Don’t sign WHO’s proposed IHR amendment, group cautions Nigeria, others

Don’t sign WHO’s proposed IHR amendment, group cautions Nigeria, others

By Chioma Obinna

Worried by what it described as empty or weak proposed amendment of the International Health Regulation, IHR, 2005 by the World Health Assembly, WHA, concerned groups led by the Equity International Initiative, EII, has called on Nigeria and other sovereign nations not to append their signatories to the amendment.

According to them, the amendment by the WHA,  a top law making body of the World Health Organisation, WHO, has nothing to offer  by way of strengthening WHO’s preparedness for and response to health emergencies.

The Equity International Initiative, EII, in a press statement made available to Vanguard, described the amendment as a clandestine script for positioning of WHO as world government, legalising transfer of national sovereignty of nations to United Nations, UN, agency.

 It accused the United States of submitting to the WHO a strange proposal to amend several Articles of the IHR, which are expected to be adopted by the 75th WHA that kicked off on May 22, 2022.

The Country Director, Equity International Initiative, Mr. Chris Iyama, said: “Our conclusion is that Nigeria and indeed all other sovereign nations should not sign up to this proposed amendment to the IHR. Should for any reason the leadership of the nation want to cast a second look at this proposal, same should be passed to the National Assembly for our elected representatives and the public to have a say on it as the clear implications of the text of this proposal has very troubling and far reaching implications for the world at large and Nigeria in particular.

“We must all remember the ill-fated Infectious disease bill ostensibly smuggled in from Singapore by the Nigerian Law makers during the COVID-19 era under the influence of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the WHO, which sought to transfer the powers granted only to the President to the Director of the Centre for Disease Control (CDC). These amendments to IHR are simply the amplified version of the failed Infectious Disease Bill. The people and government of every nation should do everything possible to stop the adoption of these amendments to the IHR.”

The EII insisted that to sign up to these proposed amendments are for a nation to cede its sovereignty, security and rights of its citizens to the WHO and its Director General.    It said authority and sovereignty must reside with the people and their elected leaders.

The IHR, first adopted by the WHA in 1969 and last revised in 2005, are a legally binding rules that only apply to the WHO that is an instrument that aims for international collaboration “to prevent, protect against, control, and provide a public health response to the international spread of disease in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risks and that avoid unnecessary interference with international traffic and trade.”

The IHR is the only international legal treaty with the responsibility of empowering the WHO to act as the main global surveillance system.

It said the United States of America has put forward a proposal to amend Articles  ,6,9,10,11,12,13,15,18,48.49.53 and 59 of the IHR, 2005,by deleting text from the existing law and introducing new texts to the law.

The NGO said a careful study and review of the texts being removed from the law and the ones being introduced to the IHR clearly, very clearly show that these amendments have nothing to offer by way of ‘strengthening WHO’s preparedness for and response to health emergencies’ but a clandestine script for the positioning of the United Nations (UN) health agency as a world government and legalising the transfer of national sovereignty of nations to the WHO and a fortiori, those persons and organisations who sponsor and control it.

One Article 9, Equity International Initiative said the amendment being made to the original text of this article, proposes to remove requirement for the WHO to consult and obtain verification by nation where it is alleged that public health emergency of international concern has occurred before moving in or taking measures within or outside the country with respect to the alleged occurrence. This no doubt would be used by powerful nations and indeed, organizations to impose medicines, vaccines and measures on the citizens of nations that the people or their elected leaders are opposed to.

 On Article 10, the NGO said in the text proposed to be inserted into this section, it is made a matter of compulsion of a sort for a country to accept within 48 hours, an offer for collaboration and also provide requested information by the WHO on an allegation that a health emergency of international concern has occurred or may occur in the territory of a state party. “This proposed amendment automatically turns the WHO to a bully master of the affected nation. It is worryingly provided in the proposed amendment that a nation in which the WHO believes that a health emergency has occurred is given barely 48 hours to answer to queries from the WHO on the occurrence.

This flies in the face of the sovereignty of the nations. Firstly, it is not possible to have such a response within the period of time provided and secondly and most worrisome is the fact that the nations and/or government of nations are made answerable to the head of World Health Organisation.”

On Article 10(4), it said by removing ‘may’ as it was used in the existing law and replacing it with ‘shall’ with respect to the right of state party where health emergency is reported to the WHO to exist to accept an offer for collaboration or help from the WHO, the proponents of these amendments are clearly set out to erode the powers of states to decide what health measures they allow on their citizens from the WHO and their agents and give the global body the power to side step political authority of nations in cases of alleged health emergencies. This same applies to Articles 11(2), 11(2) (e) and 11(3).

On Article 12, Equity International said under the proposed amendment being introduced here, the Director General of the WHO would become a global emperor with powers to declare a health emergency has occurred within a state party even when the national authority of the country has not made such determination or does not accept the report of the WHO on the occurrence, including allegations of potential occurrence. “This same vice is contained in the amendment in Article 12(4) (a),and the new articles 12(5) and (6) being proposed.”

 On Articles 48,49,53,59, the NGO said: “Just as observed above, the true intention of the inventors of the proposed amendments to the IHR is not the positioning of the WHO to better prepare to meet the challenges to future health emergencies but to eliminate the international rule on national sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, eradication of individual right to private life and right to decide what medication one receives for illness and also the dismantling of national boundaries making the world one open place for the WHO and its sponsors to practice their medicine merchandise.”


Spread the love

Leave a Reply

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