Bio-fuels fuel Food Crisis

The United States especially have the power to shape the outcome of this international food crisis by waging a war to increase biofuels consumption simultaneous without cutting production of food crops.

“World leaders are meeting Tuesday in Rome to tackle the problem that is pushing an estimated 100 million people into hunger: soaring food prices.”


Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91098056

Corruption in Africa

"Open Letter to the African People
Source: All Africa 04/24/2007
Kampala, Apr 24, 2007 (New Vision/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --

DEAR brothers and sisters, the violent events of April 12, 2007 on the streets of Kampala were sad. Though regrettable, they were not different from what is going on in the rest of continent. On the face of it the demonstrators and rioters were simply criminals who deserve no better than the gates of Luzira prison.

But what about those in Zimbabwe who are fighting for fair distribution of their land that was stolen from them by colonial and imperial masters?
To be fair to the African people, this is a continuation of the struggle for freedom, justice, independence and self determination. The underlying factor, among others, is the failed promise of independence and the pretence and utter arrogance of our former masters - the imperialists, colonialists and slave traders.

Nobody should be proud of demonstrating and rioting or spilling human blood - whether coloured, white or black. Every person, whether that person is a former slave owner, an imperialist or colonialist, deserves descent humane treatment. I believe in the right to live and the right to justice. I don't believe in mob justice. To me there has never been mob justice because the mob lacks the capacity to pass fair judgment and the victim is not given an opportunity to be heard by a competent and neutral jury.

Why have our African brothers and sisters been forced to act the way they are acting today, be it in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Somalia, Liberia or Sierra Leone? Why have our people allover the world been reduced to acting along lines of race, tribe, ethnicity, religion and regionalism? This is due to the failed promises of independence, which has resulted into bad leadership.

When our fore fathers fought for independence, all the people of Africa were united and the battle line was clearly drawn. The slogans were the same: independence and self determination. At the time of independence some 40 years or so ago, some wise men like Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Kenneth Kaunda and others warned us, in their own words, that "we have achieved political independence, what remains is social and economic independence of which those two elements will greatly influence our political life as a continent".

They further said this would lead to neo-colonisation of the African continent. The repackaging of this concept of neo-colonialism is a complicated one for an ordinary African. I am therefore not surprised that the new breed of African leaders seem not to appreciate that neo-colonialism is just on our doorsteps, if not on the dining table.

Neo-colonialism, imperialism and slavery have been repackaged in form of foreign investment, development partners, donor communities and clubs, NGOs, the new breed of African leaders, western model of education, religious services, Commonwealth organisations and the globalisation movement. The leaders of this skillful scheme are the members of the G8 through the World Bank, IMF and other humanitarian agencies. What we are seeing today is a continuation of the struggle of African people for independence and self determination. The Africans have got to stand up and say no to neo-colonialism, the new wave of imperialism, monetised slavery and depletion of African resources.
Take for instance the destruction of the water catchment areas of which Mabira Forest is a part. The architects of this proposed destruction know very well that this will eventually destroy the only fresh water in East and Central Africa. They know that in 50 years to come a litre of water will be more expensive than litre of fuel. How do they expect us to surrender this wealth of our children on a silver plate?
The events of 40 or 50 years ago are still fresh in our memories. The independence agenda promised us to erase these bad memories of the era during which Africans were treated as the underdogs, when we were deprived of meaningful life (through slave trade) by those whose descendants are now the investors, when productive land was taken by those whose descendants are the current donors or development partners.
How am I expected to explain to my children that Mehta can be given to one agent of neo-colonialism at the expense of poor peasants who could earn a living as outgrowers and suppliers of Mehta?
How do I explain the violent eviction of poor peasants from Mpokya Forest Reserve by the Government only to be given away to an agent of neo-imperialism? How do I explain that Kananathan can be given huge amounts of public funds and cheap African labour, run down the partially people's enterprise and get away with it when millions of Ugandans are going hungry? On whose behalf is my government acting? This alliance with neo-colonialists must be questioned.
Most of the big hotels in Uganda are not owned by Ugandans but the poorly-paid workers are Ugandans. Exploitation of the African worker is not what political independence promised. Our governments led by the so-called 'revolutionaries' has kept weak investment and immigration laws on our law books. And corruption in those departments has ensured that Africans live under exploitation.

The selective economic interventions by governments, such as tax holidays to the so-called investors, at the expense of the African people, is a time bomb. How is it possible for every entrepreneur, including Ugandans, to access these subsidies? For instance, when will RDCs recruit labour for RECO Industries in Kasese the way it was done for Kananathan?

