Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
17 November 2022 | Story Valentino Ndaba
Dr Catherine Namakula
Dr Catherine S. Namakula, Senior Lecturer of Public Law at the UFS and Chairperson of the UN Human Rights Council's Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

During the 77th General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), the plight of children of African descent was a main topic of conversation. The conversation was led by Dr Catherine Namakula, Senior Lecturer of Public Law at the University of the Free State (UFS) and Chairperson of the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent (WGEPAD).

On Monday 31 October 2022, in New York, she presented the group’s yearly report, titled ‘Children of African Descent’ to the third committee of the General Assembly. Dr Namakula urged the UN and other stakeholders to avoid using photos of African children and children of African descent in deplorable situations for fundraising and marketing purposes. She stated that "children of African heritage are not synonymous with poverty".

Some of the issues discussed at the meeting included conflicts of law with regard to children of African descent, their disproportionate criminalisation, the intense policing of their families and homes, the racial conditioning of their education, and the use of images of them in degrading circumstances in UN and other stakeholder messaging for marketing and fundraising.

The Working Group recommended the creation of a racial justice index to assess how well states are performing and making progress in improving the well-being of children of African heritage. South Africa was one of the nations that intervened to affirm the report. Among the countries that affirmed other related issues were Russia, Cameroon, China, and Syria.

Dr Namakula also had private meetings with the leaders of the World Council of Churches, UN Women, UNICEF, and other UN agencies to talk about human rights-based approaches to programming aimed at mainstreaming racial justice in their work.

 

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights

In addition, Dr Namakula headed the WGEPAD team to the 73rd regular meeting of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights. She made a statement at the session that brought attention to the opportunities for and necessity of African civil society participation in the work of the Working Group and the UN anti-racism machinery. She made reference to the 'Declaration on People of African Descent' being drafted, to which they may add African perspectives.

Dr Namakula also called attention to the precarious status of victims of modern forms of enslavement, torture, and exploitation in the Middle East and Gulf States, emphasising the important role of civil society in documenting and publicising the tales of vulnerable victims. She emphasised the need for work on the reparations agenda to start right now in order to document Africa's claims and create the necessary institutional and normative frameworks.

She added that efforts are under way to have the UFS Faculty of Law serve as the academic alliance's anchor for the reparations agenda in Africa.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept