Theresa May announced in July that the drug is being outlawed in line with other countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the U.S.
Abukar Awale (Qaad-diid)
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Ever since the decision was taken by Teresa May to classify khat as a Class C substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the vast majority of the Somali community in Britain welcomed this momentous development as common sense prevailing after many years of discussion and debate pertaining to the social and medical harms caused by it. Britain had finally fallen into line with much of the civilized world in banning the sale and use of khat. Seeing as it would no longer be legal in this country, Britain could no longer be used a hub from which khat could be trafficked to other European destinations where it had long since been banned, thereby allowing the UK to adopt to a more streamlined anti-drug policy with its European partners.
Despite the positive messages coming out of Whitehall, it is not certain when the ban itself will actually come into effect. Although the decision to ban khat was taken in July 2013, it was hoped that the ban would finally become law by the New Year. However, this has now been complicated by the startling development that the Home Secretary, Teresa May is being sued in the High Court by a khat trader, Mahamud Ahmed Mohammed, a British citizen of Somali origin. Mr Mohammed claims that the ban of khat will violate his human rights, citing discrimination under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998. He further claims that "the use of khat is part of a long-standing and established social, cultural and ethnic custom and tradition". It does seems odd that Mr Mohammed would now seek to champion the preservation of Somali cultural norms when he is largely unknown in cultural activism and community affairs. Perhaps only when we are reminded of his own previous admission that he stands to lose the profit he usually earns for up to seventy percent of khat imported into the UK do his motives become somewhat clearer. Of greater concern is is the fact that the case against Mrs May is being funded by the Kenyan government, (in particular the Vice-President William Ruto) to the tune of over £50,000 as khat farmers in Meru County, Kenya, are fearful of the loss of their lucrative cash crop. It might be cynical to say so, but this appears to be a stalling tactic by the aforementioned claimants who seek to profit financially as long as possible before the ban does finally come into place.
While Mr Mohammed's reluctance to forfeit a lucrative business is understandable to a degree, it is undoubtedly regrettable that he would conveniently place his own financial interests above the needs of tens of thousands of vulnerable Somalis in Britain who have suffered immeasurable harm from khat use. That he would allow himself to be a puppet for his Kenyan paymasters merely compounds this sentiment. Perhaps where such interests have converged, desperate measures such as the lawsuit being filed at the High Court should have been expected.
The problem with this is that Mr Mohammed is being bankrolled by a man in William Ruto who is wanted for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court at the Hague, crimes against his own fellow Kenyans I might add. ( see the link ) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24028714
Given that Mr Mohammed claims to act in defense of his community, one would expect him to have an appreciation of due diligence and not allow himself to be associated with public figures accused of such serious crimes. If Mr Mohammed truly believed in the moral rectitude of his lawsuit, he would respectfully decline the offer of financial assistance from Mr Ruto and advise him to concentrate on clearing his name at the ICC first.
Mr Mohammed also cites the recent report by the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs Report of February 2013 that claimed there was insufficient evidence of the social and medical harm caused by khat. Quite how the ACMD reached this conclusion is perplexing to say the least, especially when the World Health Organization classified khat as a drug as far back as 1988. This more orthodox scientific opinion formed the basis of the banning of khat across the western world. One must also question why has the Kenyan government not sought to challenge and overturn the bans on khat in Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the USA, Canada or France? The USA and Canada notwithstanding, surely the Human Rights Act would apply elsewhere? I guess the UK must be seen as a soft touch. Perhaps the local Somali community should submit a counter claim against Mr Mohammed and the Kenyan government for damages caused by their sale of large quantities of khat to the UK.
Another of Mr Mohammed's spurious claims is that the use of khat is an ancient Somali pastime passed down from one generation to the next. Firstly, this conveniently sidesteps the petition I personally delivered to the Home Office with over seventy thousand signatures calling on the UK government to outlaw khat. More importantly, this viewpoint is diametrically opposed to that of the current elected President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who has defined khat as a 'national catastrophe' and in a recent televised Channel 4 news interview called on the UK government to ban khat outright as a harmful drug. In other words, President Hassan Mohamud equates the sale of khat to the drug trade and by extension, views individuals like Mr Mohammed not as legitimate businessman, but as drug dealers who are a scourge on society.
Incidentally, this is a viewpoint that is gaining ground in Kenya and is also supported National Authority for the Campaign Against Alcohol and Drug Abuse, who are fervently lobbying for khat to be classified along similar lines due to its harmful effects. I would like to urge William Ruto to allay such concerns closer to home in Kenya and try to reach a broader consensus before attempting to intervene abroad. Through this lawsuit, Mr Ruto is in effect attempting to force Britain to continue allowing Kenyan khat dealers to sell their drugs to vulnerable Somalis in Britain with scant concern for their well being. What if the tables were turned and it was the UK that decided to interfere with Kenya's drug laws? I would imagine that the Kenyan government would gently remind the UK that it was no longer a colonial power and that as a sovereign nation; Kenya would not take kindly to being dictated to by foreign powers. The UK government has taken steps to protect the UK Somali community as British citizens from the effects of khat dependency and addiction. I would like to urge the Kenyan government to take similar steps to protect the Meru khat farmers as Kenyan citizens from their perceived dependency on the growth and export of khat by encouraging them to grow a more viable, ethically acceptable alternative such as food. To me it is blindingly obvious that this is what the horn of Africa desperately needs, not catha edulis. I would welcome the opportunity to hear Mr Mohammed's view on this when he presents his much vaunted case against the UK's decision to ban Khat in the High Court.
Abukar Awale ( Qaad diid )
The Lead Anti-khat campaigner UK
https://twitter.com/Abukarawale