By Eric Amazu
The outcry that greeted the appointment of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) goodwill ambassador for Africa on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) has jolted Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, the current and first African Director-General of WHO into the reality of global demand for accountability.
Prior to his appointment at WHO, Dr Tedros (he is famously addressed by his first name), served as Ethiopian Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is possible that while on this position, he had exercised the powers of his office without any regard to equity and decorum as leaders do in Africa. This is no thanks to a continental population that is always quick to help adduce excuses for the infraction of its leaders.
While decorating Mugabe, Dr Tedros used a number of flowery terms to describe Zimbabwe and Mugabe. He said that Zimbabwe is “a country that places universal health coverage and health promotion at the centre of its policies to provide health care to all.” He proceeded further to announce that “President Mugabe has agreed to serve as a goodwill ambassador on NCDs for Africa to influence his peers in his region to prioritize NCDs.”
Events that followed which culminated in the WHO helmsman rescinding his appointment have revealed that Tedros’ rating of Mugabe and Zimbabwe under him did not correspond to facts on ground. It is either that the WHO chief was misled or he was simply lying.
If it turns out that he was misled, the only explanation could be that he deliberately submitted himself to it given the amount of factsheets on Zimbabwe’s health system held by WHO itself. No Chief Executive worth his salt would have taken such decision without calling for the profile of the candidate to be decorated. If Dr Tedros did his homework well, he would have discovered that Zimbabwe’s health system is in such a good shape that Mugabe’s regular medical tourism to Singapore is driven only by his desire to die soon in a developed nation with poorer health facilities.
Also, there is a subsisting report by the Physicians for Human Rights on Mugabe’s Zimbabwe written as far back as 2008. The charity group had informed then that “the government of Robert Mugabe presided over the dramatic reversal of its population’s access to food, clean water, basic sanitation and health care, … has used any means at its disposal, including politicizing the health sector, to maintain its hold on power.” The consequence of these, the report further said includes “the shuttering of hospitals and clinics, the closing of its medical school and the beatings of health workers.”
If these were the type of influence Mugabe was expected to exercise over his peers in Africa it could easily be said that WHO under Dr Tedros does not want its works to be done. One reason why this may be so is bgecause a progressive solution to Africa’s health challenges may at last lead to the end of WHO.
That the barrage of opposition and criticisms that followed Mugabe’s appointment forced the WHO boss to rescind the appointment just four days after, betrays the fact that Mugabe’s appointment was not backed by any serious conviction.
If we must unravel the real reason why Dr Tedros went ahead to risk an action that is full of ridicule for himself, for WHO, for Mugabe, and for Africa, we must focus our gaze on some cultural practices of African politics.
Prebendalism which is simply defined as the use of public goods for the reward of favour received or anticipated is implicated in this case. Tedros had on the 28th of August, 2017, in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, announced his indebtedness to Mugabe as the chair of the African Union when the African Union endorsed his (Dr Tedros’) candidature.
Mugabe’s first documented reward was the hosting of the 67th WHO Regional Committee for Africa in Victoria Falls granted to Zimbabwe. The global silence on this first reward could have emboldened Dr Tedros to extend the chain by offering Mugabe the appointment under contention.
Quite noticeable in all this is the silence of African leaders on this whole episode.
Of all the noted objections to Mugabe’s appointment, I am yet to see one by an African president or government. Is their silence an acknowledgement that Mugabe is a true ambassador, a role model worthy of emulation by them? Or is it an internationalization of what we call padi padi arrangement in Nigeria which signifies a culture of silence in cases involving members of one’s gang? Whatever it is, the rest of the world is simply not buying into it.
