A Kenyan court has ruled that Facebook’s owner, Meta, can face a $2.4 billion lawsuit in the East African country for allegedly promoting hate speech which fueled an ethnic war in neighboring Ethiopia, a group that filed the case has announced.

The decision by Kenya’s High Court on Thursday comes more than two years after a group of Ethiopian researchers, along with Kenyan human rights campaigners, launched the lawsuit against the American tech giant.

The petitioners argue that Facebook’s recommendation algorithm amplified violent posts and contributed to the two-year conflict in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray region, which ended in November 2022. Maereg Amare, a chemistry professor, was killed during the conflict after his home address and posts calling for his murder were published on Facebook, according to his son, Abrham Meareg, one of the plaintiffs.

Fisseha Tekle, a former researcher at Amnesty International and claimant in the case who published reports on crimes committed during the Tigray war, also allegedly received death threats on the Meta platform. The other petitioner is the Katiba Institute (KI), a Kenya-based legal non-profit organization.

The plaintiffs are demanding that Meta hire more content moderators in Africa, with better pay and working conditions, as well as establish a $2.4 billion restitution fund for the victims of hate and violence incited on the platform. The petition also asks the firm to alter its algorithm to stop promoting “viral hate” and formally apologize for the murder of Professor Meareg.

However, Meta argues that Kenyan courts lack jurisdiction to hear cases against it because it is not registered as a company in the African country.

In a statement on Thursday, the KI said the high court in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, rejected the US-based company’s argument in its latest ruling.

“The ruling shows that the harmful impact of big tech’s discriminatory policies in the African context can be rightfully challenged in our own Kenyan courts,” the institute’s executive director, Nora Mbagathi, stated.

The bloody battle between Tigrayan forces and Ethiopia’s federal government has been named the world’s deadliest conflict in 2022 by the Peace Research Institute Oslo, with over 100,000 people killed. Recent attacks by a faction of the troubled state’s main political party against the interim administration established in 2023 as part of the African Union-mediated Pretoria Agreement that ended the two-year violence have sparked fears of an outbreak of another civil war.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/africa/615238-meta-ethiopian-war-content-suit-kenya/

On March 15, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared South African Ambassador to the US Ebrahim Rasool persona non grata following Rasool’s public remarks accusing US President Donald Trump of heading the global white supremacy movement. This marks another crisis in the relationship between Washington and Pretoria, which has significantly deteriorated since the beginning of 2025.

In February 2025, Trump suspended economic aid to South Africa, citing violations of the rights of the white minority and policies contrary to US interests. Rubio subsequently declined to attend the G20 summit in Johannesburg, pointing to South Africa’s anti-American stance. The South African government’s refusal to heed Washington’s demands, coupled with its blunt rhetoric, has further aggravated the crisis. The so-called “land question” in South Africa and the Expropriation Act signed by the South African president in January 2025 seem to have triggered the turmoil.

In fact, tensions between Washington and Pretoria are rooted in more fundamental issues, including South Africa’s independent foreign policy, BRICS membership, strategic partnerships with China and Russia, and a clear refusal to take sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Under former US President Joe Biden, a bill was introduced in the US Congress to reevaluate relations with South Africa, criticizing the policies of the African National Congress (ANC), particularly its foreign policy. With the change in US administration, another important source of friction has emerged: the DEI agenda (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

The land question in South Africa exemplifies the challenges faced by independent African nations, revealing how both internal and external players exploit these challenges for their own purposes.

The land question

In different African countries, the “land question” is influenced by specific factors, which vary by nation. In East Africa, for example, agriculture is a cornerstone of the economy, contributing 20-25% to GDP and providing jobs for 40-80% of the population.

Conversely, in Southern Africa, the mining sector traditionally plays a pivotal role in the economy, while agriculture accounts for only 3-7% of GDP. Nevertheless, just like in East Africa, agriculture remains a primary source of employment across much of the region. The economy’s relatively low dependence on agriculture reflects the government’s willingness to experiment with reforms and its readiness for change.

