Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Nigeria’s President Jonathan vs. FIFA’s President Blatter: Who Will Blink First?

There is a popular adage that life is not fair. Who does not understand the reality of that aphorism? Be that as it may, there are life circumstances that each of us finds intolerable from time to time. There are times when some of us get sick and tired of being sick and tired. I am almost chokingly sick and tired of the imperial hubris that’s displayed, from time to time, by the world’s football governing body, popularly known as FIFA. The acronym “FIFA” stands for “The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)." According to its official website, FIFA “is an association governed by Swiss law founded in 1904 and based in Zurich. It has 209 member associations and its goal, enshrined in its Statutes, is the constant improvement of football” ( 

That website documents that “FIFA employs some 310 people from over 35 nations and is composed of a Congress (legislative body), Executive Committee (executive body), General Secretariat (administrative body) and committees (assisting the Executive Committee).”

FIFA’s football governance role is also articulated on that website:

Sports governing bodies play a fundamental role in society and therefore adherence to good governance principles is fundamental for the fulfilment of their statutory objectives and broader social mission. As football’s world governing body, FIFA is firmly committed to the principles of good governance, transparency and zero tolerance towards any wrongdoing – whether it is in sporting contests or any other context of association football. FIFA has adapted its structures and procedures in order to meet the evolving needs of the game’s governance and respond to the increasing complexity of its functions and operations (

On October 23, 2014, a Nigerian Federal High Court quashed a September 30, 2014 election of a recently-constituted executive board of Nigeria’s controversy-mired football governing body known as the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF). As a member country of FIFA, Nigeria is represented by NFF. That court-annulled executive body was led by one Mr.Amaju Pinnick, who was the chairman of the Delta State Sports Commission, one of Nigeria’s 36 constituent states. Pinnick immediately appealed for a stay of execution (

In the meantime, once again, entrenched interests within NFF fished out their usual weapon—a call to FIFA to ban Nigeria. As one news report puts it, “The Nigeria Football Association (NFA) has warned that the country could be suspended by FIFA on Oct. 27, if all pending football matters were not withdrawn from the nation's civil courts" (

That’s not all. Other threats have come in as follows:

The statement said that CAF President Issah Hayatou had told Sports Minister, Tammy Danagogo in Windhoek, Namibia that FIFA and CAF were fed up with `Nigeria's incorrigibility in the area of football administration.'
`I had to plead passionately with FIFA President, Sepp Blatter, not to take action on Nigeria on Friday, because Nigeria was in the final of the African Women Championship, as a ban on your country could have been bad for the competition and our sponsors.
`We all heard the news of the court ruling on Thursday, and the football world is angry with Nigeria. That is the truth," the statement quoted Hayatou as saying.’
The FIFA letter that came to your federation before the elections of September 30 was very clear about an automatic suspension, should there be any interference with the political process, and after the elections went ahead, we all thought you had settled your issues’ (

Let’s, at this juncture, recapture a succession of events that culminated in the court nullification of the election of Pinnick as NFF’s president. It will be recalled that Pinnick’s 09/30/14 election took place against the backdrop of a previous electoral process of August 26, 2014 that produced someone else, namely Chris Giwa as President of the Nigeria Football Federation. So, in a sense, Pinnick’s ex post-facto election of 09/30/14 amounted to a form of organized rebellion against an already-constituted executive board of Nigeria’s football federation.  Not surprisingly, Giwa would not tolerate that rebellious act, and he took the matter to court. As a news report puts it, Giwa challenged “ … the credibility of the congress that produced Delta State Football Association's Chairman Amaju Pinnick citing the non-participation of Fifa, Confederation of African Football [CAF] and West African Football Union [WAFU] in the election process” (

Despite a pending Giwa’s court challenge of Pinnick’s election and inspite of the fact that Giwa had already been elected as NFF’ s president before Pinnick’s organized rebellion of 09/30/14, FIFA’s President, Mr. Sepp Blatter went ahead, on October 3, 2014, to endorse the latter. As reported in the news media, Blatter extended to Pinnick, his “sincere congratulations and best wishes of success on the occasion of your election as the new president of the Nigeria Football Federation" ( But Blatter did more than just endorse Pinnick. In what seemed like an imperial condescension towards Nigeria, FIFAs Secretary General, Jerome Valcke, followed up with a warning, albeit one to which Nigeria had gotten accustomed: "we now expect the NFF and its new leadership to carry out its activities without any hindrance in order to avoid having to again refer the case to the appropriate Fifa bodies for an automatic suspension" ( When I read that condescending and threatening statement, I said silently to myself that FIFA was up to something fishy as far as the management of Nigeria’s soccer was concerned.