Most African governments are agents of neo-colonialism, imperialism and slavery. African governments struggle to fulfill the conditionalities of the IMF/World Bank in total disregard of the conditions in which their people live, thereby leaving the people in abject poverty.
As governments try to attract foreign investments, they should avoid acts that remind our people of colonialism, imperialism and slavery. The memories of the above evils are still fresh in our minds and the promise of independence was to erase these memories from our minds, which has not yet happened.

I don't hate foreign investment, neither do I hate partners in development. I recognise the role the World Bank, IMF and other donor agencies are playing in developing Africa. But I also know that Africans know what is good for Africa and that Africa will never again subject herself to servitude, imperialism and colonialism.

The writer is the MP for Busongora South, Kasese District "

Sodomy Halts Debates on Bill

Political
Sodomy Halts Debates on Sexual Offences Bill
Source: All Africa 04/12/2007
Port Louis, Apr 12, 2007 (L'Express/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
Political debates on the Sexual Offences Bill - a piece of draft legislation that deals mainly with the stiffening of laws in cases of rape and other sexual offences - have stumbled upon the term "sodomy."
Not that the word is mentioned in this remarkable piece of legislation that in actual fact seeks to depenalize the act of sodomy. The bill is remarkable in the sense that the word sodomy is not used at all. We know the sexual act will be rendered legal - when the bill is voted - by the fact that "penetration of the penis" in the "anus without consent" will constitute a rape that will be subject to penal servitude not exceeding 45 years. At the end of the bill, the repeal of section 249 of the Criminal Code is provided for. As it stands now, section 249 provides that sodomy and bestiality are crimes punishable by a penal servitude of 5 years.
MMM leader Paul Berenger has not yet expressed himself on the matter and MSM leader Pravind Jugnauth has already at the outset opposed the depenalization of consensual sodomy, qualifying it as "immoral" and saying that Government's move was "a telltale sign of a society that was losing its values". Even within the majority alliance, the matter of sodomy is causing a rift and has prevented any dispassionate debate on the more important matter of harsher sentences for rapists.
The main criticisms against the depenalization of sodomy are that it is "immoral."The main arguments for it are that the right to practise sodomy is part of the broader constitutional right to sexual privacy. The debate in Mauritius is, however, slightly different.
In actual fact, the precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act, which does not lead to procreation. Furthermore, sodomy has many synonyms: buggery, crime against nature, unnatural act and deviant sexual intercourse.
Respect for individual private lives
While, in theory, this may include heterosexual oral sex, anal sex, masturbation and bestiality, in practice and - in general - such laws are primarily enforced against sex between men. Historians, however, dispute the reason for the emergence of such laws but they have roots in antiquity and are linked to religious proscriptions against certain sexual acts.
Contemporary supporters of sodomy laws argue that there are additional reasons for retaining them. They include public health concerns about anal sex or concerns that legalisation of homosexuality will lead to a declining population.
But more and more around the world, courts are striking down sodomy laws in decisions that gay rights supporters the world over have hailed as "historic." As an example, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the US Supreme Court wrote, "The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. ( ) The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime". The petitioners in this case were homosexuals.
As mentioned earlier, the situation in Mauritius is slightly different. As a general rule, men homosexuals rarely publicise the fact that their sexual behaviour is in actual fact a crime according to Mauritian laws. And the police do not make it a regular practice of arresting homosexuals because they practise sodomy in the privacy of their homes. Sodomy between adults of different sex is also practised on a regular basis in Mauritius as elsewhere. When it is consensual, there is no question of a crime having been committed because it cannot be proved.
45 years behind bars
So the move by Government is purely a technical one. Attorney General Rama Valayden, aware of this absurdity in our laws, has chosen to justify Government's decision by saying that many women, because they have to find fault with their husbands whom they wish to divorce, often say the latter have engaged in sodomy. Not many lawyers agree but this is really beside the point.
After the proclamation of the Sexual Offences Act, nothing will have changed in the sexual behaviour of consenting adults. But when a man rapes another man or has non-consensual anal sex with a woman, instead of the actual five years, the rapist will be liable to a maximum of 45 years behind bars. To all intents and purposes, this is about the only change that the depenalization of sodomy will bring in the country.
The debate, however, will be anything but rational because in it will be mixed a large dose of political demagogy, religious zealousness and - let's face it - much hypocrisy.

