Protests in Mombasa against a directive that all cargo passing through the Port of Mombasa should be transported via the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), and cleared at the Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Nairobi, have continued despite a meeting between the political leadership of Mombasa County and the national government where – the public was told – the directive had been suspended. At the heart of the debacle, of course, lies the question of the high cost that was involved in building the SGR, and the fact that since it was launched in January 2018, the SGR freight service has not been able to compete favourably with trucks plying the Mombasa-Nairobi highway.
The protestors have argued that they are protecting jobs. A study commissioned by the County Government of Mombasa has shown that 2, 987 employees working in Mombasa for Container Freight Stations (CFSs), fuel stations, and as truck drivers have already been laid off since the SGR began its freight operations, and that over 8,000 more jobs are under threat following the directive. Granted, the fear of economic exclusion and the loss of jobs is bound to be a politically explosive issue anywhere in Kenya. But could the protestors in Mombasa be gullible participants in a larger battle between entrenched business interests for private control of cargo storage facilities? The evidence suggests that the protestors in Mombasa are actually crying for the scraps of what was already a broken system that benefitted the elite few.
It is notable that the leading protagonists in the SGR drama, and the politics surrounding the establishment of inland storage facilities at Nairobi and Naivasha – especially before the March 9 handshake – were President Uhuru Kenyatta and the County Governor of Mombasa, Hassan Joho, a powerful businessman with interests in freight stations at the Coast.
Both Kenyatta and Joho are members of families that own huge tracts of land in the country. The Kenyatta family is known to own massive acreage up-country, especially in the Central highlands and in Naivasha, and modestly less along the Coast, where Arab, Indian and some Swahili families (the Johos consider themselves Swahili) have dominated land ownership since long before Kenya’s independence.
Could the protestors in Mombasa be gullible participants in a larger battle between entrenched business interests for private control of cargo storage facilities?
History is replete with examples of struggles over the location, and therefore the control of commerce and collection of rent for port storage all over the world. With the expansion of its capacity in recent years the Port of Mombasa has become increasingly important to powerful economic players with control over land, and with influence over the country’s politics. In fact, the nexus between political influence, land ownership and port business became clearer when services at the port almost ground to a halt in 2008 following the post-election violence that broke out that year.
Due to lack of container storage space, ships were forced to queue out at sea for indefinite periods of time while importers paid high ship delay surcharges. In fact, matters got so bad – cargo entering Mombasa could take up to 10 days to clear – that the then Managing Director, Abdallah Mwaruwa, was sacked two years into his appointment. It was in this context that a group of private investors proposed to the Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) that they provide storage units in order to ease the burden on the container terminal. Soon thereafter, Container Freight Stations (CFSs) – managed privately but licensed as sites for customs clearance by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) – rapidly spread in and around Mombasa.
There are now more than 20 CFSs scattered throughout the town around which operates a ring of local powerbrokers and owners of extensive and commercially viable pieces of land in and around Mombasa. The CFSs have persisted and multiplied with the expansion of the port itself but ironically, they are threatened by the expansion in port infrastructure, in particular the SGR and its inland dry ports.
The nexus between political influence, land ownership and port business became clearer when services at the port almost ground to a halt in 2008 following the post-election violence that broke out that year.
From their inception, CFSs have been a source of aggravation for importers, shipping lines and the residents of Mombasa. The decentralisation of customs clearance to these facilities has caused problems of oversight, with accusations of corruption, including malpractice and smuggling. Many CFSs are also known for their incompetence, mishandling of cargo, overloading and fraudulent documentation. Containers have been damaged and cargo has disappeared. Clearing is deliberately delayed in order to extract higher fees from importers, which increases consumer prices.
Since 2012, powerful players, including major shipping lines and the governments of Uganda and Rwanda, have successfully lobbied to circumvent the facilities altogether, removing themselves from the CFS conversation long before the SGR was launched. In this way, some goods bound for Uganda are cheaper than those destined for Kenya. Less powerful importers have continued to operate at the mercy of CFSs whose owners have accrued greater profits, even as the cost of clearing cargo at the port has increased.
For Mombasa residents, CFSs have increased congestion, as cargo is moved around twice – from the port to the CFS, and then again out of the CFS to final destinations – worsening traffic, causing accidents and damaging roads.
