Angelina Gibbs and Bethany Janzen
On November 15th, a few countries were conspicuously absent from the gathering of EU and African, Caribbean and Pacific nations (ACP-EU) to sign a new partnership agreement. One of these was Nigeria.
The day before the gathering in Samoa, one Nigerian man rallied two dozen Nigerians to protest, calling for the nation’s withdrawal. The reason? The treaty – known as the Samoa Agreement –threatens national sovereignty on issues that include the protection of family and human life.
According to a press release by the Nigerian government on November 15, 2023 the Samoa Agreement covers six key areas: Human Rights, Democracy and Governance, Peace and Security, Human and Social Development, Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change, Inclusive Sustainable Economic Growth, and Development, Migration and Mobility.
The treaty was revised and extended from the Cotonou Partnership, which was first signed in 2000. The partnership includes numerous countries and about 1.5 billion people. This new treaty would push destructive ideologies and take away national sovereignty. These ideologies include abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, and pose a threat to the traditional and religious values many countries hold. To make matters worse, it lasts for the next 20 years.
A countries fought back against this agreement, including Namibia and Ghana. But Nigeria planned to sign it. Until Nigerian pro-life leader Yusef organized a march on November 14th against the ACP-EU agreement, pleading in a TV interview, “we have our culture and values that the European government must respect.”
Following the protest and media interviews, the Nigerian government withdrew their plan to sign the agreement. While this is encouraging to those in Nigeria, other countries are now
at risk for anti-family and anti-religious propositions.
Unfortunately, the agreement has moved to the next phase and will serve as a new legal framework. The agreement strengthens the capacity of the EU, creating more leverage to push for “reproductive access” – including abortion – and LGBTQ+ education across the world. This may pose a threat to family and religious liberty – even in historically pro-family and pro-life countries in the coming years.
But if a couple dozen citizens who had the courage to come to the streets resulted in a nation’s protection, what impact could the millions of Christians across Africa, the Caribbean, and the world make if only a few speak up?