Africa: Racism and American Foreign Policy

Political

Race, Racism, and American Foreign Policy toward Africa
Source: All Africa 03/21/2007

Mar 21, 2007 (H-Net/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --

"Of the many manifestations of racism in the United States, one that is particularly insidious, because it is difficult to identify as such, is the idea that Whiteness signifies normality and that non-Whites are a deviation from the norm. If in given situations and accounts of events the racial backgrounds of the persons concerned are not stated, they are to be presumed White. According to the theory of Whiteness underlying such an assumption, all manifestations of "American-ness," unless they are given a specific ethnic/racial designation, partake of that one unstated designation. The same assumption regarding Whiteness is also applied to "European-ness," particularly in regard to the peoples and civilizations of western and northern Europe. With this conception of Whiteness in mind, George W. White, a Harvard Law School graduate turned historian, has undertaken an analysis of Eisenhower-era (1953-1961) American foreign policy towards the emerging states of Black Africa. The backdrop for this analysis is, on one hand, the exigencies of American leadership of the West in the Cold War, and on the other, the growing struggle at home for African American integration and civil rights.

Professor White begins his study by laying out a typology of presumed racism towards Blacks at all levels of the Eisenhower administration. He gives this typology historical roots by evoking the painful history of American relations with Haiti. He then links it to the domestic situation of the United States through an analysis of the reaction of the Eisenhower administration to the Brown decision of May 1954. Moving on, the author offers four African case studies to illustrate the workings of his Whiteness typology. These focus on U.S. relations with Ethiopia during the Eisenhower administration; Ghana, as it emerged from British rule in 1957; South Africa, particularly after the March 1960 Sharpeville Massacre led to a tightening of apartheid; and Congo-Kinshasa, as it went into crisis following its independence from Belgium at the end of June 1960. It seems that in each situation American policymakers, swayed by questions of race, made wrong decisions.

Altogether, Professor White's verdict is harsh. Because "White [American] elites could not imagine a world in which Blacks competently governed their own affairs" (p. 136), the United States pursed policies intended to encourage and enable the former colonial powers to retain some control over their former colonies so as to guarantee, on one hand, their continued allegiance to the so-called Free World, and on the other hand, continued access to the natural resources of the new nations. Therefore, American policy "undermined the economic viability of African nations" and "was consistently antidemocratic" (p. 135) in that it sought out potential anticommunist strongmen to rule these nations and, in general, manipulated "Cold War Decolonization" such that the "Free World [might] ... continue to demand non-White obedience to a world order primarily dictated by race" (p. 145).

Central to Professor White's thesis is the idea of the transformation of Whiteness from a paradigm of open oppression of non-Whites to a more seemingly benign (but just as harmful) form of hidden control. This transformation, according to him, has occurred and manifests itself in five ways: as "White innocence" reflected in contemporary commitments voiced by the White establishment in favor of democracy, civil rights for all, and claimed generosity that is expected to cancel out the very long history of White-imposed racial oppression; "White entitlement," meaning that because of the self-proclaimed good qualities of White people they are entitled to a "disproportionate share of power, resources, and esteem"; "Black erasure," which refers to the unwillingness of Whites to recognize the accomplishments of Black people and the legitimacy of their aspirations; "Black self-abnegation," meaning that Blacks must willingly agree with White assumptions of Black erasure; and "Black insatiability," referring to the belief that Black expectations are unreasonable even when they are the quintessence of reasonableness.

Bearing in mind these five manifestations of Whiteness and the aggression against Black people that they imply, Professor White offers the reader, as a trial run, two analyses of how they have operated in the United States and abroad. The first of these refers to the generally troubled American relationship with Haiti going back to the late eighteenth-century slave rebellion that brought that nation into existence. In particular, Professor White stresses the transformation of Haiti into an informal American protectorate following its occupation in 1915 by units of the United States Marine Corps. The second example refers to the go-slow responses of the Eisenhower administration to the condemnation of public school segregation resulting from the May 1954 outcome of the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case. Regarding school desegregation, the fact that the plaintiffs in the five cases that led to the Brown decision received support early on through a favorable amicus brief prepared by the Truman Justice Department could be construed as illustrating the first manifestation of Whiteness, White innocence. Whereas the fact that the Eisenhower Justice Department called for a gradualist approach to the application of the May 1954 decision illustrates support for White entitlement in that the demands for redress of the plaintiffs and the potential inconvenience to the defendants are treated as moral equivalents. The fact that the Court made no mention of the violently racist origins of segregation in the United States, that it did not demand immediate compliance with its May 1954 decision, and that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal team headed by Thurgood Marshall ultimately accepted the idea of gradualism, illustrate the operation of Black erasure and Black self-abnegation. And that many Black leaders had hoped for and wished to press on for the immediate desegregation of schools following May 1954 appears as an example of Black insatiability.