Joining the handshake system
The threat that the SGR and its inland container depots posed to the CFSs in Mombasa was clear even before the SGR began its operations. The tussle between Uhuru Kenyatta and Hassan Joho between 2013 and 2017, while touching on various issues around the fate of devolution, was, in reality, deeply personal. To transfer cargo handling to Nairobi, and then to Naivasha, is to not only transfer the problems that CFSs have caused in Mombasa to other towns, but it is also to provide ample business opportunities to other large landowners there – members of families such as the Kenyattas – moving it away from the hands of families such as the Johos. This was a major contribution to Joho’s opposition to Jubilee before the 2018 handshake.
Amid claims that the SGR is threatening the Coast economy, companies associated with Hassan Joho and Mohammed Jaffer – both key financiers of Raila Odinga’s campaign for the presidency since at least 2007– are reported to have acquired lucrative deals with the SGR and the ICD in Nairobi under unclear circumstances; if you can’t beat the system, do business with it!
The tussle between Uhuru Kenyatta and Hassan Joho, while touching on various issues around the fate of devolution, was, in reality, deeply personal.
In sum, if the protests against the directive to transport all cargo on the SGR are successful (an unlikely outcome), this will result in the protection of businesses that have long enjoyed near-monopoly advantages at the expense of the wider public interest in Mombasa.
On the other hand, the state is likely to respond – as it did – with more violence, as such protests threaten entrenched business interests with influence on public policy that are located away from the Coast.
My argument is that the “protection” of CFS businesses in Mombasa from the noose of the SGR will not go a long way in fixing the economic problems afflicting the county in particular, and the Coast region in general.
Someone should impress it upon the protestors that scraps from a broken system benefitting the elite few will not end the region’s long-felt sense of exclusion.
Support The Elephant.
The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.
Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.
COVID-19 Vaccine Safety and Compensation: The Case of Sputnik V
All vaccines come with medical risks and Kenyans are taking these risks for their protection and that of the wider community. They deserve compensation should they suffer for doing so.
How effective is Kenya’s system for regulating new medicines and compensating citizens who suffer side-effects from taking them? Since March 2021, Kenya has been using the AstraZeneca vaccine supplied through COVAX to inoculate its frontline workers and the older population. This is available to the public free of charge, according to a priority list drafted by the Ministry of Health (MOH). The Pharmacy and Poisons Board (PPB) also approved the importation of the Sputnik V vaccine from Russia, which was initially available through private health facilities only at a cost of KSh8,000 per jab, before the MOH banned it altogether. However, there were reports in the media that the vaccine continued to be administered secretary even after the ban.
Although side effects are rare, we know that all vaccines come with certain medical risks. Kenyans taking vaccines run these risks not just for their own protection, but also for that of the wider community. The state has a responsibility to protect citizens by carefully controlling the distribution of vaccines and by ensuring that adequate and accessible compensation is available where risks materialise. These duties are enshrined in the constitution which guarantees the right to health (Article 43) and the rights of consumers (Article 46).
A system of quality control before the deployment and use of medicines is set out in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act the Standards Act, the Food, Drugs and Chemical Substances Act and the Consumer Protection Act. However, the controversy over Sputnik V in Kenya has cast doubt on the coherence and effectiveness of this patchwork system. Moreover, none of these Acts provides for comprehensive compensation after deployment and use of vaccines.
Vaccine approval and quality control
Subject to medical trials and in line with its mandate to protect global health, WHO has recommended specific COVID-19 vaccines to states. Generally, WHO recommendations are used as a form of quality control by domestic regulators who view them as a guarantee of safety and effectiveness. However, some countries rely exclusively on their domestic regulators, ignoring WHO recommendations. For instance, the UK approved and administered the Pfizer vaccine before it had received WHO approval.
The COVAX allocation system fails to take into account the fact that access to vaccines within countries depends on cost and income.
By contrast, many African states have relied wholly on the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety given their weak national drug regulators and the limited capacity of the Africa Centre for Disease Control (CDC). The Africa CDC itself deems vaccines safe for use by member states on the basis of WHO recommendations. Kenya has a three-tier approval system: PPB, Kenya Bureau of Standards and WHO. The PPB relies on the guidelines for emergency and compassionate use authorisation of health products and technologies. The guidelines are modelled on the WHO guidelines on regulatory preparedness for provision of marketing authorization of human pandemic Influenza vaccines in non-vaccine producing countries. However, prior to approval by PPB, pharmaceuticals must also comply with Kenya Bureau of Standards’ Pre-Export Verification of Conformity standards .
