Connect with us

Special reports

How nurses recruited from Zimbabwe are being caught in UK ‘bonded labour’ schemes

Published

on

BY RAY MWAREYA

Zimbabwean care workers are being tricked into coming to the UK by unscrupulous middlemen who withhold up to half their wages and force them to live in squalor.

Advertisement

The scam, which plays on the acute shortages of nursing and care staff across Britain’s hospitals and care homes, has echoes of the debt bondage schemes recently revealed to be impacting Indonesian farmers.

Zimbabwe is in economic crisis and thousands of trained care professionals are seeking employment abroad.

However agencies – often run by Zimbabweans in the UK and unregulated – are exploiting them, a Telegraph investigation has found.

Advertisement

“When you are working for an agency [in the UK], they pay you 50 per cent of your total salary,” said Jim Moyo*, who moved to the UK from Harare in November 2018 to work in a care home in Margate.

“You are getting paid £14 per hour, but then these guys will pay you £7.”

He added that, once tax was deducted, he was left with just £4 per hour for “rent, food and all sorts of expenses”.

Advertisement

“[The agency] tells you: ‘I paid for your accommodation, flights, visa, [I’m] your sponsor’. It’s like a hideous loan,” said  Moyo.

While Zimbabwe’s nurses have found work in Britain for years, hiring care workers is a new phenomenon, and experts told the Telegraph that a lucrative ecosystem of manipulation has been built around it.

“Exploitation does not start on arrival [in the UK],” said Hillary Musarurwa, a Zimbabwe-born social scientist in England.

Advertisement

“It starts during the application process [in Zimbabwe].”

One route to the UK is by completing a Red Cross care worker certification programme.

“It’s like cow barns, Red Cross academies are filled to seams with UK-hopeful care-work trainees.

Advertisement

“It’s ex-teachers and geologists desperate to retrain for UK care work,” said Joseph Zuze*, a trainee nurse at Mutare Hospital, who plans to emigrate to the UK when he graduates.

‘Huge web of corruption’

The Certificate of Sponsorship (COS) is highly coveted, which has led to it being exploited by middlemen, according to locals.

Advertisement

Zuze said his wife had been scammed by “agents” who charged US$380 to put her on the training waitlist, despite the official Red Cross certification costing just US$300.

These agents are not in any way employed, endorsed or contracted by Red Cross Zimbabwe and there is no evidence Red Cross Zimbabwe is aware of them.

Closed WhatsApp groups, seen by the Telegraph, show that so-called agents then ask care workers to pay up to £5,000 if they want to be linked with UK-based care agencies.

Advertisement

“This has created another huge web of corruption; care agencies in the UK, run by Zimbabwe nationals, [are] gifting the COS to their relatives and friends first and anyone else [faces] hefty fees that reach £4,000,” said  Zuze

Another Zimbabwe-born nurse working for the NHS in North London added that she knew someone in the UK “charging £7,000”.

This clearly contradicts British law, according to Taffi Nyawanza, head of immigration at Mezzle Law in Birmingham who is well-known in Zimbabwe’s UK diaspora community.

Advertisement

“UK law is clear. A recruitment agency cannot charge a fee for ‘placing’ an employee.

“The person who ‘assigns’ or prepares and allocates the [COS] must not be related to the prospective employee. [If] this is the case, the relationship must be fully disclosed to the Home Office,” he said.

However regulation of these agencies is weak, and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) suggested that – although it is unacceptable that some overseas-based agencies are charging fees to place candidates with jobs in Britain – their hands are tied because the actors are not under UK jurisdiction.

Advertisement

“We understand repayment clauses may be used by some organisations to recoup upfront costs if internationally recruited staff do not meet the terms of their contract,” a spokesperson said.

“The vast majority of care workers are employed by private sector providers who ultimately set their pay, terms and conditions independent of central government. However, we would be concerned if repayment costs were disproportionate or punitive”.

Experts said the schemes have taken advantage of chronic staffing issues across the UK’s social and health care systems – the NHS alone is currently trying to fill 40,000 nursing positions – which has triggered a surge in international recruitment.

Advertisement

This week, the DHSC signed a deal with Nepal for 100 nurses to work at Hampshire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, under a pilot scheme that could pave the way for thousands more Nelapese nurses to come to Britain.