The application of these manifestations of Whiteness by the Eisenhower administration to the international arena of the mid- to late 1950s enabled the United States government to posit the Cold War "as the international racial sanctuary," with "global Communism as an evil force bent on enslaving the world," and the United States and the colonial powers "as the font of liberty, opportunity, and individual freedom," a "discourse [that] erased the history and legacy of Europe as the scourge of the globe" (p. 22).

The approach embodied in this book and the method of analysis are very clever if not ingenious and do seem to yield novel conclusions as to the racist nature of White American attitudes towards Black Africans. However, some important caveats loom. To begin with, Professor White's view of Whiteness should more correctly be labeled WASP-ness, for the attitudes and behaviors underlying his perceptions of Whiteness particularly reflect the White, Protestant upper middle-class attitudes of the American leadership of the 1950s. Also, how can one be certain that what appear to be American doubts as to the political orientation and competence of African leaders, like Kwame Nkrumah and Patrice Lumumba, or an unwillingness to provide state-of-the-art armaments to the Ethiopian army, or to invest as heavily in the Volta River Project in Ghana as the respective governments wished is a manifestation of Black insatiability (and racism) as the author charges? Might not the less than enthusiastic responses of the Eisenhower administration to such African wishes be the mundane reflection of how best to prioritize American global commitments given the reality (even then) of limited resources and the fact that Africa was peripheral to the main concerns of American foreign policy? And one must certainly not forget the extreme anticommunism of the American people and leadership during a period when the most serious threat to American security was perceived as the Soviet Union, the only other thermonuclear power. Yet the roots of this anticommunism were long, going back to the Palmer Raids of 1919. While one can legitimately argue that the United States did support the marginalization of Nkrumah and the elimination of Lumumba because, as Black African leaders, they were too independent-minded, not to mention leftist (by American standards), American opposition to these leaders hinged more on the fear that they were pro-communist than on the fact of their Blackness. One should note that the Eisenhower administration went to some pains to discredit or destroy non-Black leaders perceived as leftist in other parts of the world: Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz Guzman in Guatemala, for instance. Of course, these leaders were not White in the WASP sense (and clearly Professor White's conception of Whiteness is in fact WASP-ness), but they were not Black Africans either. By chance, the Eisenhower administration was confronted with massive decolonization in Africa. But in a sense, this decolonization was a continuation, on another continent, of the decolonization in Asia that the Truman administration had faced. Here too the American government, while sympathetic to the idea of decolonization, worried that the independence movements might be captured by communists. We note, for instance, that the American government only fully committed itself to Indonesian independence after Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta appeared to be repudiating their communist links. At that point, just as would be the case with the Eisenhower administration and certain colonies in Africa, the Truman administration attempted, in the guise of peacemaking, to push Indonesia into retaining close links with its former metropole, the Netherlands. In the case of Indochina, where, it is true, the United States had less local influence than in Indonesia, Ho Chi Minh refused to repudiate his communist ties, thus stimulating the American authorities to encourage the French to destroy him and his communist movement and eventually to open a second path to independence. In both cases, American policy attempted to promote close relations between the former colonies and the former metropoles. Was the Eisenhower approach to decolonization in Africa really much different from the Truman approach to decolonization in Asia?