Vaccine indemnities and compensation
To minimise liability and incentivise research and development, companies require states to indemnify them for harm caused by vaccines as a condition of supply. In other words, it is the government, and not manufacturers, who must compensate them or their families where required. Failure to put such schemes in place has undermined COVID-19 vaccine procurement negotiations in some countries such as Argentina. Indemnities can be either “no-fault” or “fault”-based’.
No-fault compensation means that victims are not required to prove negligence in the manufacture or distribution of vaccines. This saves on the often huge legal costs associated with tort litigation. Such schemes have had a contested history and are more likely to be available in the Global North. By contrast citizens of countries in the Global South must rely on the general law, covering areas such as product liability, contract liability and consumer protection. These are usually fault-based, and require claimants to show that the vaccine maker or distributor fell below widely accepted best practice. Acquiring the evidence to prove this and finding experts in the sector willing to testify against the manufacturer can be very difficult.
By default, Kenya operates a fault-based system, with some exceptions. Admittedly, citizens have sometimes been successful in their claims, as in 2017 when the Busia County Government was ordered by the High Court to compensate victims of malaria vaccines. The High Court held that county medics were guilty of professional negligence, first by not assessing the children before administering the vaccines, and second by allowing unqualified medics to carry out the vaccination.
The problem is that the manufacturer has not published sufficient trial data on the vaccine’s efficacy.
In recognition of these difficulties, and in order to ensure rapid vaccine development during a global pandemic, WHO and COVAX have committed to a one-year no-fault indemnity for AstraZeneca vaccines distributed in Kenya. This will allow victims to be compensated without litigation up to a maximum of US $40,000 (approx. KSh4 million). To secure compensation, the claimant has to fill an application form and submit it to the scheme’s administrator together with the relevant evidentiary documentation. According to COVAX, the scheme will end once the allocated resources have been exhausted. The scheme also runs toll-free telephone lines to provide assistance to applicants, although the ministries of health in the eligible countries are also mandated to help claimants file applications.
Beneficiaries of the no-fault COVAX compensation scheme are barred from pursuing compensation claims in court. However, it is anticipated that some victims of the COVAX vaccines may be unwilling to pursue the COVAX scheme. At the same time, since the KSh4 million award under COVAX is lower than some reliefs awarded by courts in Kenya, some claimants may avoid the restrictive COVAX compensation scheme and opt to go to court. Because such claimants may instead sue the manufacturer, COVAX requires countries to indemnify manufacturers against such lawsuits before receiving its vaccines.
Sputnik V is different. Neither the WHO-based regulatory controls before use, nor the COVAX vaccine compensation scheme after use applies. Sputnik has not been approved by WHO or the Africa CDC. The PPB approved its importation in spite of the negative recommendation of Africa CDC, and in the face of opposition from the Kenya Medical Association. The rejection of Sputnik in countries like Kenya is partly due to the reluctance of Russia’s Gamaleya Institute to apply for WHO approval, partly because the manufacturer has not published sufficient trial data on the vaccine’s efficacy, and partly due to broader mistrust of the intentions of the Russian state. This may be changing as Africa CDC Regulatory Taskforce and European Medicines Agency are now reviewing the vaccine for approval while 50 countries across the globe have either approved its use- or are using it already. In Africa, Ghana Djibouti, Congo and Angola have approved the use of Sputnik V with Russia promising to donate 300 million doses to the African Union. Such approvals have been hailed for providing an alternative supply chain and reducing overreliance on the West.
As regards compensation, Russia has indicated that it will provide a partial indemnity for all doses supplied. However, no clear framework has been set out on how this system will work. There has therefore been no further detail on the size of awards, and whether they will be no-fault or fault-based. This lack of legal specifics has added to the reluctance of countries around the world to adopt the vaccine.
As matters stand, therefore, the Kenyan government would not be able to indemnify private clinics importing and administering Sputnik V. The absence of a statutory framework on vaccine compensation by the state makes this possibility even less likely. Nor would compensation be available from the Gamaleya Institute. The only route then would be through affected citizens taking cases based on consumer protection legislation and tort law in the Kenyan courts. As we have noted, this is complex and costly. Claims might be possible in Russia, but these problems would be exacerbated by language barriers and differences between the legal systems, as well as the ambiguity of the Russian compensation promises.