But the ethics of the move are “debatable at best”, according to Sir Andrew Goddard, president of the Royal College of Physicians, as Nepal is on an international recruitment red list – operated by the World Health Organization (WHO) – to prevent developed countries from actively recruiting from regions with a lack of health workers or an undeveloped health system.

“That the UK should have [to] do special deals with other countries to support its own NHS workforce is in itself a marker of how workforce planning for the NHS has failed,” Sir Andrew told the Telegraph.

Advertisement

“That we are taking from a country that has substantially lower numbers of healthcare workers than many countries have is something we should have serious reservations about.”

NHS England has also been accused of “emptying” Zimbabwe of health workers – although the country is not on the red list, experts have warned of a “critical shortage” of staff.

In 2020, the UK issued 1,059 skilled visas to Zimbabweans, a figure which jumped to 5,549 in 2022, placing the southern African country among the UK’s top five skilled visa grantees.

Advertisement

Yet the recruitment drive has drained Zimbabwe so badly that Bulawayo municipality, in the southwest, recently complained that 13 nurses out of its skeleton staff have moved to the UK since January.

That’s despite a vast difference in the number of health professionals per population.

In 2018, there were 1.9 nurses and midwives per 1,000 people in Zimbabwe, compared to the UK’s 8.2 nurses and midwives per 1,000.

Advertisement

But extreme poverty is stalking Zimbabwe, and nurses – who are paid just US$79 a month and expected to juggle a high patient load – are seeking a better life.

Inflation has shot to 479 percent this year alone, according to Steve Hanke, director of the Troubled Currencies project at the Cato Institute.

However, many find themselves no better off when they reach the UK – a situation experts say is now too large to ignore.

Advertisement

Rumours of agencies overcharging workers exploded publicly on Twitter in June, with leaked care-worker pay slips purportedly showing salaries of £2,255 drained by their employers under guises of administrative fees until just £604 was left.

Mr Moyo, who left the UK after a matter of months due to the conditions, said he was not alone in seeing his wages cut dramatically, or living in cramped conditions.

While in Britain, he was forced to pay £70 a week to share a house with eight others.

Advertisement

“I’ll never return to the UK as a care worker,” he told the Telegraph, describing the schemes as a form of modern slavery.

“”But the experiences of those who were undocumented were even worse, he added.

“I met with guys who told me, ‘I have been [in the UK] since 1999 and don’t have papers, so I do care work, I work for an agency and [I’m] left with 300 pounds.

Advertisement

“You just do what they ask you to do’,” Moyo said, referring to colleagues he met in Margate.

He added that some workers were so impoverished that they slept in the clients’ homes.

‘Slavery happening in front of our eyes’

Advertisement

Though UK law allows employers to dock wages for “reasonable costs”, any employee must not be left with an income that is below the UK national living wage of £9.50 an hour, Nyawanza said.

These workers are also subject to zero-hours contracts, which means an employer does not guarantee the individual any hours of work, according to Tich Dauramanzi, a Zimbabwe-born engineer who ran a legitimate care staffing agency in Stoke-on-Trent until 2017.

“This is slavery happening in front of our eyes. I strongly believe we are going to have a court case very soon.

Advertisement

“Most of these employers owe people more money than they can ever pay,” he said.

The DHSC told the Telegraph that it takes reports of illegal employment practices seriously, and that the Gangmaster and Labour Abuse Authority prosecutes lawbreakers, though it’s not the DHSC’s responsibility to penalise agencies.

The Home office has cracked down on similar practices in some Asian and East European recruitment companies in the past, with some success.

Advertisement

But Zimbabwe-owned care agencies have a clever tactic up their sleeve, according to  Dauramanzi.

“They are recruiting a lot of young [Zimbabweans]. For some, this is the first time they have been employed.

“Most of them are gripped by the fear factor. They’re told ‘here’s your only chance to come to the UK,’” he said.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the UK’s strict immigration regime has also exacerbated exploitation, according to Justine Currell director at the anti-slavery charity, Unseen.

“The hostile environment is creating an ability for people to be [living] in exploitation, to be kept in exploitation, and to not to want to come to authorities for fear of repercussions,”  Currell said.