Political aspects also play an important role. For South Africa – which is currently in the media spotlight regarding land reform – politics is a key factor. Despite the fact that even in Russian supermarkets one will easily find oranges, lemons, and wine from South Africa, agriculture is not the country’s key economic driver. It contributes just 2.6% to GDP, makes up 10% of exports, and employs around 20% of the workforce. Furthermore, historically, settled agriculture and farming were not characteristic of the indigenous cultures that inhabited modern South Africa prior to colonization; these groups predominantly engaged in pastoralism and gathering.

Land holds significant political and symbolic weight for the Zulu, Sotho, and Xhosa communities that were forcibly relocated during the 19th and 20th centuries. For these ethnic groups, gaining ownership of land symbolizes a restoration of rights to their homeland and a reconnection with their ancestral lands. The importance of land in the dynamics between white and black populations is vividly depicted in the culture of post-apartheid South Africa, notably in J.M. Coetzee’s novel ‘Disgrace’, which won the Booker Prize in 1999.

After gaining independence, nearly all African nations struggled with land issues. Land reforms occurred in waves: first in the 1960s and 1970s following independence, and again in the 1990s. The earlier reforms focused on resolving land conflicts stemming from colonial divisions, while the latter focused on market liberalization.

In many African countries, these reforms followed a conservative scenario, aiming to maintain the status quo and protect the interests of the primary landholders. One notable exception is Zimbabwe, where after attempts to negotiate with major landowners – white farmers who owned up to 70% of agricultural land – the government adopted a more radical policy to redistribute land from white farmers to the black majority.

Apartheid and post-apartheid in South Africa

During the colonial eras of Dutch and British rule, and later under apartheid (1948–1994), the black population of South Africa was systematically stripped of land ownership rights. Bantustans, or reservations for black citizens, were established in areas least suitable for agriculture. By the mid-1990s, white minorities – making up less than 11% of the population – owned a staggering 86% of arable land, i.e., approximately 82 million hectares.

Since coming to power in 1994, the ANC, led by Nelson Mandela, has sought to restore land rights for the black population. The first step in this process was the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994, which provided a framework for restitution – allowing for the return of land or financial compensation to ethnic groups forcibly removed from their homes after 1913.

Back in 1994, the ANC declared that it would transfer up to 30% of agricultural land from white ownership to black South Africans. However, in practice, the government has been hesitant to take bold actions, and the interests of the emerging post-apartheid South African business community have largely focused on sectors like mining, trade, energy, and logistics.

Debates about the “land reform” continue in society and significantly influence elections, which is particularly important for the ANC as its support gradually declines.

Why is the land reform important?

The land reform should be viewed as a comprehensive set of legislative measures, regulatory initiatives, educational programs, and other efforts aimed at addressing the “land question”.  For South Africa, this means finding a delicate balance: fulfilling the demands of the black majority without undermining the interests of the white minority, while ensuring sustainable development in the agricultural sector.

According to the South African government’s website, the primary principles underpinning the reform include: the transfer of agricultural land to black beneficiaries without distorting land markets; sustainable production on transferred land by making sure that human capabilities precede land transfer through incubators, learnerships, mentoring, apprenticeships and accelerated training in agricultural sciences; the establishment of monitoring institutions to protect land markets from opportunism, corruption and speculation.

Preparing for the land reform entails modernizing legal frameworks and aligning them with the provisions of South Africa’s modern constitution, adopted in 1996. Almost 20 acts related to the land question have been passed from 1937 to 2025. The adaptation of these laws sparked the “land reform” scandal that caught international attention in February, drawing criticism from Trump.

What is the Expropriation Act?

The controversy was sparked by the 2024 Expropriation Act (Act No. 13 of 2024), which was introduced in parliament in 2020, passed after a series of discussions and revisions in 2023, and signed into law by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in January 2025. As the name suggests, this act regulates expropriation matters, defined as the “compulsory acquisition of property for a public purpose or in the public interest by an expropriating authority, or an organ of state upon request to an expropriating authority.” This law replaces the previous Expropriation Act enacted during apartheid in 1975.

