What is wrong with the WHO and their Pandemic Treaty
Learn about the World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty, and what you can do to prevent it from becoming a reality here in SA.
With great appreciation to James Roguski for his untiring efforts in pushing back against the World Health Organization, and for his assistance in compiling this page.Stop Medical Colonialism: Vote NO to the WHO Join our Voluntary Association to Exit the WHO
Please take the time to read and share the very important information below concerning the future of South Africa with your groups, communities, congregations, family and friends.
Unfortunately, events are currently taking place of which the media is not making the public aware.
The most important of these is the creation of a legally-binding relationship with the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) via a "Pandemic Treaty" ("the treaty"), also known as the WHO CAII: Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument.
The agreements that the government is entering into - behind our backs - could give the WHO jurisdiction and dominion over every aspect of our lives.
This agreement could override our constitutional rights.
Regulations pertaining to our health are being used to allow for a neo-colonialist, one world government.
This may seem unbelievable but, sadly, technically and legally speaking, this is is true!
The WHO is a division of the United Nations that was supposed to be funded by member states, but is now largely funded by privately-run organisations, many of whom are investors in Big Pharma. It has run the pandemic and our lives for almost three years. Government, and even Woolworths, refer constantly to the need to follow instructions from the WHO. We can provide incontrovertible proof of this.
To date, the WHO has had the power to make recommendations, but not to enforce them. However, the South African government and many other countries voted the "the treaty" should be legally-binding at a meeting held in July 2022, which means that this will no longer be the case.
South Africa is also co-chairing the development of the pandemic treaty so there is no question that our government wants this to happen. Deputy President David Mabuza has stated on record that "the treaty" will go ahead, the NEC will decide, and this issue will not be debated in Parliament.
"The treaty" will allow the WHO to continue to do and enforce everything they have done wrong over the past two to three years and more, i.e. declare a pandemic for a disease that was, in fact, no more serious than the flu, based on fraudulent RT-PCR testing and, worst of all, death from which could have been prevented if early treatment with zinc, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, had been allowed and supported.
Our government has indeed betrayed the trust of the people of South Africa.
The WHO has taken / is taking over control of each country’s health and freedom.
Did you know:
- The WHO is literally set up to operate as a One World Government? (Chapter II - Functions-Articles 2 (v), 19 and 20)
- The WHO can, at any time, declare a pandemic, based on any fraudulent medical test? (Chapter II - Functions-Article 2-t)
- The WHO declared the current pandemic based on the severely-flawed RT-PCR test, which produces up to 94% of false-positives? WATCH: The PCR Test FRAUD - Dr. Kary Mullis Explains Why
- All the nations of the world, our government and businesses like Woolworths obligate themselves to follow instructions and requirements of the WHO with regard to RT-PCR and also, most importantly, the categorization of “immunization” as it relates to “mandates” in the workplace? Our government also, unsurprisingly, partnered with the WHO and COVAX to produce vaccines. See the proof with your own two eyes.
- The WHO is owned and controlled by private individuals, who are not democratically elected by anyone? READ: WHO Conflicts of Interest by Fahrie Hassan
- This makes the WHO effectively a private entity that rules the entire world, outside of any form of democracy?
- The entire health system of our world is owned by financial oligarchs, who use it to dominate all of humanity?
- Dr. Margaret Chan explains the financial conflicts of interest affecting the funding of the WHO
- Shubnam Palesa Mohamed breaks down various conflicts of interests and irregularities pertaining to the WHO
Below, a few things the WHO got wrong with the last "pandemic" but, have failed to acknowledge...
- They failed to recognise the benefits of preventative treatments with vitamins, minerals such as Vitamin D and zinc.
- They failed to recognise the benefits of repurposed essential medications such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.
- They failed to address the deadly side effects of approved drugs, such as Remdesivir and Midazolam.
- They prevented the use of creative and effective treatments by frontline doctors because of the lack of peer-reviewed studies.
- They seem to still believe that ventilators saved lives.
- The WHO and their IPPR still believe that "COVID-19 vaccines" are "safe and effective".
- They still seem to believe that "equity" in distributing dangerous, untested and damaging "COVID-19 vaccines" is more important than the freedom of choice to decide whether one wishes to be part of a global gene therapy medical experiment.