The hostile environment policy was introduced in 2012 by then-Home Secretary Theresa May, with the intention of making life in the UK difficult for those who cannot show the right paperwork.

Advertisement

Such policies prevent people from accessing housing, healthcare, education, work, bank accounts, and benefits.

Though Unseen runs a help fund for victims to report anonymously, the reality is that “people feel they have no options but to continue working,”  Currell said.

“[It’s] very difficult [to] get info from individuals because there are no easy routes to get support. It’s quite tragic.” – The Telegraph

Advertisement

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slider

Zimbabwe pushes youth-centred, rights-based, and community-driven reforms ahead of CITES CoP20

Published

on

BY NOKUTHABA DLAMINI 

As the world prepares for the 20th Conference of the Parties (CoP20) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Zimbabwe has outlined a bold and comprehensive policy agenda that shifts global discussions beyond ivory and toward broader issues of sustainable use, human rights, and community empowerment.

Advertisement

In an exclusive interview with VicFallsLive, Dr. Agrippa Sora, board chairman of the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority (ZimParks), said the country’s proposals are anchored on a simple but transformative message: wildlife conservation must deliver real benefits to the people living with wildlife.

Key proposals Zimbabwe taking to CITES CoP20

1. Commercial trade in elephant leather products

Zimbabwe is pushing for approval to engage in regulated commercial trade in elephant leather products. Authorities argue that this form of value addition can bring economic gains to local communities, promote sustainable use, and reduce reliance on donor funding.

Advertisement

2. A formal voice for communities within CITES

Zimbabwe is advocating for the establishment of an Advisory Body or Community Forum within CITES, ensuring that the voices of rural people—who coexist with wildlife—formally shape decisions on international trade, conservation restrictions, and benefit-sharing.

This push echoes one of the founding principles of CITES, which acknowledges that “peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora.”

Advertisement

3. Recognition of human rights within conservation governance

Zimbabwe’s delegation wants CoP20 to acknowledge the human rights dimensions of conservation—particularly:

  • The right to safety for communities facing human–wildlife conflict
  • The right to food security
  • The right to benefit from natural resources within their landscapes

For Zimbabwe, these rights are inseparable from wildlife management.

Moving beyond ivory: A broader view of sustainable use

Advertisement

Dr. Sora emphasized that Zimbabwe does not want the CoP20 debate to be reduced to ivory.

Zimbabwe argues that without these broader interventions, the conservation model remains unbalanced—protecting wildlife while leaving the people who live among it trapped in poverty

Youth at the centre of the conservation agenda

Advertisement

One of the strongest themes in Zimbabwe’s CoP20 position is youth empowerment, an area Dr. Sora said is now central to national conservation policy.

“Zimbabwe is supporting the Youth Ethnic Conservation Agenda, and we want to continue empowering young people,” Dr. Sora said.

“These are young people who travel long distances between villages and shopping centres, often unaware of wildlife incidents happening around them.”

Advertisement

He revealed that Zimbabwe has approved the establishment of a national chapter of the CITES Rural Youth Network, a platform designed to give young rural citizens a voice in global conservation decision-making.

Dr. Sora said young people—often traveling long distances between villages and service centres—are the first responders to wildlife encounters, yet are rarely included in policy processes.

“Their inclusion is critical for awareness, safety, and community resilience,” he said.

Advertisement

A rights-based approach linked to national priorities

Dr. Sora linked Zimbabwe’s CITES proposals to the country’s National Development Strategy (NDS2), which prioritises poverty eradication.

“We want to ensure that communities living within wildlife landscapes receive meaningful support and benefits from the natural resources around them,” he said.

Advertisement

This includes promoting value addition—for example, crafting products from elephant leather—and enabling community enterprises tied to legal wildlife products.

“We are promoting opportunities for value addition so that communities can benefit economically from the wildlife with which they coexist.”

He added that the board is committed to transitioning youth from vulnerability to empowerment, ensuring access to education, business opportunities, and long-term livelihoods.

Advertisement

Unlocking finance through sustainable use

Zimbabwe also plans to push for financial mechanisms—particularly the sustainable use of existing wildlife stockpiles—to support community development.

“Our aim is to secure mechanisms that allow us to reinvest in these communities, strengthening their resilience and ensuring they thrive alongside wildlife.”

