THE LEGALITY OF THE NILE TREATY IS QUESTIONED BY TANZANIA'S YOUNG LAWYER

02/01/2007
GRANTS ARCHIVES AGAJA KUYO BARUPE WECHE DONGRUOK MBAKA NONRO JEXJALUO NGECHE LUO GI GWENG' THUM TEDO LUO KITGI GI TIMBEGI SIGENDNI LUO THUOND WECHE ;	THE LEGALITY OF THE NILE TREATY IS QUESTIONED BY TANZANIA'S YOUNG LAWYER By Leo Odera Omolo Luocome, Kisumu THE most controversial 1929 Water Treaty which was purportedly signed 'by the British on behalf of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, with Egypt and the Sudan governments as parties , and amended in 1959, has elicited a lot of criticism in the Eastern African region. A young Tanzanian lawyer Mr.Abudu Sallam Waiswa who is based in Dar Es Salaam has written an analytical article arguing that the treaty was driven 'by British need to secure a reliable source of cotton supplies for its home textile industry,and not for the benefit of the riparian states upstreamâ€™. It was for all the intents and purposes a treaty 'by the British for the British. The British, soon after the signing of the now repugnant treaty, consequently set up cotton plantations in Egypt and Sudan. But given the arid nature of these two countries, it became necessary for them to secure a reliable source of water to support the irrigation schemes in Egypt and Sudan. Mr.Waiswa in an analytical article published in several newspapers in Dar Es Salaam and also in the influential EASTAFRICAN weekly, which is owned 'by the Nairobi based NATION group of newspapers argued that the treaty rendered Egypt and Sudan exclusive rights to use the Nile's water in total disregard of the basic fact that, other riparian countries like Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda had inalienable natural right to a share of the waters. The treaty vested in Egypt the right to use 55.5 billion cubic metres of water, out of the total 84 billion cubic metres of the annual flow, while Sudan was to use 18.5 billion cubic meters of waters; the remaining 10 billion cubic meters was expected to evaporate or seep into the ground. The treaty further stipulated that without the consent of the Egyptian government, no navigational or hydro-electricity works could be established on the tributaries of the Nile or other supply water bodies like Lake Victoria if such works could potentially cause a drop in the water level in a manner detrimental to Egypt's water needs. However, the legal expert believes, a treaty of any kind, cannot be binding upon a party who was not effectively represented when it was being signed. This is for the simple reason that an un-represented party cannot be presumed to have consented to the terms and conditions of such an agreement. The treaty was signed when the three Eastern African states of Kenya,Tanganyika (now Tanzania) and Uganda were still under the colonial yokes. The three countries were still British colonies or British protectorate states and therefore cannot be parties to this now repugnant treaty. The Egyptian government has since posted a team of military water engineers for the purpose of monitoring the flow of waters in both Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi and also at the Nile Source in Jinja town, which is located in eastern Uganda. "The British, who purported to represent the other countries, cannot, in the eyes of the law, be said to have sufficiently represented the interests of the other affected countries, since colonial masters merely superimposed themselves on to the colonies and, therefore, could not be taken as their agents", argued Mr. Waiswa. Moreover, the circumstances that preceded the signing of this treaty leave no doubt that the British merely wanted to safeguard their imperial interests. Indeed, the treaty ceased to be enforceable against other countries soon after independence. It is indeed unrealistic for Egypt and the Sudan to expect that other countries should continue to respect a treaty that never actu11y was. Besides, the treaty contravenes the provisions of many international laws on the use of international waters, such as the convention on the non-Navigational Uses of International Water courses of 1997, the African Convention on the Conservation of nature and Natural Resource of 2004. "It is, however, gratifying that, at last our governments have realized the need to do what they ought to have done more than 40 years ago" says the Tanzanian lawyers in his article. It is thus imperative that, as the Ministers prepare themselves to sign the new treaty, they should synchronize the provisions of the various international legal instruments regarding the utilization and conservation of cross border natural resources. The new Nile waters treaty, Mr. Waiswa suggested, should not envisage absurd provisions, akin to those in the former treaty. A balance should be struck between the need to utilize all the relevant water for economic development and the overriding duty of conserving the environment. ENDS Leooderaomolo@yahoo.com The writer is LUOCOME REPORTER based in Kisumu. We urge all LUOCOME members with pressing issues pertaining to media and press releases to kindly contact him from any where in world. He will assist you to get true picture of your Village Developement. LUOCOME-MEDIA ===================================================== Joluo.com Ka in gi mari moro ma di wandik ka to orni Akelo nyar Kager, jaluo@jaluo.com Daher winjo dwondi in bende, iwinjo?	IDWARO TICH? INJILI GOSPEL GALAMORO : Riwruok mar JOLUO e Piny Ngima, orwaku uduto mondo ubed e kanyakla mar burani. Ornwa nyingi gi nondi kaka obedo. Riwruok e teko joka Nyanam. WENDO MIWA PARO OD PAKRUOK