- They do not acknowledge the economic devastation and mental health catastrophe caused by lockdowns.
- They still refuse to accept that pretending to determine cases via RT-PCR is NOT a valid way of diagnosing COVID-19.
- They seem to be in denial that the number of people who died "with COVID-19" were fraudulently included in the overall death totals.
- They still seem to believe that early detection and not early treatment, is the best way to prevent outbreaks spreading and becoming pandemics.
Don't believe us? Please fact check us using the download links and watching the videos provided below.
- A video explanation of what is wrong with the WHO
- Tucker Carlson: There is no graver violation of medical ethics than this
- The Corbett Report: The Global Pandemic Treaty: What you need to know
- Shabnam Palesa Mohamed w/ Reiner Fuellmich Warns Of UN Plan For May 2022
This is their current plan, and backs up what we are saying with regards to what they got wrong and won’t acknowledge:
The Director-General of the WHO is the first Director-General who isn't a Medical Doctor, and who has been accused of the following:
- Covering up three cholera epidemics.
- Mismanagement of ebola.
- Abuse of office.
Ghebreyesus was, and still is, a high-ranking member of the Tigre People's Liberation Front, a corrupt and violent organisation who are responsible for crimes against humanity (bombings, kidnappings, torture, killings and the support of civil war.
A complaint to the above effect has been submitted but, no outcome is known at this point.
Ghebreyesus has a close relationship with the Bill & Melinda Gates and Clinton Foundations and their namesake founders and has the full support of the Communist Party of China (CCP).
Ghebreyesus overruled a panel of nine advisors who voted against declaring Monkeypox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Ghebreyesus made a point of adding the panel is informal, and he has the final say.
We're not sure what caused Ghebreyesus to turn out this way but, we don't feel reassured by any of the above and would like to put social and every other kind of distance between ourselves and him as well as The WHO themselves.
- A video explanation of what is wrong with the WHO
- “Vaccine on its own will not end this Pandemic”
- WHO Chief Warns COVID-19 is “Nowhere Near Over” and Remains an International Emergency (12 July 2022 – read the briefing)
- WHO's Tedros acted as tie-breaker to break disagreement over Monkeypox designation (read the article)
Download the working draft of the pandemic treaty ("the treaty"), also known as the WHO CAII: Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument.
Provisions of "the treaty" threaten the individual sovereignty and personal freedoms of the citizens of their 194 member nations.
“The treaty" aims to implement the “One Health” agenda with a “whole-of-government” and a “whole-of-society” approach.
The term “One Health” is supposed to reflect the interconnectedness of human health, animal health, and the environment which sounds lovely...
However, their concept of “One Health” appears to give the WHO control over every aspect of life on earth which includes control of information including social media (Part 4, Section 13) and, (Part 4, Section 14) they also make it very clear that The WHO needs our money.
Their Dictator, oops, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is on record to state:
"In the face of a common threat, the world needs a common approach, with common rules of the game (?) that govern the global response”
Ah… how amazing – we already have a One Health Programme in partnership with the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to detect and deal with zoonotic disease… e.g. “viruses” that caused by “germs” that spread between animals and people.
These guys are organised!
The following bill is under consideration in the United States Senate:
In May 2021, the WHO's Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (IPPPR) presented its recommendations.
In this video, you can see granite-faced, steely Right Honourable Helen Clark state that:
- They have already "assigned responsibilities for who needs to do what across nation states of the WHO, the World Health Assembly and the UN General Assembly".
- "These proposals ARE actionable."
They have had success during COVID-19 because:
- They developed the "COVID-19 vaccines" at unprecedented speed.
- "Open data and open science collaboration were central."
They want to:
- "strengthen the WHO",
- "establish a new global surveillance system".
- "establish a pre-established platform for tools and supplies" ,
- "new international financing for global public goods", and, lastly
- "Call for immediate actions to end "COVID-19"
The IPPR recommends creating a "Global Health Threats Council", led by Heads of State and government, and they recommend the following for immediate action –
- Elevation of leadership to prepare for and respond to global health threats to the highest levels to ensure just, accountable and multi-sectoral action, and
- Empowerment of the WHO to take a leading, convening, and co-ordinating role in operational aspects of an emergency response.
Were you happy with the way the WHO organised the "COVID-19 pandemic"?
- Strengthen the authority and independence of the Director-General, including by having a single term of office of seven years.