The private sector can complement state vaccination efforts, but this must be done in a way that guarantees accessibility and safety of citizens.
Although the importers obtained a KSh200 million insurance deal with AAR as a precondition for PPB authorisation, the amount per claimant was restricted to KSh1 million, which is well below the WHO rates and the average tort rates ordered by Kenyan courts. As an alternative to claiming against the manufacturers and distributors, injured patients might sue the Kenyan government. Such a claim would allege state negligence and dereliction of statutory and constitutional duties for allowing the use of a vaccine that has not been approved by global regulators such as WHO, thus exposing its citizens to foreseeable risks. This would be particularly attractive to litigants given the difficulties in recovering from the Russian authorities and the risk that Kenyan commercial importers would not be able to meet all possible compensation claims. Ironically, the use of the Sputnik V vaccine in private facilities still exposes the government to lawsuits even if it didn’t facilitate the vaccine’s importation and distribution.
What the government needs to do
The acquisition of vaccines has been undermined by the self-interested “nationalism” of states in the Global North. Only after buying up the greater part of available vaccines have they been willing to offer donations to the rest of the world. These highly publicised commitments fall far short of what is required in the Global South. Kenya’s first task must be to intensify its diplomatic efforts to increase supply through bilateral engagement with vaccine manufacturing states and in multilateral fora like the World Trade Organization, acting in alliance with other African states. Such steps are only likely to bear fruit in the medium term, however. In the short term, it is certainly sensible to involve private companies in vaccine procurement and distribution in order to supplement the supplies available through COVAX. This is recognised in Kenyan and international law as an acceptable strategy for securing the right to health. But it must be done in a way that guarantees accessibility and the safety of citizens. Accordingly, Kenya should encourage Russia (and all vaccine manufacturers) to publish full trial data showing effectiveness and risks, and to seek WHO approval on this basis. It should require them to establish and publicise detailed indemnity frameworks to allow for comprehensive and accessible compensation. It should acknowledge that citizens accepting vaccines are not only protecting themselves, but also the wider national and global community. With adequate regulation before use, the risk of doing so can be minimised and made clearer. But some risk remains, and those who run it deserve to be compensated for doing so. It is therefore imperative for Kenya to establish its own no-fault indemnity scheme for all state-approved vaccines, including those imported by the private sector.
This article draws from COVID-19 in Kenya: Global Health, Human Rights and the State in a time of Pandemic, a collaborative project involving Cardiff Law and Global Justice, the African Population and Health Research Centre, and the Katiba Institute, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK).
Gone Is the Last Of the Mohicans: Tribute to Kenneth Kaunda
As we mourn President Kaunda, my prayer is that the death of this great African son and leader will remind us of the sacrifices that he and his contemporaries who fought for Africa’s independence made.
17 June 2021
Tonight, I was welcomed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by the sad news of the death of the first President of the Republic of Zambia and a founding father of the nation, His Excellency Dr. Kenneth Kaunda.
In this moment of great loss to Zambians and indeed all Africans, I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the Kaunda family, President Edgar Lungu, and the government and people of the Republic of Zambia.
The demise of President Kaunda at the grand old age of 97 years brings to end the pioneers and forefathers who led the struggles for decolonisation of the African continent and received the instrument of Independence from the colonial masters in Africa.
Let all Africans and friends of Africa take solace in the knowledge that President Kaunda has gone home to a well-deserved rest and to proudly take his place beside his brothers such as Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, Léopold Sédar Senghor of Senegal, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea, Félix Houphouët-Boigny of Côte d’Ivoire, Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Nelson Mandela of South Africa to name but a few.
All of them, without exception, were nationalists who made sacrifices in diverse ways. Some, like Patrice Lumumba, untimely lost their lives soon after independence. We are consoled that God granted President Kaunda long life to witness the progression of Africa through five decades of proud and not-so proud moments.
In December 2015, I visited President Kaunda at his home in Lusaka in what was to be our last meeting. As we discussed about everything from family to politics in our two countries and indeed in Africa generally, I asked him if the Africa that we have today is the Africa for which he and his contemporaries struggled and fought. President Kaunda was visibly pained in his response and at some point he broke down and wept. It was obvious to me how disappointed he was about some of the challenges that have plagued our continent for decades since independence.