Well, in the wake of the recent court-annulment of Pinnick’s election, FIFA is reported to have, once again, dangled the sword of suspension in the face of Nigeria, reportedly giving “Nigerian football a last opportunity to avoid a lengthy suspension.” According to a news report, FIFA has demanded that the lawsuit that nullified Pinnick’s election should be withdrawn from court so that the board [which was rebelliously] elected on September 30 should carry on “its activities without any hindrance.” If the court action is not withdrawn by October 30, FIFA’s Emergency Committee would suspend Nigeria from participation in international soccer competitions (

Well, some commentators who, apparently, could not read the tea leaves,  have opined, rather incorrectly, that the current uncertainty surrounding NFF’s leadership began when Sports Minister, Tammy Danagogo appointed a sole administrator in July, 2014 to run the affairs of Nigeria’s football federation immediately after the Summer, 2014 Soccer World Cup Competition in Brazil. Though the Super Eagles reached the elite round of 16 in that competition (down from the 32 teams that started out the 2014 World Cup Soccer finals), in the middle of that tournament, there erupted a bonus-related dispute between Super Eagles’ players and NFF’s erstwhile leadership headed by Aminu Maigari, to the chargrin of soccer enthusiasts, like me. To soccer fans in general, this bonus dispute was an avoidable situation: NFF had months to plan for the World Cup and should have left no stone unturned to make sure that all bonuses due to the Super Eagles were paid on time. Nigerians had gotten tired of reading news stories of NFF allegedly reneging on promised bonus payments to not only the Super Eagles but also to other Nigerian teams that fall under the auspices of Nigeria’s football federation. This time around, Nigerian soccer fans were even more furious because news had it that Nigeria’s presidency had, prior to the start of the World Cup finals, provided NFF with a special budget meant for a smooth execution of the World Cup contest ( Against that backdrop, to see the Super Eagles mount a bonus-related protest ahead of a crucial World Cup game against France, came across as an insufferable blunder on the part of NFF ( Observers, like me, saw all of this as reflective of a chronic problem of mis-management on the part of NFF. So, in appointing a sole administrator, after the World Cup, to try to make needed changes within NFF, the sports minister did not necessarily act inappropriately. To some of us, his action was long over-due: NFF needed to be cleaned up; it needed an overhaul. And, that sole administrator appointment meant that the then NFF President, Aminu Maigari was effectively relieved of his post. To me, the sports minister’s action was meant to serve Nigeria’s national interest in putting its troubled soccer house in order. But Maigari appealed to FIFA which, in an obvious disregard or lack of understanding of that national interest, reacted by ordering his re-instatement and also threatening to ban Nigeria if she did not succumb to her blackmail. Initially, Nigeria stood her ground and refused to bow to FIFA’s antics, and in July, 2014, FIFA then banned Nigeria from participation in all international football contests. In the middle of all this, Nigeria’s Under-17 women’s World Cup team, which had continentally qualified for the under-17 world cup finals, was waiting to fly to Canada, the venue of those finals. Apparently in order to pave way for this team’s participation, Nigeria relented and re-instated Maigari as president of NFF. FIFA then unbanned Nigeria and the women’s Under-17 team proceeded to Canada where it subsequently excelled and won the Silver medal for that global soccer contest. 

In the weeks that followed and against the backdrop of investigations of NFF’s finances being conducted by Nigeria’s government, fire broke out, on August 20, 2014, at the Abuja-based headquarters of NFF (

Maigari’s term eventually expired, and a process for replacing him factionalized the association. First, Chris Giwa was elected on August 26, 2014 as a new NFF president, but a counter-election that took place on September 30 pronounced Pinnick as new president. Oddly, FIFA chose to endorse Pinnick as NFF’s president despite the fact that Chris Giwa had already been elected to that office. So, in a sense, FIFA helped to set the stage for the mess in which NFF’s leadership is now engulfed.

