Featured Image
Netumbo Nandi-NdaitwahYouTube screenshot

WINDHOEK, Namibia (LifeSiteNews) — Namibia has rejected a treaty with the European Union (EU) that could impose an anti-life and pro-LGBT agenda on the African nation.  

On November 1, Deputy Prime Minister Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah announced that Namibia will not sign the New Partnership Agreement (NPA) between the Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States (OACPS) and the EU over concerns that it would undermine the country’s sovereignty.  

“Based on the above given information, a decision was taken that the government of the Republic of Namibia will not sign the New Partnership Agreement (NPA) between Organisation of African, Caribbean, and Pacific States, and the member states of the European Union and the European Union Commission in its current form,” Nandi-Ndaitwah told Namibia’s National Assembly.  

While most African countries are set to sign the agreement on November 15, Nandi-Ndaitwah revealed that she told the EU in February 2022 that Namibia would not sign the 20-year agreement if the country’s concerns were not addressed. Since Namibia still has fundamental concerns over the agreement, the country will not be signing it.  

READ: Biden to remove Uganda from African trade program after passage of anti-sodomy bill

The treaty was proposed to replace the Cotonou Agreement of 2000. The previous agreement expired in 2019 but was extended due to COVID. 

When the details of the NPA were published in 2021, the Namibian government voiced “fundamental concerns” over the new deal. As a result, the attorney general of the Republic of Namibia was asked to review the document.  

The attorney general pointed out that parts of it are “not in line with the Namibian Constitution, its legal framework, nor its international relations and cooperation policy,” and therefore, Namibia was not bound to sign it. In February 2022, the cabinet sent their concerns with the document to the EU. 

“The Treaty does not have a glossary of terms or a definitions section, to ensure that all parties have the same understanding of terms, which may pose a problem in the implementation and evaluation phase,” Nandi-Ndaitwah pointed out.  

She further stated that the NPA suggests “over eighty (80) regional and international treaties/strategies/initiatives and programmes” that Namibia may not wish to implement in its country. 

However, if Namibia signs the agreement, it may “elevate” the EU’s suggested programs and laws “to a legally-binding position or a treaty status.”  

“Moreover, Article 101 in particular Sub-Article 7 provides that ‘appropriate measures’ shall be taken against a country that is not fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement,” Nandi-Ndaitwah continued.  

Namibia is one of several African countries pushing back against the LGBT agenda. In September, the National Assembly overwhelmingly passed a bill prohibiting recognition of same-sex “marriage.”

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, the dangers of the NPA were outlined during a recent African Inter-Parliamentary Conference on Family Values and Sovereignty. 

The conference urged the heads of all African ACP nations to refrain from signing the NPA, as it would legally bind the countries for 20 years – except under explicit conditions designed to protect the sovereignty of the African countries, as well as their pro-family values. 

The lawmakers insisted that the agreement’s provision establishing undefined “human rights” be removed, because the EU parliament “considers abortion, LGBT issues, and autonomous sexual rights for children to be human rights.” 

Among other changes, the conference called for the following revisions to the treaty: 

  • That all references to “sexual and reproductive health” and “sexual and reproductive health and rights” be removed, since these terms are frequently invoked by the EU and the UN to “advance abortion.”
  • That each ACP national legislature be allowed to propose amendments to the treaty’s provisions which may conflict with their national laws and/or their religious and cultural values, since the treaty mandates compliance on sex ed for children and special LGBT “rights,” as well as abortion.
  • That the term “gender” in the treaty be clearly defined as male and female only.
  • That the supremacy clause invalidating provisions in any existing treaty with which it conflicts be removed, since it violates countries’ national sovereignty. 
  • That the treaty adds the clause, “Nothing in this treaty shall be construed to promote or encourage abortion, ‘comprehensive sexuality education,’ rights related to sexual orientation or gender identity, or autonomous sexual rights or services for children of minor age. The implementation of this treaty must be effected with full respect for the national sovereignty, laws, and religious and cultural values of ACP countries.”

The conference proposed as an alternative that ACP and EU countries “consider continuing under the Cotonou Agreement instead” to keep the ACP states united and allow them “space to negotiate updates and amendments in full consultation with national parliaments.”