Advertisement

Zimbabwe argues that restrictive global trade rules deprive communities of funding that could improve safety, reduce human–wildlife conflict, and support conservation programs.

Zimbabwe’s position rooted in CITES founding principles

Zimbabwe’s proposals, Dr. Sora said, are consistent with the spirit of CITES itself.

Advertisement

The convention’s preamble affirms:

Wild fauna and flora are an irreplaceable part of the earth’s natural systems… Peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora… International cooperation is essential to prevent over-exploitation…

Zimbabwe believes that empowering communities, recognizing human rights, and enabling sustainable use are simply modern applications of these foundational principles.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Slider

VicFallsLive editorial policy

Published

on

Preamble:

As VicFallsLive and its staff, we commit ourselves to the highest standards of independent journalism.  We serve the public’s right to know in line with Section 20 of Zimbabwe’s donstitution which guarantees this fundamental right in order to allow citizens to make informed decisions and judgments about their society. We pledge to exercise our role with care and responsibility to safeguard public trust in our integrity.

Advertisement

1.  Accuracy & sourcing

Our first duty is to report accurately. We will take care to evaluate information provided to us and to cross-check it as much as possible before publishing. We will show readers the chain of evidence we have.

1.1 The more serious and controversial a claim is, the more corroboration will be required before it can be published. A single source will not usually be sufficient. Secondary sources like other newspaper reports will be treated with caution, and clearly identified.

Advertisement

1.2 Anonymous sources will be avoided unless there is no other way to handle a story and there is extensive additional evidence available. Where sources cannot be named, they will still be identified as closely as possible by reference to their organisation, position, relevance to the story or similar safeguards.

1.3 Anonymity will only be granted if the source can persuade us that they have sound reasons for the request. It is not available to people peddling rumour, comment or spin. However, once it has been granted, the newspaper will protect the identity of the source.  

1.4 We will take particular care with information that is passed on to us in furtherance of a particular agenda, and will seek additional corroboration in the light of the motives and interests of a source.

Advertisement

1.5 Plagiarism will not be tolerated.

1.6 Headlines, captions and posters will fairly reflect the content of articles.

1.7 Special care will be taken with details like numbers, dates, names and words from languages other than English.

Advertisement

2. Fairness

We will treat the sources and subjects of our reporting fairly, making sure they have a full opportunity to respond to reporting that may affect them.

This means actively seeking out all relevant views and giving people sufficient time to formulate a response. A report can only go ahead without relevant responses if the opportunity to comment has been declined, or if the editor is satisfied that all reasonable measures have been exhausted. In this case, the situation will be explained to readers.

Advertisement

3. Independence

Our journalistic duty to inform the public trumps all other considerations, whether they are financial, political, personal or any other non-professional interests. This includes the business interests of the platform itself. We will avoid conflicts of interest as well as the appearance of conflicts of interest.

3.1 Editorial material will be kept clearly distinct from advertising or any paid-for content. Any outside support for editorial work, such as through sponsored travel, will be declared in the relevant report.

Advertisement

3.2 Gifts, favours and freebies will be handled in accordance with the platform‘s policy, which is designed to underline that our goodwill cannot be bought through these means.

3.3 Journalists may only take on outside paid work if it does not impact on their primary responsibilities or create a perception of a conflict of interest, and then only with the permission of the editor.

3.4 Journalists will bear in mind that their private activities can impact on their and the platform‘s reputation. This extends to opinions expressed on public or semi-public social networking platforms.

Advertisement

4. Minimising harm

We recognise that the media can have a harmful impact on the subjects of our reports, our sources, our audiences and society in general, and pledge to minimise it. We will take particular care when dealing with vulnerable people and groups.

4.1 We will not fuel racism or racist stereotypes and will not tolerate any form of hate speech. However, we will not shy away from reporting issues involving race.

Advertisement

4.3 We will avoid racial labels unless they are essential to understanding. Similarly, we will avoid other labels that may feed into social prejudices of various kinds, around religion, culture, gender, sexual orientation, HIV status and many others. We will be careful to avoid anything that fuels xenophobia.

4.4 We will take note of social sensitivities around religion, death, the portrayal of nudity, sex and violence, the use of strong language and others. We will not offend these sensitivities gratuitously.