On October 16, 2014, Pinnick’s faction of NFF unceremoniously dismissed Stephen Keshi as interim coach of Nigeria’s men’s national soccer team known as the Super Eagles, moments after that team defeated its Sudanese counterpart in a qualifying AFCON return match that was played in Abuja (Nigeria’s federal capital) on October 15, 2014. Earlier on, on October 11, Nigeria lost the away match to Sudan, 0-1. Prior to that, Nigeria played a goalless draw against South Africa, after losing, earlier on at home, to Congo, 2-3. It’s apropos to recall that after the Super Eagles’ loss, by one goal, to Sudan on October 11, Mr. Keshi said openly that his team was being sabotaged, but he did not name the alleged saboteurs ( All this while, Coach Keshi was working without a contract. Though his contract with NFF expired at the end of the summer, 2014 World Cup tournament, NFF, at that time, appeared reluctant to re-engage him. At first, Keshi announced his resignation as Super Eagles coach but later recanted following an appeal by Nigeria’s federal authorities. Contract renewal negotiations soon began but got frozen in the midst of the leadership tussle that engulfed NFF.

In the meantime, the clocked ticked towards the September 2014 kick-off of qualifying matches for AFCON 2015. Sport Minister Danagogo then stepped in and prevailed upon Keshi to continue his job of coaching the Super Eagles pending a resolution of the leadership dispute within NFF, and Keshi agreed. Though the Super Eagles’ initial AFCON qualifying matches produced worrisome results, the team’s resounding defeat of Sudan, 3-1 on October 15 signaled what looked like a path towards a rebound on the part of the senior men’s team.  There are no guarantees in soccer, and even the most rugged team may sometimes loose to an upstart. Who does not know that soccer is a fickle game?

Despite the understanding by which Sports Minister Danagogo convinced Keshi to manage the Super Eagles until the NFF could get its act together, Pinnick went ahead and unceremoniously fired Keshi on October 16 from his job of coaching the Super Eagles, reportedly without consulting the minister. And even Care-taker Coach Shaibu Amodu later said openly that NFF acted unfairly towards Keshi (

No doubt, Pinnick’s intemperate action smelled like an act of bad faith. Pinnick acted unfairly towards Keshi and did not show any appreciation to Keshi for his acceptance of the afore-mentioned ministerial call to national duty—that is, for accepting the sports minister’s successful invitation to him to sheppard the Super Eagles through the AFCON qualifying matches at a time that NFF was in disarray and negotiations for his contract’s renewal remained stalled. In failing to consult with the sports minister before dismissing Keshi, Pinnick’s conduct violated a provision of FIFA’s own “Disciplinary Code” which enjoins national football associations to “keep local authorities informed and collaborate with them actively and effectively” (p. 39)((

As coach of the national team, Stephen Keshi won the highly coveted Africa Cup of Nations championship in 2013—the second in the history of the Super Eagles. He subsequently led the national team into the group of 16 in the 2014 summer World Cup finals in Brazil. Keshi’s achievements took place against the backdrop of an NFF leadership that more often than not attempted, in rather surreptitious ways, to undermine him in his job as coach of Nigeria’s senior men’s football team. His relationship with NFF and its technical committee was notoriously marked by sporadic tension and media crossfires. 

FIFA’s October 2014 action of endorsing Mr. Pinnick as a new boss of Nigeria’s football federation looked to me like an unspoken challenge to Nigeria’s federal government (which had endorsed Chris Giwa’s earlier election that FIFA later pronounced as illegitimate).  