As we mourn President Kaunda, my prayer is that the death of this great African son and leader will remind us of the sacrifices that he and his contemporaries who fought for Africa’s independence made. Let it remind us of the vision that they had for Africa; their hopes and aspirations; their dream for a free, strong, united and prosperous Africa. Let us, African leaders and people, never let the labour of these heroes past be in vain.
Rest well, KK. Africa is free and will be great.
Vaccine Internationalism Is How We End the Pandemic
The G7 is prolonging the pandemic. The Summit for Vaccine Internationalism is organizing to end it.
Last week, as the Covid-19 virus claimed more than 10,000 lives each day, the leaders of the G7 met to discuss their plans to end the pandemic.
Since the last G7 meeting in February, one million more people have died from Covid-19. A new wave of the pandemic is decidedly here — and with it, the warning that the virus could mutate further and become resistant to existing vaccines.
And yet, despite this lethal urgency, a plan and commitment to vaccinate the world failed to materialize in Cornwall. Even the heralded pledge to donate a billion doses of the Covid-19 vaccine — a fraction of the 11 billion doses the world needs, and spread over a year and a half — dropped to 870 million by the time the meetings concluded, out of which only 613 million doses are truly new.
We cannot seriously expect the G7 leaders to challenge a global health system that they constructed. Nor can we wait around for fresh promises of charity. As the G7 pose for photographs on the beach, new variants of concern continue to accelerate the virus’s assault: the Alpha variant in the UK, Beta in South Africa, Gamma in Brazil, and now, Delta in India. Every minute that global cooperation is delayed is another neighborhood of lives at risk.
As of today, the G7 countries have purchased over a third of the world’s vaccine supply, despite making up only 13% of the global population. Africa, meanwhile, with its 1.34 billion people, has vaccinated a meagre 1.8% of its population. The result: At the current rate, low-income countries will be left waiting 57 years for everyone to be fully vaccinated.
That is why the Progressive International is bringing together a new planetary alliance of government ministers, political leaders, and vaccine manufacturers in an emergency summit for #VaccineInternationalism.
In this moment, every laboratory, every factory, every scientist, and every healthcare worker must be empowered to produce and deliver more vaccines for everyone, everywhere. Instead, high- and middle-income countries have used up more than 85% of the world’s vaccine supply. Many have done nothing to waive patent monopolies on vaccines. None of them have done anything to force a transfer of vaccine technology to the world.
Today, as most of the world grapples with having any vaccines at all, the United States and other rich countries grapple with what will soon be huge surpluses of vaccines.
It is clear: The end of this pandemic is now being artificially delayed. It could end — we could make enough vaccines in one year, according to Public Citizen — but instead of sharing technology and cooperating to manufacture vaccines, powerful pharmaceutical companies are choosing to extend it. The IQVIA report on the potential market for booster shots is telling: an estimated $157 billion will be spent worldwide on Covid-19 vaccines through 2025. Governments have already transferred extraordinary amounts of public money into private pockets, creating nine new billionaires — pharmaceutical executives that have handsomely profited from a monopoly on Covid-19 vaccines. Their combined wealth is enough to fully vaccinate some 780 million people in low-income countries.
This cannot go on. Now, delegations of the Global South are coming together to demonstrate models of vaccine internationalism — Cuba, Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, Kenya, Kerala, and more. Joining their call are allies from the Global North, from the UK, Canada, New Zealand — standing ready to challenge their governments to end their loyalty to Big Pharma and surrender their control over global health institutions. With vaccine manufacturers like Virchow, Biolyse, and Fiocruz stating their willingness to do their part — this coalition has a simple goal: to produce, distribute, and deliver vaccines for all.
With this summit, the Progressive International is sounding the alarm: our lives and liberty are in danger, and the sovereignty of the South is at stake. These progressive forces are coming together to set the stage for a new kind of politics —where solidarity is more than a slogan.
Politics6 days ago
From Shifta to Terrorist: A Shifting Narrative Of Northern Kenya
Long Reads1 week ago
Tanzania: The Dialectics of Maguphilia and Maguphobia
Politics1 week ago
The End of Abiy-Mania
Long Reads2 weeks ago
Bring Back the Herder Conservationist
Long Reads2 weeks ago
Challenges and Opportunities for African Universities in a Post-COVID-19 World
Reflections1 week ago
Benjamin Ayimba: The Making of a Rugby Great
Op-Eds1 week ago
BBI and Kenya’s Finest Jurists
Op-Eds2 weeks ago
Mr President, in the Name of the Constitution, Swear in the Judges