Expropriation practices are widespread around the globe and are enshrined in various constitutions, including those of Germany and Italy, as well as in the laws of China and India. Since 1996, Section 25: “Property” of the South African Constitution has stated that “property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application for a public purpose or in the public interest.” Consequently, the 2025 law aims to align the constitution with the legislation that interprets its provisions. It clarifies the meaning of the term “public interest” which was absent from the 1975 act but is present in the constitution, specifies the procedures for allowing government inspectors access to private properties for measurements, regulates the process of receiving a Notice of Expropriation, and more.

• the land is not being used and the owner’s main purpose is not to develop the land or use it to generate income;
• organ of state holds land that it is not using for its core functions;
• owner has abandoned the land by failing to exercise control over it despite being reasonably capable of doing so;
• market value of the land is equivalent to, or less than, the present value of direct state investment or subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the land.

However, the act includes a stipulation that the grounds for expropriation include but are not limited to the four reasons listed above. Critics argue that under a broad interpretation, any property could potentially be expropriated without compensation. The debate surrounding this law – which, despite the president’s signature and official publication, was not commenced, pending its effective date to be proclaimed by the president, allows all parties involved to score political points. President Ramaphosa and the ANC demonstrate their commitment to the land reform without binding themselves to extensive obligations, while simultaneously gaining leverage over landowners in future negotiations. Meanwhile, opposition groups and lobbyists, such as AfriForum and Solidarity, rally their supporters by portraying themselves as defenders of white farmers’ interests, thus drawing attention from external partners. Washington, in turn, leverages this controversy to exert political pressure on South Africa and reduce its financial commitments.

It’s clear that the land reform in South Africa is far from complete, and the highly publicized Expropriation Act is merely one of the initial and not most important technical steps in the process of its implementation.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/africa/615008-us-south-africa-land-reform/

BRICS+ collectively represents nearly half of the world’s population and is set to overtake the G7 in terms of global GDP share by 2028. The figures underscore the critical role of BRICS in the international arena, showcasing its influence over essential sectors like agriculture, energy, manufacturing, and the extraction of minerals.

At the Kazan summit in October 2024, BRICS+ leaders invited 13 more countries to join as partners. The new BRICS partner states which accepted the invitation are Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Nigeria, Algeria, and Uzbekistan. On January 6, 2025, Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populus country, joined BRICS as a full member, making it the first Southeast Asian state to join the bloc, as well as the tenth member of BRICS.

Gross Domestic Product is a measurement of the value of all of the goods and services produced in a country in one year. However, if you look at the composition of the GDP in the US, the actual production of tangible products that people need for their lives is just around 10% of its GDP.

Around 21% of the US GDP comes from the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, and real estate). Higher fees from banks and brokers boost GDP. Professional and business services, including white-collar jobs like lawyers and managers, also contribute. Healthcare represents 18% of GDP, but the US has poor public healthcare outcomes despite spending twice as much as other advanced economies (their healthcare spending ranges from 9.6% to 12.4%), including those among the BRICS+ nations. Additionally, 8% of US GDP comes from imputed rents for owner-occupied housing, which is a theoretical figure rather than actual income.

BRICS+ countries account for nearly half of global GDP in areas like food production, energy manufacturing, and public health, when measured by Parity Purchasing Power (PPP). GDP reflects value of all the goods and services produced by countries in global terms, while GDP by PPP focuses on what money can actually buy in each country.

Global food production

BRICS+ has become a key player in global food production. Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are major contributors to primary crops like sugar, corn, rice, wheat, palm oil, and potatoes. These countries produce nearly 90% of the world’s palm oil and substantial amounts of soybean and canola oil.

In the meat sector, Brazil and China lead in the production of chicken, pork, and beef, with China also being the largest producer of hen eggs. Additionally, China, India, and Indonesia account for over 70% of global aquaculture production. This agricultural capacity positions BRICS+ as crucial players in the global food supply chain.

BRICS+ not only addresses food production but also helps stabilize global food security challenges. By promoting sustainable agricultural practices, BRICS+ solidifies its role as the “Bread Basket of the World”.

Energy

BRICS+ nations are major players in energy production, with half of the top oil producers being BRICS+ members. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy demand is projected to increase by 30% between 2016 and 2040. This surge is comparable to adding the combined current energy consumption of another China and another India to the existing global demand.