In announcing his dismissal of Keshi as Super Eagles coach, Pinnick announced that NFF had begun a search for a foreign coach to replace him. Sports Minister Danagogo later spoke openly against that move, saying that his ministry had instituted a policy of nurturing indigenous coaches ( On my part, I believe that the Super Eagles deserve the best coach that Nigeria can afford from any part of the world, but that world should not exclude Nigeria’s domestic class of coaches. In other words, what NFF ought to do is to advertise the job nationally and internationally, invite applications from both foreign and domestic coaches and let a competitive process determine who would emerge as Keshi’s replacement, if necessary. Pinnick premised his preference for “a foreign coach” on what he described as his desire for “a scientific approach” to soccer management. In making this pronouncement, Pinnick reinforced a certain Eurocentric perspective that “physicality” rather than “methodology,” characterizes African footballing. In truth, the game of football, anywhere in the world, involves both methodology and physicality. Was it physicality that exclusively explained the Super Eagles’ rise to the elite group of 16 national teams that survived after their counterparts from 16 other nations of the world crashed out of the recently-concluded 2014 World Cup finals in Brazil? Even past world cup winning nations like England, Italy and Spain (the winner of the 2010 World Cup), were among the countries that were eliminated during the first round of that contest. It seems to me that in their whole-sale condemnation and exclusion of Nigerian coaches, despite identifiable distinguished accomplishments within their ranks (such as coach Keshi’s winning of the Africa Cup of Nations in 2013 and his steering of the Super Eagles into the elite group of 16 world cup nations in summer 2014 and such as coach Manu Garba’s winning of the Under-17 World Cup Soccer tournament in 2013),  Pinnick and his crew at NFF left one with an impression that they are either victims of a post-colonial inferiority complex or that they are unable to resist the allure of foreign exchange deals that are believed to characterize past “foreign coach” deals entered into by NFF or both. To insinuate, as Pinnick did, that Nigerian domestic coaches are incapable of managing soccer “scientifically” and thus tactically is an unacceptable re-enactment of certain anti-African constructs that tend to flow from Eurocentric epistemology. No doubt, Pinnick appears to belong to a category of present-day Africans who seem to be in dire need of re-education.

Does Nigeria have to live under a never-ending specter of a FIFA ban for making good faith efforts to correct systemic problems in the management of its national football affairs? Is the Nigerian government aware that it can fight back against FIFA through not only court litigation (as several other groups and countries have done) and by even politically mobilizing against a global organization that has increasingly behaved in an imperial fashion? FIFA’s incessant threats of banning Nigeria from participation in international soccer competitions, unless it bows to its imperial will, represent a total disregard for the sovereign rights of Nigeria to determine the destiny and future of her soccer initiatives. I cannot think of any other global organization that conducts itself in this obnoxious and obtrusive manner. 

Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan should call FIFA’s bluff and then proceed to mobilize other nations, particularly African nations that have also been subjected to FIFA’s humiliating and overbearing imperial intrusions into their national football affairs. For instance, FIFA’s President Blatter is currently seeking re-election for a 5th term, and this desire of his presents an opportunity for Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Sports to launch diplomatic moves that should let Blatter understand that without him pledging, in writing, to respect the sovereign rights of member nations of FIFA to determine the quality and direction of their national footballing programs, Nigeria would campaign against his re-election through pertinent African continental and regional organizations. Instructive is a journal article that appeared in Sport Management Review entitled, “How can FIFA be held accountable.” In it, the author recommends that given that “FIFA itself does not fall under the most relevant jurisdictions for the policing of corruption, such accountability would necessarily have to be applied indirectly by national or international (such as the European Union or European Council) governments, perhaps through oversight of FIFA or its member organizations or confederations” (

I rest my case!

Monday, October 13, 2014

Adieu Professor Ali Mazrui

News just arrived that legendary and world renowned scholar, Distinguished Professor Ali Mazrui (1933-2014) has joined his ancestors at age 81. As of the time of his death, Dr. Mazrui was an Albert Schweitzer Professor in the Humanities and the Director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

Every distinguished scholar is so designated for having recorded a high point or achieved a landmark in his or her career. A continuously active intellectual, Professor Mazrui's high point came in the form of a 1986 television series known as The Africans. In those series, Dr. Mazrui presented a complex picture of ancient and contemporary Africa in a manner that had never been shown before on US television screens. In 1987, he followed it up with his book publication known as The Africans: A Triple Heritage. For at least once, modern Africa—along with its Western-style cities and skyscrapers, the high points and low points of urbanization—was prominently displayed on US television screens. The Africans emerged as a means of potentially replacing popular imaginations of the African continent as mainly a home to wild animals that even roam the streets of society, side by side with human beings. The Africans continue to serve as learning tools in university classrooms. I believe that through The Africans, Dr. Ali Mazrui, now in the company of his ancestors, will, for long, stay alive in the memories of the living.

In 2008, the department of Africology and African American Studies at Eastern Michigan University hosted the late Professor Mazrui as that Year's College of Arts and Sciences’ McAndless Distinguished scholar. He spent with us two busy weeks that proved eventful and memorable, and his lectures attracted record crowds of students, faculty and staff.