- The Director-General of the WHO should be given the legal authority to unilaterally declare an international pandemic without any peer-review or democratic process.
Yeah... basically what he did the last time but, now we know, or at least we should know that this is NOT A GOOD IDEA!
Are you happy that their current D-G who is linked to war crimes and cover-ups of cholera epidemics should be given more power? By the way, on July 23, 2022, the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, declared the current monkeypox outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), overriding the WHO Emergency Committee, which decided 6-9 against recommending a PHEIC.
- The WHO should be given the authority to set benchmarks for healthcare systems around the world. The WHO is to formalise universal periodic reviews as a means of accountability and learning between countries.
Sjoe! The WHO are in charge of our health, full stop. We wonder what will provide the incentive to adhere – or, should we rather say, “comply” – with their benchmarks.
- Resource and equip the WHO’s country offices sufficiently to respond to technical requests from national governments to support "pandemic preparedness"
What did we say about "one world government"...?
- The World Trade Organization (WTO) and the WHO should convene major vaccine-producing countries and manufacturers to agree to voluntary licensing and technology transfer for "COVID-19 vaccines".
Remember that the WHO is privately owned and is funded by Big Pharma which is a potential and dangerous opportunity for conflict of interest. Do you feel that this sort of decision-making regarding public/our health should be in the hands of the people that potentially benefit from those decisions?
- Establish the financial independence of the WHO based on fully un-earmarked resources, and on an increase in member states' fees to two thirds of the WHO's base programme budget.
This sounds good in that maybe this reduces the influence of Big Pharma with regard to potential conflict of interests based on funding... but, the problem of who actually owns the WHO is still a major issue.
- The WHO should establish a new agile and rapid surveillance and alert system based on full transparency of all parties using state-of-the-art digital tools.
They are talking about YOU! Are you happy to forfeit ALL your privacy and be watched, tracked and traced 24/7, the justification of which is based on a "virus" for which there is an infection fatality rate that is less than that of the flu?
- The WHO is to be given explicit authority to publish information about outbreaks with pandemic potential immediately without requiring prior approval of national governmental bodies and the power to investigate pathogens with pandemic potential with short-notice access to relevant sites, provision of samples, and standing multi-entry visas for international experts to outbreak locations.
Who will be providing these "samples"? Will it be consensual if their "authority" to demand them is "explicit"?
- Further declarations of a public health emergency of international concern should be based on the precautionary principle where warranted, as in the case of respiratory pathogens, and on clear, objective and published criteria.
As in Monkeypox, perhaps? Or, maybe, a "pandemic" such as "COVID-19" with an infection rate of less than the flu.
- The WHO wants pathogens to be shipped to a biological laboratory hub in Switzerland.
- G7 Countries should immediately commit to provide 60% of the EYE-POPPING US$19 Billion required for ACT-A in 2021 for vaccines, diagnostics, therapeutics and strengthening of health systems. (We said they wanted your/our money... NO WORDS, HONESTLY!)
- The raising of new international financing for "pandemic preparedness" and response to raise additional reliable funding for "pandemic preparedness", and for rapid surge financing for response, with the capacity to mobilise long-term (10-15 year) contributions of approximately US$5-10 Billion per annum to finance preparedness and the ability to disburse up to US$5-100 billion at short notice in the event of a "crisis".
- Their Dictator, oops, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is on record to state that they want US$31 Billion per annum.
- The Global Health Threats Council will have the task of allocating and monitoring funding from this instrument.
This sounds like a lot of/too much money to us South Africans. The citizens of the world could probably resolve a few urgent problems with this amount of money.
Remember, the WHO is privately owned and funded by Big Pharma (as described in the “What is wrong with the WHO?” box above). Remember that they pay out 400% more in travel expenses for their 7000 staff than they do on resolving TB.
Compare and contrast: 1,5 million people died of TB in 2020. They spent US$59-million on trying to deal with this disease...
- Every country should apply non-pharmaceutical public health measures systematically and rigorously at the scale the epidemiological situation requires with an explicit evidence-based strategy agreed at the highest level of government to curb "COVID-19" transmission.
What are non-pharmaceutical measures? Yes, they said it! They are talking about masking, testing, track-and-trace surveillance and monitoring, isolation and quarantine? Were you happy with how the WHO handled this the last time? Where was the evidence-based medicine? Where was "the science"?
