the Maasai, severely wounding dozens and displacing thousands. In the immediate aftermath of these events, Thomson Safaris carried out a resurvey of a long-contested land claim they have in the same area. Communities say they were excluded from the resurvey process and alleged in a November 2023 court filing that they have since suffered abuse by the company’s agents enforcing the new boundaries.

“Over the past two years, the Tanzanian government has repeatedly shown it will aid and abet foreign corporations operating luxury safaris at the expense of the Maasai communities who have stewarded these lands for generations. While labeling itself as a sustainable tourism operator, the American firm is getting away with capitalizing on this repression,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

Capitalizing on Chaos: Thomson Safaris Tightens Its Stranglehold Over Indigenous Lands in Tanzania exposes how in the aftermath of the resurvey, the strict enforcement of the new boundaries has aggravated daily hardships for the villagers who report incidents of violence – allegedly committed by Thomson Safaris’ guides – against pastoralists and their children. One villager cited in the report alleges, “My boy was taking care of the livestock when he was caught by a Thomson Safaris’ guide and beaten for no reason. He suffered injuries on his body…Our rights have been violated by an intruder in our ancestors’ land.”

As documented in the Oakland Institute’s 2018 report, Losing the Serengeti, since 2006, the Mondorosi, Sukenya, and Soitsambu villages have been ensnared in a prolonged struggle for the return of their lands against the company. Local communities seek to reclaim 10,000 acres of land in what is known to them as the Sukenya farm, originally transferred forty years ago without their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent and vital to their pastoral livelihoods. For over a decade, communities have pursued legal action for the full return of their land in the High Court of Tanzania and Court of Appeal, but to no avail.

On June 8, 2022, the Tanzanian government initiated the illegal demarcation of over 370,000 acres of land in Loliondo Division to create a Game Reserve. The exercise led to widespread violence by state security forces, with dozens of community leaders and villagers arbitrarily arrested while others were forced into hiding. According to local communities, Thomson Safaris took advantage of this increasing state violence against the Maasai and the ensuing chaos to consolidate its claim to the land.

The strict enforcement of the Sukenya farm’s boundaries has reportedly forced villagers to walk hours to access essential medical services and schools. Communities have also lost access to prime grazing land, which has been particularly catastrophic in the context of the drought that ravaged the Horn of Africa between 2020 and 2023. Thomson Safaris is now allegedly lobbying the Tanzanian government to change the land use in the surrounding area exclusively for tourism – a move that would further prohibit Maasai pastoralists’ livestock from accessing vital water and grazing land.

In response to an inquiry by the Oakland Institute, Thomson Safaris’ attorneys in Tanzania denied the allegations about the resurvey and its impact on villagers. While they called the claims “baseless,” the firm failed to provide any evidence that the resurvey took place with full community participation. Despite the ongoing land dispute and allegations of violence made in court by villagers, the company remains the preferred Tanzania operator for high-profile universities, museums, and conservation groups.

Alongside Capitalizing on Chaos, the Institute released Pulling Back the Curtain: How the US Drives Tanzania’s War on the Indigenous. The brief reveals how Tanzania’s largest bilateral donor has been instrumental in designing the country’s aggressive strategy to expand the tourism industry at the expense of Indigenous communities. It details how the US is behind a number of policy changes and measures that have led to the expansion of so-called protected areas and favored private operators, including fiscal measures to their benefit. USAID has for instance prepared development plans for Ruaha National Park – currently being implemented by the World Bank – that will result in the eviction of tens of thousands of people. It has also enabled the creation of new Game Reserves, which will seize over a million hectares of Maasai land and evict thousands of people.

“The fingerprints of the US government are all over the harmful policies and projects to expand protected areas, rendering it complicit in the forced evictions of the Maasai and other local communities across the country. It has turned a blind eye to the egregious human rights abuses of the government so that the rich Americans can keep going on upscale safaris and operators like Thomson Safaris keep raking in massive profits,” concluded Mittal.

Indigenous communities are not enduring hardships solely because of the wrongdoings of the Tanzanian government. The US government and private operators like Thomson Safaris all bear their share of responsibility and must be held accountable for it.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Related posts:

Justice Denied: East African Court of Justice Grants Tanzanian Government Impunity to Trample Human Rights of the Maasai Worldwide Condemnation Over Violence against the Maasai by Tanzania Security Forces Tanzanian Government Continues Violent Repression of the Maasai in Loliondo Despite Worldwide Condemnation URGENT ALERT – Heavy Police Presence in Loliondo as Threats of Mass Evictions of the Maasai Intensify Call to Sever Ties with Tanzanian Government Over Latest Human Rights Abuses Against the Maasai

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Peace in DRC Requires More than Symbolic US Sanctions on Rwanda

Published

4 days 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