4.5 Any infringement of an individual’s privacy – a right guaranteed by law – must be fully justified by a clear and strong public interest. It must be carefully considered, and proportionate to the level of public interest. We recognise that people in positions of importance or who have sought a life in the public eye have a reduced right to privacy and indeed require greater scrutiny.  

Advertisement

4.6 We will take great care to avoid the possibility of direct harm to a source.  Where this seems possible, extra steps will be taken to make sure the source understands the dangers and gives informed consent, and steps to mitigate the danger are put in place.

4.7 We will take particular care to avoid harm to children.  While it is important to seek out the views of children, we will not do anything that may expose them to abuse, discrimination, retribution, embarrassment or any other risk. We will make sure that we consult with a parent or guardian about any impact our reporting may have on the child. We will not use sexualised images of children.

4.8 We will take great care when publishing pictures of children, the disabled, and people in difficult circumstances.

Advertisement

4.9 We will avoid wherever possible publishing photos of corpses or other gruesome pictures which readers may deem offensive. Publication of such photos will only be done when there is a compelling reason to do so.

5.  Reporting methods

We will use open, honest means to gather information. Exceptions can only be made when there is strong public interest in a story and there are no alternative methods available.

Advertisement

5.1 We will identify ourselves as reporters to potential sources.  We respect the law, and our reporters are required to have a good understanding of relevant legal provisions.  

5.2 We will respect off-the-record and similar arrangements.  Agreements with sources must be clear, and are binding on the newspaper and its journalists.

5.3 We do not pay for information.

Advertisement

5.4 We do not allow sources to vet our reports before publication. Sometimes, however, it is advisable for reporters to check back to ensure the accuracy of technically complex information, quotes and the like.

5.5 We will keep detailed records of all interviews we conduct, either in note form or preferably as a recording.  

6. Accountability

Advertisement

We accept the same level of public scrutiny and accountability as we subject others to. At all times, responses to complaints will be generous, helpful and governed by the need to make sure readers get the fullest information available.

6.1 We will correct errors with due prominence as soon as we become aware of them. Errors online will not be invisibly corrected. Instead, a note with the correction will be posted with the original article.

6.2 In addition to corrections of factual errors, the platformoffers the following corrective measures:

Advertisement
A clarification, where an article may have led to a mistaken impression even though it does not contain factual mistakes;
A right of reply, where a full response was not initially included;
An apology; where justified.

These measures can be used in conjunction, and are at the editor’s discretion.

6.2 We accept the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Media Council

7. General

Advertisement

7.1 VicFallsLive reviews of artistic work are written fairly, in order to help readers decide what to see and how to understand it. They do not offer an opportunity to degrade or humiliate.  

7.2 Columnists and commentators are expected to write fairly and honestly, but this does not suggest a bar on strongly opinionated writing. Fact and opinion will be clearly distinguishable.  The platform will seek out a wide range of views, including particularly voices not often heard.

7.3 The platform will encourage readers’ involvement in discussion through the feedback on social media pagesetc. Criticism of the platform and its approach is welcome, but basic standards of decency will be enforced.

Advertisement

7.4 This code applies to all staff. Where there is doubt about how to proceed, journalists must take advice from section heads or the editor.

: Gifts, freebies and outside interests policy

This policy is designed to manage the issue of gifts and freebies, in order to avoid an impression of conflicts of interest impacting on the reputation of VicFallsLive and its staff.

Advertisement

1. Gifts and freebies:

1.1 In general, staff are not allowed to accept gifts with a value of over $20.

1.2 Gifts can include cash, items of value, loans, travel, hospitality or other things.  Where they are offered for review purposes, tickets to events, books, computer games or similar are not seen as gifts.

Advertisement

1.3 Where practicable and where it would not cause offence, a gift should be returned promptly and with a polite explanation.

1.4 PR handouts that come into the newsroom or to individual journalists must be handed to the managing editor.  From time to time, s/he will organise an auction in the newsroom, and the proceeds will be donated to a charity.

1.5 An offer of funded or subsidised travel or hospitality for an editorial purposes can only be accepted with the permission of the editor, who will decide which reporter will take up the offer. Such offers will only be accepted if there is a legitimate news story to write, which the paper otherwise would not be able to afford to cover. Where such an offer is accepted, a note at the end of the report will explain the situation.