With the addition of the UAE, Iran, and, potentially, Saudi Arabia the expanded BRICS+ group would include three of the world’s largest oil exporters and would constitute 42% of the global oil supply. Oil market management will remain the purview of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allied producers (OPEC+).

But over the long term, an expanded BRICS+ grouping could be significant for energy markets. For years, OPEC+ states have complained that Western energy sanctions on Iran and Venezuela have constrained investment and export flows. More recently, the EU embargoes on Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products and the EU-G7 price caps have created a new sanctions mechanism that is politically weaponized, and targets a country’s revenues rather than export volumes.

An enlarged BRICS+ would include both oil and gas exporters and two of the largest importers, China and India. Producers and consumers in this group have a shared interest in creating mechanisms to trade commodities outside the reach of the G7 financial sector, and this is not a small task.

In the atomic energy sector, Russia’s Rosatom is a leading player. For example, India’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, which has been under construction with Russian assistance, features six VVER-1000 reactors that have a total capacity of 6,000 MW. Units 1 and 2 were commissioned in 2013 and 2016, respectively, and Rosatom is currently exploring the addition of six more high-capacity units in India.

In China, four VVER-1000 reactors are operational at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, with four more under construction that utilize advanced VVER-1200 reactor technology. These new units are expected to be completed by 2028. These developments underscore the ongoing collaboration between China and Russia in advancing nuclear energy infrastructure.

Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant is also expanding with two new VVER-1000 units expected to be commissioned in 2025 and 2027 under the agreement with Russia.

Rosatom is Involved in constructing nuclear power plants globally, including, among others, Egypt’s El-Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant, which will feature four VVER-1200 units, slated for completion by 2029.

Additionally, Rosatom is pursuing projects in Hungary, Brazil, Bangladesh, Türkiye, and Nigeria.

Manufacturing

The manufacturing capabilities of BRICS+ are strengthened by investments in technology and infrastructure, enhancing productivity across various sectors like automotive, electronics, textiles, and pharmaceuticals.

Integrating digital technologies such as automation, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT) into manufacturing processes within these countries is revolutionizing traditional production methods, enabling them to compete more effectively on a global scale.

China’s revolutionary flash ironmaking process improves efficiency and reduces costs, disrupting global iron ore and steel markets. This technology challenges misconceptions about China’s innovative capabilities and aims to lessen reliance on imported iron ore, marking a significant shift in the industry.

Chinese researchers have dedicated substantial resources to this development, which could alleviate pressure on electric grids. As the world’s largest steel producer and exporter, China’s advancements enhance its position in the global steel market, raising concerns for domestic industries in the US and Europe. Additionally, China’s lower labor and energy costs further establish its dominance in iron and steel production.

Mineral extraction

The BRICS+ countries also play a significant role in the global production of critical minerals. Their contributions to the iron ore, copper, and nickel markets are substantial. In particular, the BRICS+ countries are leading producers of iron ore, with Brazil and India taking the lead. Moreover, the BRICS+ nations collectively hold a strong position in global copper production (where Chile and Peru are key contributors).

Russia and Indonesia are prominent in nickel production, a metal that is crucial for battery manufacturing and stainless-steel production. This highlights the strategic importance of these countries within the BRICS+ framework, especially as global interest in renewable energy solutions and electric vehicles grows.

China not only leads in the production of rare earth metals but also plays a crucial role in the global supply chain for microprocessors. This dominance allows China to wield considerable influence over various high-tech industries worldwide.

The collaboration among BRICS+ nations in metallic ore production ensures a stable supply of critical materials and fosters advancements in technology and sustainable practices within the mining sector. Overall, the BRICS+ alliance emerges as a powerhouse in the production of metallic ores, driving innovation and shaping the future of global resource management while responding to the evolving demands of a rapidly changing world economy.

The contribution of BRICS+ in the global economy is constantly growing, and furthermore, the sectors where the alliance holds strong positions are all crucial, from agriculture and food production to energy. This creates a solid foundation for a steady growth of the political role of the group while also deepening ties among its members and partner states.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/africa/615085-brics-is-determinant-global-economy/