- The IPPR also suggested a special session of the United Nations General Assembly and that the IMF must also include a pandemic preparedness assessment, including an evaluation of economic policy response plans, as part of the article IV consultation with member countries (because "they" are all "in this together") to support the call for the Pandemic Framework Convention.
May we now break their "programming" to remind you that the infection fatality rate for "COVID-19" was 0.3-0.4%, and this could have been rendered statistically insignificant if the correct early treatment protocols were used.
Yes, they really think we are that stupid... Come on guys, please prove them wrong!
PS: Where is ALL government on this, and why does the media not seem to care?
The WHO has decided to no longer refer to "the treaty" as a "Pandemic Treaty". They are now referring to it as the WHO CAII: The WHO's Convention, Agreement or International Instrument on Pandemic Prevention.
One can only speculate why they have chosen to refer to "the treaty" by so many different names...
For your reference and information, below follows an explanation of the difference between a convention, an agreement and an international instrument.
A Framework Convention
Where international diplomacy is concerned, a Framework Convention is a relatively vague agreement amongst nations in which they agree on general and basic principles. It would establish a broad obligations and commitments but would leave the details to be enacted by each member nation according to each nation's legal requirements. One example of a Framework Convention is the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which was adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2003 and came into force in 2005.
According to Articles 19 and 20 the constitution of the Who, a two-third majority vote of the World Health Assembly is required for the adoption of any convention or agreement, and will come into force when the nation accepts it in accordance with its constitutional processes. Each nation will have 18 months to either to pass legislation to enforce the agreement or proactively reject it via simply furnishing a statement with the reasons for non-acceptance.
Silence = Consent.
The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was signed by the USA but, never submitted to the Senate for advice or consent.
The second pathway by which The WHO may choose to proceed would be to format an agreement along the lines of regulations similar to the International Health Regulations (IHR). This process would be much easier as it only requires a simple majority vote in the World Health Assembly, and comes into force simply via a notification of its adoption. The WHO may adopt regulations under Articles 21 and 22 of their constitution, and regulations may come into effect just 10 months after the member nations have been notified of their adoption.
The third path by which The WHO could achieve their objectives would fall under Article 23 of the WHO's Constitution, which is actually what the WHO does constantly, i.e. to merely make recommendations. These recommendations are not legally binding, yet most member nations voluntarily implement the recommendations.
WHO member states: https://www.who.int/countries
WHO “Pandemic Treaty” Delegates: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_DIV1-en.pdf
Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB)
Contact the members of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to serve them a Notice of Liability, or share your opinions with them:
- Ms. Precious Matsoso (South Africa)
- Mr. Roland Driece (Netherlands)
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Ambassador Tovar da Silva Nunes (Brazil)
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Mr. Ahmed Salama Soliman (Egypt)
- Mr. Kazuho Taguchi (Japan)
- Dr. Viroj Tangcharoensathien (Thailand)
International Health Policy Programme: 3rd Floor, National Security Reform Office Building, oi Sataranasuk 6, Tiwanon Road, Nontaburi 11000, Thailand
- Ms Jane Ellison, Executive Director, Governance and External Relations
[email protected] • Twitter: @JaneEllison
- Dr Jaouad Mahjour, Assistant Director General, Emergency Preparedness
- Dr Timothy Armstrong, Director Governing Bodies
- Mr Steven Solomon, Principal Legal Officer
- Ms Gina Vea, Unit Head, Governance Unit
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Ms Anne Huvos, Unit Head, Pandemic Influenza Preparedness
- Dr Olla Shideed, Executive Officer, Emergency Preparedness
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Mrs Paidamoyo Takaenzana, External Relations Officer, Governance Unit
- Dr Claudia Nannini, Legal Officer
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Mr Kenneth Piercy, Senior Legal Officer
[email protected] • LinkedIn
- Dr Carmen Savelli, External Relations Officer, Governance Unit
[email protected] • LinkedIn
A Framework Convention or agreement can be adopted under Articles 19 and 20. This would require a two-thirds majority vote of the World Health Assembly.
Regulations can be adopted under Articles 21 and 22, and only require a simple majority.
Recommendations can be adopted under Article 23 of the WHO constitution.
