You can't use that danger as an excuse to discriminate.
Oxfam Africa circulated a 10-page guide restricting LGBTQ messaging, claiming it protected communities and operations in countries with severe anti-LGBTQ laws. Whistleblowers revealed a multiyear censorship campaign dating to early 2024, including pressure on partners to remove LGBTQ references from websites.
- Oxfam in Africa circulated a 10-page communications guide on June 1, 2026, restricting all public mention of LGBTQ issues
- Internal censorship campaign documented dating back to early 2024, including pressure on partners to remove LGBTQ references from websites
- Ghana's parliament passed an anti-LGBTQ bill in May 2026 making 'promotion' of LGBTQ activities punishable by up to 10 years in prison
- Staff reported fear of job loss and marginalization for supporting LGBTQ rights; organization's restructuring in 2026 reduced team by 5 people
Oxfam in Africa withdrew internal communications guidelines that barred staff from mentioning LGBTQ rights publicly, citing context-sensitivity concerns amid rising anti-LGBTQ legislation across the continent.
In early June, Oxfam in Africa quietly circulated a ten-page communications guide to its country directors with a stark instruction: do not mention LGBTQ rights in public. The directive, which emerged from internal leadership in Bangkok, was framed as protective—a way to keep the organization's work "context-sensitive" and shield vulnerable communities, partners, and staff in countries where anti-LGBTQ laws had recently grown teeth. Uganda, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Senegal had all introduced or passed severe restrictions in recent years. Ghana's parliament had just passed a sweeping bill that would make "promoting" LGBTQ activities punishable by up to ten years in prison. The guide's logic was straightforward: if Oxfam's brand became publicly associated with LGBTQ causes, it would lose access to communities, alienate partners, and jeopardize the organization's ability to deliver aid across the continent.
But the guide was withdrawn within days, after internal whistleblowers and current and former staff pushed back hard. What emerged in the aftermath was evidence of a much longer campaign—a multiyear effort by Oxfam in Africa's leadership to enforce informal censorship rules that had been quietly shaping the organization's public voice since early 2024. The restrictions went far beyond internal communications. They extended to partners, to published reports, to the very language staff were permitted to use. One internal chat from January 2024 captured the tone: when a staffer asked how to respond to an LGBTQ organization that had reached out, a colleague replied simply, "Fati says we do not engage." Fati N'zi-Hassane, the director of Oxfam in Africa, had begun enforcing what amounted to a blacklist.
The evidence of censorship accumulated quietly. In May 2024, N'zi-Hassane instructed country directors to "avoid using the term 'LGBTQIA+' or its derivatives." A few months later, when a report on girls' education—co-produced with a UN partner and already in circulation—mentioned LGBTQ issues multiple times, Oxfam in Africa's programme director, Audace Kubwimana, demanded it be taken offline. An Oxfam Denmark colleague objected, calling the removal "a risky move for us strategically" and asking for concrete reasons. Kubwimana's response was striking: removing the document was "the feminist and decolonial thing to do," he argued, until African country directors could formally sign off on it. The report stayed online, but an article titled "Queer liberation is African liberation" disappeared from Oxfam's UK website sometime after January 2026.
The censorship extended beyond Oxfam's own work. In 2024, the organization appeared to delay signing a partnership agreement with a Uganda-based NGO until the NGO had scrubbed an LGBTQ reference from its website. Internal communications show that N'zi-Hassane had agreed to finalize the partnership, but then did not follow up with her signature for a month. When OiA leadership reviewed the NGO's website in June, they found a staff member's profile that mentioned working "in an organisation for LGBT people and sex workers in Uganda." Following a call between the organizations, Kubwimana reported back to colleagues that the NGO "finally did it... they removed only the name Uganda... not LDBTQ." That was enough. N'zi-Hassane signed the partnership agreement. A former OiA staffer who witnessed this exchange said she was "in total, total shock that we were doing that. The organisation removed [the wording], and my leaders celebrated."