Professor White's analysis comes closest to hitting the mark in the case of South Africa. His analogies stand up because both countries were founded by European settlers who imposed themselves on conquered native peoples and eventually formed independent governments. Although Whites in South Africa, unlike in the United States, were a minority, the political class in South Africa during the Eisenhower era was totally White and mostly Protestant. Both societies went through a period of legalized enslavement of non-Whites. Legal segregation followed, and apartheid became an extreme form of Jim Crow. In short, the White elites of both countries could identify with each other. Very importantly, however, "South Africa became the United States' fourth-largest foreign market" (p. 95), a fact which suggests that money linked to anticommunism, rather than race per se, pushed American policymakers into muting their critique of apartheid. Nevertheless, members of the Eisenhower administration, like Julius Holmes, were indeed critical of apartheid (White innocence) while calling for its gradual elimination in ways that would protect the interests of the White South African population (White entitlement) as well as American (White) access to South African resources, while suspecting the African National Congress (ANC) of communist leanings (Black erasure) (p. 98). One notices, however, that as the communist threat receded and the Cold War wound down, successive American administrations took increasingly hard lines towards the apartheid regime, suggesting that the real American fear all along had been communism. For American policymakers, communism was worse than apartheid, but once the communist threat began to dissipate, the American government was willing to tackle apartheid. What is disappointing about this book is that the author has based so much on so few case studies (Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa, and Congo-Kinshasa). Conspicuously absent is any analysis of Eisenhower administration reactions to French decolonization. If the Eisenhower era policymakers were concerned about Nkrumah's apparent Pan Africanism and allegedly socialist tendencies, how must they have reacted to the emergence of the labor union leader, Sekou Toure of Guinea, on the African and international scene after his party, the Parti Democratique de la Guinee (PDG), had obtained a "non" vote in de Gaulle's referendum at the end of September 1958? Professor White makes no mention of the matter. Nobody in the Eisenhower administration had anticipated the sudden independence of Guinea; indeed, the administration was slow to extend diplomatic recognition to the new state for fear of offending the French. Nevertheless, John H. Morrow, an African American academic with Republican Party links was sent to Conakry as U.S. Ambassador, and before long, the Eisenhower administration began making efforts to woo Sekou Toure away from his Marxist-"CGTiste" political and intellectual roots, an effort aided by the fortuitous ineptitude of Soviet policymakers and diplomats in their dealings with Guinea.

Although silent with regard to American relations with Guinea and other Francophone African states, Professor White does mention Cameroon but from a negative perspective, referring to the American preference for Ahmadou Adhidjo, the president of the country at independence, and American support for the French design to end the UN Trusteeship of Cameroon and cede independence without a final UN-supervised general election (pp. 35-36). Professor White seems to assume that Felix Moumie, leader of the Union des Populations du Cameroun (UPC), that had been engaged in a guerilla insurgency against the French authorities and Cameroonian moderates since 1956, might have won such an election. Like so many American liberal academics, White is critical of Ahidjo and American (as well as French) support for him, never mind the fact that once the UPC insurrection (that only affected a small part of the country but caused more fatalities than the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya) had been suppressed, within five years of Cameroonian accession to independence, the country, for the next fifteen years at least, became an island of peace surrounded by degrees of turbulence in every country bordering it.

Likewise, Professor White says nothing about how the Eisenhower administration reacted to the ongoing Algerian War of Independence, the most important liberation struggle occurring in Africa during the period concerned--particularly after 1956 when Algeria became an oil-producer. (Of course, Algeria is not a Black African country even though Algerians, under colonial rule, had to contend with as much racisme, if not more, than Africans in other parts of the French Empire.) Certainly the Eisenhower administration worried about the alleged communist and Nasserist leanings of the Front de Liberation Nationale (FLN) and, in the case of Algeria too, attempted to encourage a rapprochement between Algerian nationalists and the French government so as to keep the oil and gas resources of Algeria out of communist hands.

Altogether, what can one say about this book? Certainly Professor White's elaboration of the five manifestations of Whiteness and their use as analytical tools is intriguing, but this typology does not always hit home. It gives its best results when used to explain the domestic racial situation in the United States as efforts to desegregate and to achieve Black civil rights took off. It is less effective when applied to African situations where other issues, that he de-emphasizes or overlooks, come into play. He underestimates the irrational and blinding force of American anticommunism during the Eisenhower era. Yet he suggests as much by mentioning that President Eisenhower, who really did have pronounced racist tendencies, nevertheless had fond memories of Sylvanus Olympio, the first President of independent Togo (p. 20), probably because of this leader's expressed anticommunism. Professor White is also forced to admit, in regard to the racial attitudes of the White male leadership whose members surrounded President Eisenhower, that "[w]ith regard to people of African descent in the United States, there were few direct statements or observations" (p. 18), but he would like the reader to assume that whatever remarks were made were probably negative and racist.

Professor White considers that today the United States "faces its greatest international security threats from people responding to the collapse, or corruption of sovereign authority" (p. 146). He blames this situation of failed states, particularly in Africa, on the American privileging of Whiteness as described in this book. It is an interesting theory but one that should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. "

All Africa: Education

This African country is bickering over something as pettie as how its teachers wear thier hair while these countries are dead last in eduation. The problem is obviously not teh teachers but the adminitratiors whom allowed for standards to be loosened at all.