In 2005, Foreign Policy magazine and British journal Prospect listed Professor Mazrui as among the world’s 100 most important public intellectuals. In recent years, the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center recognized Ali Mazrui as one of the most influential 500 Muslims in the world (

Though a committed public intellectual, Professor Mazrui remained devoted to his religion of Islam. In a keynote lecture that he gave at Eastern Michigan University, during the aforementioned distinguished McAndless professorship visitation in 2008, Mazrui opined that the 21st century is marked by a perceptible decline in prejudice based on race but an increase in prejudice based on religion. In the 4th edition of my Towards an Understanding of Africology (2013), I reflected that …

It would appear that in contending, as he did, that prejudice based on religion is now on the ascendency, Mazrui was perhaps alluding to public anxieties and U.S. government’s national security thrusts that came in vogue in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attack on New York’s twin towers that claimed nearly four thousand American and non-American lives—an attack that government officials reported as having been carried out by 19 plane hijackers of Islamic and foreign extraction (p. 250).

Mazrui was also a farsighted scholar. In one of the episodes of his 1986 The Africans’ television series, Mazrui predicted that in the 21st century, two global African communities would emerge as “most privileged” black communities. They are African Americans in the United States and Africans of South Africa. At that time, South Africa was still in the grips of apartheid white minority rule. In Towards an Understanding of Africology, I wrote as follows about those predictions.

It appears that time has vindicated [Mazrui]. Black majority rule has since emerged in South Africa although the vestiges of apartheid are still quite visible in that country. During the 1980s … Professor Mazrui predicted that African Americans would, in future, become a most privileged black group in the 21st century…Well, when you juxtapose Mazrui’s 1980s prediction with the fact that by the late 1990s, the prevailing value of the gross annual African American consumer market was about $400 billion (Smith and Horton, 1997, p. 451)—a figure which was said to be equal to the gross domestic product of the fourteenth richest nation of the world (Marable, 1995, p. 195)—you are likely to share Mazrui’s optimism. Your optimism would perhaps double if you learn that that as of 2011, that estimate of the annual black consumer power in the United States has soared to $836 billion (The Buying Power of Black America, 2013)(p. 269).

I then went on, however, to point out that even though Mazrui did accurately forecast, back in the middle 1980s, that US African Americans would emerge as a most privileged black community in the 21st century, hardly would his human limitations have allowed him to identify a specific and historic feature of that prediction, namely that by 2008, an African American named Barack Obama, would win the presidency of the United States. Of course, Obama was re-elected in 2012.

May Mazrui's soul rest in perfect peace!

Friday, October 10, 2014

America Failed Mr. Duncan!

Medical treatment for Ebola should not be subject to any health insurance qualification or citizenship test. It cannot be over-emphasized that Ebola is a threat to humanity as we know it. If you don’t understand this fact, wake up! I compare Ebola to a much fictionalized specter of a deadly alien invasion of our planet. This time, we are not dealing with a movie. It’s a reality! The World Health Organization (WHO) says that “the average EVD case fatality rate is around 50% [,] and that case fatality rates have varied from 25% to 90% in past outbreaks” (

The fact that, so far, this deadly alien invasion is largely confined to a segment of our world but with sporadic and minor leakages onto other parts of our planet, should not lull us into thinking that we are inexorably shielded from it. Our fellow human beings who have been stricken by this alien invasion are innocent and hapless victims and should be treated with sympathy and given all the support and help that we can muster as humanity acting together for our collective good.

All of this brings to mind the recent case of Mr. Thomas Eric Duncan, a fellow human being, who we lost to Ebola a few days ago. So far, humanity has lost close to four thousand hapless men, women and children to this new but biggest outbreak of Ebola ( You will recall that in September, 2014, the late Mr. Duncan visited family members in the city of Dallas in Texas State of the United States from Liberia. All available news reports indicate that he did not show any symptom of the disease before he left Liberia although he might have been exposed to someone who was suffering from it (

It would appear that Mr. Duncan's case was mishandled from the very get going. He should not have been turned away or allowed to go home during his first emergency room hospital visit in Dallas, Texas on September 26. It would appear that what sometimes comes across as a general grassroots lack of knowledge of world geography in our society, might have played a role here. If the staff on duty at the Dallas Presbyterian Hospital where he initially went for emergency medical help upon taking ill, had a prior knowledge of a country called Liberia and a patient walked in identifying himself/herself as having recently arrived from Liberia and was actually ill and feverish, pertinently-knowledgeable staff should have swung into action by immediately putting him in a quarantine for urgent and serious treatment. If the staff on duty had pertinent knowledge of geography (unfortunately, a lot of students tend to refer to Africa as a "country"), the word "Liberia" would have signaled danger to them once a patient reported himself as having recently arrived from there, feverish and feeling seriously ill.
Another aspect of our socioeconomic system that probably proved problematic in the case of Mr. Duncan is the system of health insurance. I don't know if people who go to hospital emergency rooms (ERs), as Duncan did, without medical insurance, do receive attentive attention and good care.