Refer to section below, entitled The WHO’s forward planner / the “Pandemic Treaty Schedule”
Secret negotiations are being conducted along two parallel tracks:
Track One: The Pandemic Treaty
The WHO is attempting to negotiate a legally binding international "Pandemic Treaty" which could usurp national sovereignty and restrict our personal freedoms.
This initiative relies on Article 19 of the Constitution of the WHO.
Delegates from every nation have been instructed by the WHO to submit their written proposals to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) by 15 September 2022.
From now until 15 September 2022, delegates from all 194 member nations of the World Health Organization are in the process of submitting their proposals for consideration in the “conceptual zero draft” of the “Pandemic Treaty.”
The INB plans to compile these secret submissions into what they refer to as a “conceptual zero draft.” They then plan to secretly circulate this “conceptual zero draft” amongst the member nations in mid-November 2022, in advance of the third meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on 5-7 December 2022.
Dateline: “Pandemic Treaty” Convention, Agreement or other International Instrument (CAII)
- Intergovernmental Negotiating Body
- Member Nations submit proposed language by 15 September 2022
- Public comment period (written and Zoom conference): 29-30 September 2022 (details to be determined)
- Six (6) regional meetings scheduled to begin 22 August 2022
- Informal Focused Conversations: October
- A “conceptual zero draft” (Framework) to be circulated secretly: mid-November
- Third meeting of the INB: 5-7 December 2022
Track Two: Amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR)
This track is exceedingly secretive, and relies on Article 21 of the Constitution of The WHO.
At the same time, the WHO has set up a Working Group for amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR). The International Health Regulations is an existing body of international law that is legally binding upon all member nations, and any amendments to the IHR would also be legally binding. Delegates from every member nation have been instructed by the WHO to submit their written proposals by 30 September 2022.
From now until 30 September 2022, delegates from all 194 member nations of the World Health Organization are in the process of submitting their proposals for amendments to the IHR prior to the first meeting of the WGIHR.
The first meeting of the WGIHR has not been formally scheduled. It should occur some time before 15 November 2022.
Over 36,000 written public comments were submitted back in April 2022, the majority of which opposed any form of agreement.
The INB met from Monday, 18 July 18 2022 until Thursday, 21July 2022 to discuss the WHO CAII. They were also supposed to meet on Friday, 22 July 2022, but that meeting was cancelled. The first two days were live-streamed and the recordings are available. However, the meetings on 20-21 July 2022 were held in secret.
Dateline: Working Group for Amendments to the International Health Regulations (WGIHR) (Article 21)
- Biden's Proposed amendments were defeated
- Working Group for Amendments to the existing (84 page) IHR (WGIHR)
- Member nations must submit proposed amendments by September 30, 2022
- No public comment period scheduled
- First meeting by 15 November 2022
- Submission of report to the WHO by 15 January 2023
The WHO’s documents claim no action expected until 77th World Health Assembly in May 2024, but earlier adoption in 2023 is of great concern.
We really have no idea of why and how this came about, but, Dr. Precious Matsotso, while not a Medical Doctor, is co-chairing the INB, which is tasked with the development of "the treaty".
You can listen to her worrying waffle here, the most concerning aspect of which is the emphasis on compliance and also accelerating the process so that it can complete a year ahead of time in 2023.
This woman has a masters degree in Law and Ethics (LLM) from Dundee University and was a member of the National Research Ethics Council of South Africa, but, had nothing to say about the fact that no informed consent has been given, nor is it in fact possible, with regard to the "COVID-19 vaccines".
Where is “the media”?
We are not quite sure why its up to NEASA and us to take care of this business…
What the WHO is putting in legal and jurisdictional cement via their regional consultations and planned “treaty” or amendments is CHILLING and is, in fact, already being rolled out across the world.
See below, and the downloads that follow:
22 July - 15 September 2022: Provision of written input
Member States and relevant stakeholders to provide written input on the working draft (document A/INB/2/3)
22 August - 28 October 2022: Regional consultation
Bureau to explain how the discussions in the regional committees will be handled and will consider the possibility of informal consultations with each individual region where necessary.
29-30 September 2022: Second round of public hearings
Secretariat to hold the second round of public hearings, with details to be shared in due course.
October 2022 (exact dates TBC): Informal, focused consultations
Bureau to conduct informal, focused consultations on selected key issues, including with experts, as invited by the Bureau.