In May 2026, OiA moved to formalize the censorship. Paul Vingi, the interim gender justice lead, circulated a draft "guide on engagements around LGBTQIA+ Matters" to country directors, asking for feedback. "As we will soon be entering Pride Month in June, it is important that we are guided by these shared guidelines," he wrote. On June 1st, Vingi sent the "final version" and requested formal sign-off by the next day. The guide prohibited producing or sharing any communications material that would link Oxfam's brand in Africa to LGBTQ issues. In some cases, it allowed "quiet diplomacy, partner support, coalition engagement, or internal advocacy"—but nothing public.
The contradiction was stark. Oxfam's global policy on sexual diversity and gender identity rights states that the organization "must challenge" the legal and social barriers affecting LGBTQ people, advocate for them, and stand in solidarity with LGBTQ groups. It affirms sexual and gender expression rights "without arbitrary intrusions or limitations based on dominant cultural beliefs or political ideology." Yet Oxfam in Africa was doing precisely that—using cultural and political context as justification for silence. A former OiA staffer told investigators: "It clearly goes against our diversity policy. I've read it over and over and over. We cannot use excuses like security. We have to be overtly pro-LGBTQI."
The human cost was real. Staff reported living in fear of being perceived as LGBTQ rights supporters. Several people appeared to have quit or been laid off after questioning leadership about LGBTQ issues. A whistleblower group described "a growing toxic organisational culture within OiA in which staff who disagree with leadership are marginalised or forced out." The former staffer said people perceived to support LGBTQ rights "tended to fall off the ladder," and that OiA's restructuring earlier in 2026—which reduced the team by five people—appeared to have disproportionately affected those who wanted to keep OiA aligned with the confederation's stated values. "You can see the panic all of us are going through over something that should be fairly normal," the staffer said.
On June 4th, in response to questions from The New Humanitarian, Oxfam International said it was no longer using the guidance because it "did not give us enough clarity and consistency." The organization called it a "draft guidance" written by "some staff in the region," though document metadata suggested it was authored by Kubwimana and had been reviewed by OiA's senior leadership team. Oxfam International said an executive-level taskforce established in December is working to issue new guidance, but did not say when or what it would contain. The former staffer had a clear view of what it should include: any future policy must account for the inherent risks of delivering aid in places like Uganda and Somalia without singling out support for LGBTQ communities as uniquely dangerous. "You can't use that danger as an excuse to discriminate," she said. "It's not like Africans in Oxfam have a problem. Africans have agreed—they say we can do this work. But the leadership of Oxfam is saying no... It's too risky for you."
Notable Quotes
Oxfam in Africa has departed from the values that govern the Oxfam Confederation.— Anonymous whistleblower group
The language has become such a major issue that you risk being fired. You can see the panic all of us are going through over something that should be fairly normal.— Former Oxfam in Africa staffer
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would an organization with a global commitment to LGBTQ rights suddenly tell its Africa staff to stay silent on the issue?
The stated reason was risk management. Leadership argued that in countries with new anti-LGBTQ laws, public association with those causes could jeopardize access to communities and partnerships. But the evidence suggests something more deliberate—a multiyear campaign to enforce silence, not just caution.
Did the organization actually face consequences for speaking out, or was this preventative?
That's the crucial question. The guide framed it as preventative—protecting vulnerable people. But there's no evidence presented that Oxfam faced legal action or lost access because of LGBTQ advocacy. What we do see is leadership actively pressuring partners to remove LGBTQ references from their websites, deleting Oxfam's own published content, and creating a workplace culture where staff feared for their jobs.
So the organization was policing itself more strictly than any external force required?
Exactly. And that's what made the internal pushback so significant. Staff and whistleblowers were saying: this isn't about protecting Africans or LGBTQ communities—it's about Oxfam in Africa's leadership choosing silence over solidarity, and then firing or marginalizing people who disagreed.
What does it mean that Oxfam International called it a "draft" when it was being finalized and sent for formal sign-off?
It's a way of minimizing what happened. The document went through multiple iterations, was reviewed by senior leadership, and was being formally adopted by country directors. Calling it a draft after it was withdrawn is technically accurate but misleading about the seriousness with which it was being implemented.
If the guidance is withdrawn, is the problem solved?
Not necessarily. The culture it created—the fear, the marginalization, the precedent of censoring partners—that doesn't disappear with a retraction. And we still don't know what the new guidance will say or whether it will actually align with Oxfam's global commitments.