Advertisement

1.6 A staffer may not solicit free or discounted food, drink, gifts or similar benefits on the basis of his or her employment as a journalist.

2. Register of interests:

2.1 The managing editor will be in charge of a register of interests, where all editorial staff are required to declare any outside interests, including but not limited to:

Advertisement
Outside work;
Shareholdings;
Family involvements in business;
Organisational memberships.

Continue Reading

Slider

Tens of Thousands in Zimbabwe Go Hungry as the Rains — and US Aid — Hold Back

Published

on

Tanayeishe Musau eats baobab porridge after school at his home in Mudzi, Zimbabwe, where the dish has become a daily staple amid worsening drought and hunger. Once a simple supplement, baobab porridge is now a primary meal for families like his, following widespread food shortages and the suspension of international aid.

BY LINDA MUJURU

This story was originally published by Global Press Journal.

Advertisement

Agnes Tauzeni stands on her parched field. She is a mother to two children, and is expecting another. But now, in a time that might otherwise have been joyful, her hopes wither like the struggling crops before her.

 

Three times she’s gambled on the rains; three times the sky has betrayed her. Her first two plantings failed. The soil was too dry to sustain life. Though her third attempt yielded a few weak shoots, they offered little promise of a meaningful harvest. El Niño-driven droughts have disrupted once-reliable rains, leaving Tauzeni’s family and many like hers struggling to feed themselves.

Advertisement

 

“I am always hungry,” Tauzeni says.

 

Advertisement

She worries about the health of her unborn child, based on how little nutrition she consumes herself.

 

Adding to this, food aid, previously funded by the US Agency for International Development, halted suddenly in January. That transformed what was already a struggle into a desperate battle for survival.

Advertisement

 

The food aid ended when US President Donald Trump, on his first day in office, issued an executive order that paused nearly all US foreign aid, most of which was administered by USAID. That agency is now all but defunct.

 

Advertisement

Food aid in Zimbabwe was an ongoing area of funding for USAID. In November 2024, the agency announced $130 million for two seven-year programs, implemented by CARE and Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture, that would provide food aid and other related support to areas of Zimbabwe most in need. The programs, which stopped, were just part of an ongoing slate of activities designed to help Zimbabwe’s neediest people.

 

About 7.6 million people in Zimbabwe — nearly half the country’s population — need humanitarian assistance, according to a 2025 UNICEF report. Of those, nearly 6 million, like Tauzeni, rely on subsistence farming.

Advertisement

 

Through the support of organizations with funding from USAID, people previously received cereals, edible seeds, oil and food vouchers.

 

Advertisement

“A sudden withdrawal can put the entire community in a dire situation,” says Hilton Mbozi, a seed systems and climate change expert.

 

Tauzeni recalls that her community used to receive food supplies such as beans, cooking oil and peanut butter to help combat malnutrition.

Advertisement

 

When Tauzeni got married in 2017, her fields promised abundance. Her harvests were plentiful, and her family never lacked food. Now, those memories feel like whispers from another world. The past two agricultural seasons, those harvests have been devastatingly poor.

 

Advertisement

With an empty granary and dwindling options, Tauzeni’s family survives on the same food every day: baobab porridge in the morning and sadza with wild okra in the evening. But Tauzeniworries whether even this will be on the table in the coming months.

 

“The little maize I have, I got after weeding someone else’s crops, but that won’t take us far,” she says.

Advertisement

 

Tauzeni says a 20-kilogram (44-pound) bag of maize costs US$13 in her village, an amount out of reach for her. Her only source of income is farming. When that fails, she has no money at all.

 

Advertisement

Hunger like Tauzeni experiences is widespread. Some families now eat just once a day.

 

Headman David Musau, leader of Musau village where Tauzenilives, says some people in his village did not plant any seeds this season, fearing losses due to the low rainfall. The government provides food aid inconsistently, usually 7 kilograms (15 pounds) of wheat per person for three months.

Advertisement

 

“It’s not enough, but it helps,” he says.

 

Advertisement

But without any other food aid, survival is at stake, he says. “People will die in the near future.”

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 VicFallsLive. All rights reserved, powered by Advantage