THE LEGALITY OF THE NILE TREATY IS QUESTIONED BY TANZANIA'S YOUNG LAWYER

By Leo Odera Omolo
Luocome, Kisumu

THE most controversial 1929 Water Treaty which was purportedly signed 'by the British on behalf of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, with Egypt and the Sudan governments as parties , and amended in 1959, has elicited a lot of criticism in the Eastern African region.

A young Tanzanian lawyer Mr.Abudu Sallam Waiswa who is based in Dar Es Salaam has written an analytical article arguing that the treaty was driven 'by British need to secure a reliable source of cotton supplies for its home textile industry,and not for the benefit of the riparian states upstreamâ€™. It was for all the intents and purposes a treaty 'by the British for the British.

The British, soon after the signing of the now repugnant treaty, consequently set up cotton plantations in Egypt and Sudan. But given the arid nature of these two countries, it became necessary for them to secure a reliable source of water to support the irrigation schemes in Egypt and Sudan.

Mr.Waiswa in an analytical article published in several newspapers in Dar Es Salaam and also in the influential EASTAFRICAN weekly, which is owned 'by the Nairobi based NATION group of newspapers argued that the treaty rendered Egypt and Sudan exclusive rights to use the Nile's water in total disregard of the basic fact that, other riparian countries like Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda had inalienable natural right to a share of the waters.

The treaty vested in Egypt the right to use 55.5 billion cubic metres of water, out of the total 84 billion cubic metres of the annual flow, while Sudan was to use 18.5 billion cubic meters of waters; the remaining 10 billion cubic meters was expected to evaporate or seep into the ground.

The treaty further stipulated that without the consent of the Egyptian government, no navigational or hydro-electricity works could be established on the tributaries of the Nile or other supply water bodies like Lake Victoria if such works could potentially cause a drop in the water level in a manner detrimental to Egypt's water needs.

However, the legal expert believes, a treaty of any kind, cannot be binding upon a party who was not effectively represented when it was being signed. This is for the simple reason that an un-represented party cannot be presumed to have consented to the terms and conditions of such an agreement.

The treaty was signed when the three Eastern African states of Kenya,Tanganyika (now Tanzania) and Uganda were still under the colonial yokes. The three countries were still British colonies or British protectorate states and therefore cannot be parties to this now repugnant treaty.

The Egyptian government has since posted a team of military water engineers for the purpose of monitoring the flow of waters in both Dar Es Salaam and Nairobi and also at the Nile Source in Jinja town, which is located in eastern Uganda.

"The British, who purported to represent the other countries, cannot, in the eyes of the law, be said to have sufficiently represented the interests of the other affected countries, since colonial masters merely superimposed themselves on to the colonies and, therefore, could not be taken as their agents", argued Mr. Waiswa.

Moreover, the circumstances that preceded the signing of this treaty leave no doubt that the British merely wanted to safeguard their imperial interests.

Indeed, the treaty ceased to be enforceable against other countries soon after independence. It is indeed unrealistic for Egypt and the Sudan to expect that other countries should continue to respect a treaty that never actu11y was.

Besides, the treaty contravenes the provisions of many international laws on the use of international waters, such as the convention on the non-Navigational Uses of International Water courses of 1997, the African Convention on the Conservation of nature and Natural Resource of 2004.

"It is, however, gratifying that, at last our governments have realized the need to do what they ought to have done more than 40 years ago" says the Tanzanian lawyers in his article.

It is thus imperative that, as the Ministers prepare themselves to sign the new treaty, they should synchronize the provisions of the various international legal instruments regarding the utilization and conservation of cross border natural resources.

The new Nile waters treaty, Mr. Waiswa suggested, should not envisage absurd provisions, akin to those in the former treaty.

A balance should be struck between the need to utilize all the relevant water for economic development and the overriding duty of conserving the environment.

ENDS
Leooderaomolo@yahoo.com

The writer is LUOCOME REPORTER based in Kisumu. We urge all LUOCOME members with pressing issues pertaining to media and press releases to kindly contact him from any where in world. He will assist you to get true picture of your Village Developement.
LUOCOME-MEDIA