Political

"6 Teachers, Headmaster in Dispute Over Dreadlocks

Source: All Africa 03/12/2007

Harare, Mar 12, 2007 (The Herald/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
SIX teachers at Glen View High 1 School who wear dreadlocks are embroiled in a dispute with the head of the school over their locks.

The headmaster said teachers were role models who must be exemplary to pupils.
However, Rastafarianism has been recognised in Zimbabwean courts as a religion that has developed over the years to a dominant political ideology deeply rooted in Pan-Africanism and the class struggle.

In its modern form, it embraces the notion of "self-dignity and self-respect of the black majority" following years of slavery. It stresses the equality of all races.

But Glen View High 1 headmaster Mr Alois Maronga said wearing locks was "dirty" and had no place in Zimbabwean culture.

Mr Maronga last week told the teachers that if they failed to comply with his instruction they risked being sacked.

He made the remarks after the Public Service Commission had noted deterioration in standards of dress by civil servants and came up with a list of acceptable dressing.

The PSC issued a circular to all heads of ministries and departments, including headmasters, on the new standard of dress required.
In an interview, the teachers, who d
eclined to be named, said Mr Maronga convened a meeting after the PSC issued a circular on the new dress standards for civil servants.

The circular did not mention anything on hairstyles but the teachers said Mr Maronga and his deputy Mrs Chenai Magadzire insisted that the six teachers at the school shave off their dreadlocks.
Five of the teachers are women while and they wear the dreadlocks for different reasons.

Some believe in Rastafarianism while for others it is just a mere expression of fashion and style.
"They said we should shave the dreadlocks but we know that it was not part of the circular and we challenged them to show us where it was stated that dreadlocks were no longer allowed," one of the teachers said.

The teachers said Mr Maronga summoned them to his office one by one and threatened to charge each of them with misconduct if they failed to comply.

"He (Mr Maronga) told us that the Secretary of Education, Sport and Culture, Dr Steven Mahere, did not want dreadlocks and we should remove them without fail or would be charged with misconduct," another teacher said.

The teachers said they were making consultations and would challenge the move if the school head continued to pester them.

"This is a clear violation of our rights and we know of cases that have already set a precedent, so we will not be afraid of intimidation.

"But we honestly believe that wearing dreadlocks does not mean that you are a thug or a notorious character as most people would want to believe," another furious teacher said.
The teachers also said they had questioned Mr Maronga why he was being harsh against them when even some Members of Parliament wear dreadlocks.

In 2005 former MDC legislator for Highfield Mr Munyaradzi Gwisai was banned to practice as a lawyer for wearing dreadlocks.

He challenged the ban at the Supreme Court, saying that his constitutional rights of freedom of conscience and expression were being infringed and won the case.

The teachers also said the issue had created an unpleasant working environment for them as they were being viewed as outcasts at the school although wearing locks was a symbolic expression inspired by Rastafarianism and fashion.

Mr Maronga, however, said he had only conveyed a message from his principal, the PSC, which banned teachers from wearing revealing clothes and jeans and had only proffered advice to the teachers on their hairstyles.

"We only gave them advice to shave as Rastafarianism is not part of our culture. So it is now up to them to follow or not," Mr Maronga said.

He also dismissed allegations that he had ordered them to cut off their dreadlocks.
Mr Maronga said he had advised the teachers in line with the PSC staff development programme, whose aim is to restore a befitting image in public institutions following the deterioration of standards of dress.

The commission had noted with concern the deterioration and has directed that certain standards of dress be maintained by members during the course of their duties in order to uphold the dignity and formality expected of them.

In the case of women, the PSC banned the wearing of sleeveless tops, sleeveless dresses, strapped dresses or blouses, tops that have low necklines, jeans, see-through garments and mini-skirts.
Men must wear shirts with collar and tie and there is no objection to wearing of tailored safari suits with alternative dress being suits or sports jackets or blazers.
On formal occasions to which members are invited as representatives of their ministries, suits with collar and tie will be worn.

According to the PSC, exceptions are only at the discretion of heads of ministries or departments and normal dress can only be departed from when public servants are working in rural areas or when the duties require different considerations.

The PSC also advised men to always keep formal jackets in their offices in case they are called to meetings and other formal occasions unexpectedly.
Uniformed civil servants such as soldiers and police are also required to be in the fully prescribed uniforms.

A mixture of uniform and non-uniform items is unacceptable.
Both men and women are not expected to turn up for work wearing tennis shoes or tackies.

In the case of men, open sandals should only be worn for medical reasons and it is necessary for the respective heads of departments to request for medical certificates of affected members. "