Open to all Member States and relevant stakeholders.
A summary report from the informal focused consultations to be made available in advance of the third meeting of the INB.
November 2022: Bureau to develop the conceptual zero draft
Bureau to consolidate comments from the second meeting of the INB, written inputs from Member States and relevant stakeholders, input from regional consultations, and the outcomes from public hearings and informal, focused consultations, and use them in its development of the conceptual zero draft.
Mid-November 2022 Bureau to send out conceptual zero draft, reflecting inputs provided from the regions, public hearings and other intersessional work.
5-7 December 2022: Third Meeting of the INB
- Consideration of the conceptual zero draft
- Discussion of the way forward, including:
- Development of the zero draft
- Establishment of drafting group modalities
22-26 August 2022, Lomé, Togo: Regional Committee for Africa - 72nd Session
5-9 September 2022, Thimpu, Bhutan: Regional Committee for South-East Asia - 75th Session
12-14 September 2022, Tel Aviv, Israel: Regional Committee for Europe - 72nd Session (WATCH: This is how public input and comment is being handled during the regional consultations)
10-13 October 2022, Cairo, Egypt: Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean - 69th Session
24-28 October 2022, Manila, Philipines: Regional Committee for the Western Pacific - 73rd Session
12-13 April 2022
The first round of public hearings addressed the guiding question "What substantive elements do you think should be included in a new international instrument on pandemic preparedness and response?."
29-30 September 2022
The guiding question that will be addressed during the second round of public hearings will be announced soon.
According to the South African government’s Directive for the Conclusion on International Agreements (2019) anyone who attempts to negotiate any form of international treaty or agreement on behalf of the Republic of South Africa must be duly authorized in advance in order to participate in such negotiations and the scope of their authority must also be clearly defined in advance. Does any evidence exist that our South African delegates to the WHO have received such authorization to negotiate with the WHO?
What Deputy President David Mabuza has to say:
“When it comes international agreements, Section 231 (1) of the Constitution is clear that the negotiation and signing of all international agreements is the responsibility of the national executive”
“Parliament will have a role in the ratification of the treaty once concluded, as international agreements become law after being approved by the resolution in both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.”
International agreements become national law only upon ratification by Parliament. Drawing on the lessons that were learnt from responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, the proposed Global Pandemic Treaty will complement the International Health Regulations.
Ambassadors were requested to attend the regional consultations which seems unusual if these agreements are supposed to be all about health.
So, what can we do to stop the WHO?
We have apparently signed over the power to negotiate international treaties via our registration with the IEC which legitimises government to negotiate treaties on our behalf.
Deregistration from the IEC is however, likely to be of little significant effect where this issue is concerned.
South Africa needs to withdraw from the WHO and the United Nations with immediate effect. There is no point in trying to negotiate with a privately-owned, compromised, and ineffective and worse institution, whose intentions have cynically set in place the overriding our constitutional rights.
America withdrew from the WHO in early 2020, although Joe Biden reinstated their membership on his first day of office. It is, therefore, clear that this is a very doable action that we can, and must, take ASAP.
Unfortunately, it is however, very clear that the government will have no interest in doing this.
How do we overcome this?
Well, many South Africans don’t realise that we no longer have the means to call for and hold a referendum.
The right to a referendum – which allows the public to decide on an issue, not the government – is enshrined in our constitution!
Unfortunately, however, the ANC have never enacted the legislation to provide for this.
Yes, yet another betrayal of justice, human rights and the people of South Africa.
To resolve this, we have provided an independent platform where South Africans can vote their non-consent to be part of these organisations. If millions of South Africans step into their power and stand together in numbers we can turn this ship around. International law supports the will of the people, and it will be impossible for anyone anywhere, be it here in South Africa or in another country, to challenge anything that the majority of we, the people want to do.
Being responsible for ourselves and the lives of each other is the answer!
Please join us in voting to withdraw your consent to South Africa being a member of the WHO, the United Nations, and the African Union.Stop Medical Colonialism: Vote NO to the WHO
Please promote the platform and spread the word about what we are trying to do. Please be an ambassador for what is right, true and good for our country.
Thank you for supporting our human rights. ❤️✨
Kwanele. Genoeg. Enough.
Simunye, we are one!