Furthermore, extreme individualism, which tends to be a prevalent social ethic within this Western world, seemed to have also manifested its downside in the sub-conscious in terms of the fact that the hospital staff, who initially attended to Mr. Duncan, demonstrably did not feel compelled and apparently did not experience an innermost sense of urgency to immediately quarantine Mr. Duncan for the sake of the public good.
How about our unresolved problem of reflexive negativism towards people who do not look like us? Did race play a role here as well? Would anyone contend that if Mr. Duncan was white and was also visiting from Liberia, that he would have been treated in the same manner by the various points-of-contact in our overall system of health care? Are we not aware that all of the Ebola-stricken persons (white Americans of course) who, prior to Mr. Duncan’s case, had been specially flown back here and hospitalized here, did receive a successful cure? Are we proud to establish a new record in differential treatment of patients who are sick of the same disease—a record that, this time, received world-wide attention? Did Mr. Duncan’s noncitizen ship affect the quality of care that he received? Should it have been so, given that Ebola threatens all of humanity as we know it?

I don't think that Mr. Duncan had Ebola before he left Liberia. If he did, he would not have passed the preboarding temperature test that was reportedly administered upon him at Monrovia, capital of Liberia.  Even if he had harbored an innermost worry that his alleged contact with an Ebola patient, while in Liberia, might have compromised his health without him being aware of it and without him showing any symptoms of the disease, the fact that he was not only successful in securing a visa to visit the USA (a herculean task in and of itself in today's Ebola-induced international panic), but he was also able to purchase a flight ticket whose cost cannot be afforded by an average member of the poor and downtrodden population of Liberia, to me, represented transient life opportunities that perhaps anyone in Mr. Duncan’s shoes would have taken advantage of in order to seek refuge and succor in our country which possesses an abundance of viable health facilities where his life could be saved in the eventuality that he came down with the disease.

Though I give credit to the United States government for all of the efforts and resources that it has deployed ( in helping the geographically far-away West African countries (Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone) that are currently the most Ebola-victimized population centers of our planet (below is a WHO latest table of Ebola cases and deaths in those three most-victimized countries), it is my humble conclusion that America failed Mr. Duncan who was within our shores and whose proximity to us should have thus made him an easier target of our generous hearts!
Case Definition
Cases in past 21 days
Cases in past 21 days/total cases


Sierra Leone



Table: Courtesy of the World Health Organization (WHO) (

Given our country’s prior record of success in curing Ebola patients (though those patients were US citizens and, of course, white) who were brought back to the United States for medical treatment after contracting the disease abroad, there exists a track record of therapy that serves as a reasonable basis for one to suggest that Mr. Duncan did not have to die ( Our society should have extended to him, the same quantity and quality of care that were given to prior cases by our system of medical therapy.

In any case, there is hope that we may not be too far away from completing the development of instruments by which humanity can halt the occurrence and spread of Ebola. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there have emerged “two candidate vaccines” with “clinical-grade vials available for phase 1 pre-licensure clinical trials.” In the words of WHO, the potential vaccines are as follows:

One (cAd3-ZEBOV) has been developed by GlaxoSmithKline in collaboration with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. It uses a chimpanzee-derived adenovirus vector with an Ebola virus gene inserted.
The second (rVSV-ZEBOV) was developed by the Public Health Agency of Canada in Winnipeg. The license for commercialization of the Canadian vaccine is held by an American company, the NewLink Genetics company, located in Ames, Iowa. The vaccine uses an attenuated or weakened vesicular stomatitis virus, a pathogen found in livestock; one of its genes has been replaced by an Ebola virus gene (

As we make progress on these and other ongoing projects designed to checkmate Ebola, let us do and continue to do all we can to help out its victims, no matter what may be their citizenship and regardless of the color of their skin pigmentation.