Dr M’zée Fula-Ngenge: Kimberley Process failing Africa

The Kimberley Process (KP) is failing Africa, and the world's definition of a “conflict diamond” is a moral and legal absurdity, according to the African Diamond Council (ADC) chairperson M’zée Fula-Ngenge.

He demands an expanded definition that includes state actors—pointing to Russia's alleged use of diamond revenues to finance its war in Ukraine—as well as forced labour, child labour, violence by state security forces, corruption, and environmental destruction.

Dr Fula-Ngenge condemns smuggling networks that thrive in the Central African Republic, where an embargo only drove trade underground, and exposes how a lack of transparency allows criminal cartels to operate with shocking ease, citing recent court cases in Liberia.

Meanwhile, the ADC chairperson warns that lab-grown diamonds, with China supplying roughly three-quarters of world output, pose an existential threat to millions of livelihoods in Africa's natural diamond sector.

Geopolitically, he notes that the United States threatened crushing tariffs on Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia.

Dr Fula-Ngenge said there is a need for mandatory third-party audits, blockchain-based traceability, and a consumer-facing digital passport that allows any buyer to scan a nanotag and see a diamond's full journey.

While India, as the 2026 KP Chair, has a historic opportunity to drive digitalisation and break the deadlock, Dr Fula-Ngenge insists that true control of Africa's diamond wealth requires one radical shift: making every mining contract, valuation, and beneficial owner visible.

Without that, he said, no other reform stands a chance.

The following exclusive interview with Rough & Polished’s Mathew Nyaungwa captures Dr Fula-Ngenge's unfiltered diagnosis and roadmap for change.

 

What human rights and environmental issues are critics demanding be included in an expanded definition?

I am pleased to report that some of our most experienced industry players have joined me in advocating for a revision of the current conflict diamond definition, which was established in a bygone era. They are calling for an expanded definition that recognises the full dignity of the African worker and the sacredness of our land. This means explicitly including the eradication of forced labour and child labour, which have no place in our industry. It means not just holding rebel groups accountable, but also state and private security forces that commit systematic violence against mining communities. It means defining corruption and extortion as core violations of the Kimberley Process. And it means acknowledging the severe environmental destruction caused by irresponsible mining as a fundamental conflict in itself. In short, the world is demanding that a diamond be judged, not only by the peace of the nation it came from, but by the human rights and environmental integrity of every step of its journey.

What reforms are needed regarding the definition of the so-called conflict diamonds?

As I have communicated many times, the reforms we need are clear, urgent, and have been blocked for far too long. First and foremost, the definition of conflict diamonds must be expanded to include state actors. The current definition, written in 2003, only targets rebel groups. The million-dollar question is what happens when a sovereign nation uses diamond revenues to finance a war of aggression, as we see with Russia in Ukraine? Under today's rules, those diamonds can still be called "conflict-free." That is a moral and legal absurdity to call them anything other than “blood” or “conflict” diamonds. Second, I will say it again that the definition must explicitly cover serious human rights abuses, including forced labour, child labour, and violence committed by state security forces. And third, it must address systemic corruption that allows diamond wealth to be stolen from communities. Behind closed doors, the vast majority of African producing nations support these reforms and since it is only a small minority that blocks consensus, we must break that blockade in India.

What role do smuggling networks continue to play in some regions?

Smuggling networks remain a bleeding wound on our diamond industry, thriving in the very gaps that the Kimberley Process has failed to close. In regions like the Central African Republic, the well-intentioned, but poorly executed embargo, honestly did not stop the rebels. Frankly speaking, it only drove the trade deeper underground, making smuggling far more lucrative than legitimate commerce. Unprincipled officials made a habit of looking the other way, criminal cartels effectively moved stones across borders without a single certificate, and the revenues that should actually be used to build schools and hospitals, ended up fueling instability and impunity. Recent court cases in Liberia have exposed how a lack of transparency allows these networks to operate with shocking ease. As long as our certification system remains paper-based and our enforcement remains weak, smuggling will continue to bleed our nations of wealth and dignity.

What technological tool is proposed for tracking diamonds from mine to market?

The tool that offers our best hope is what I call a traceability solution. Imagine a digital passport for every diamond that is created the moment it is lifted from the earth, recording every hand it passes through, every border it crosses, and every certification it earns. That is the promise of platforms like Verifico, launched under the UAE’s chairmanship. Yet today, Verifico remains limited because it applies only to rough stones, and geopolitical concerns over data centralisation in the UAE have raised several red flags. Worse, it has shown us that it cannot detect fraud when data from mixed origins is inserted. Then there is TRACE5. Its commercial viability is crippled by high hardware costs that shut out smaller manufacturers, and it remains vulnerable to physical stone-swapping during the manufacturing process. Finally, De Beers’ Tracr platform also falls short. Its heavy reliance on expensive 3D scanning technology structurally excludes vulnerable artisanal miners, while its ownership by De Beers has bred industry-wide distrust over data privacy and the risk of competitor monopoly. Consequently, the global diamond industry is subtly signalling to the world that it seeks not genuine traceability, but merely the comforting illusion of it. After a thorough evaluation, the African Diamond Council has rejected and blacklisted each of the previously mentioned tools. This decision will remain in effect until the developers collaborate to deliver a solution that meets the full requirements of the gemstone industry. For Africa, adopting such tools is not a luxury. It is the only way to protect our diamonds from smuggling, build consumer confidence, and ensure that the world knows exactly where each gemstone came from—and whom it benefited.

What type of audits are recommended for the Kimberley Process?

The Kimberley Process can no longer ignore what every responsible industry already accepts as standard. Independent, third-party audits are non-negotiable. Today, the KP operates on a system of self-reporting and peer review, with no mandatory external verification. It is intentional that no independent auditor checks whether a participant's internal controls actually work. The same holds that no public accounting of compliance failures is required. This would be unthinkable in any other global certification scheme. The recommendation that I have repeated year after year with the support of progressive participants, is that every member state should submit an annual third-party audited report, verified by an accredited and independent body, and made available for public scrutiny. Without this, the Kimberley Process remains a voluntary honour system in a world that demands accountability. Most would agree that we cannot ask consumers to trust us if we refuse to be audited.

What consumer-focused reform is suggested to ensure ethical sourcing?

The single most powerful consumer-focused reform is a mandatory, publicly accessible digital traceability system that allows any buyer, at any jewellery counter anywhere in the world, to scan a nanotag with a cellular phone and see their diamond's full journey from mine to market. Consumers today want more than a piece of paper that says "conflict-free." They want to know that no child laboured to extract it, that no river was poisoned to process it, that no smuggler's hand touched it, and that the revenues will build much-needed diamond schools in Botswana, globally-renowned clinics in Sierra Leone or stem cell research centres in Angola. This is not idealism; it is the new standard of ethical commerce. India's own chairmanship theme of "Consumer Confidence" not only recognises this truth, but must move to execute solutions for all the challenges that have been identified. We must move far beyond the paper certificate to a digital passport, verified by blockchain, and put some sense of power directly into the hands of the consumer. We must give credit to the producing nations as well as to the mines within them. That is how we will restore trust and differentiate our natural diamonds from every imitation.

What strategic opportunities does India have to modernise the Kimberley Process and position itself?

India, as the Chair of the Kimberley Process for 2026, stands at a crossroads with the power to either save or further weaken this institution. We are paying close attention and are willing to lend our support for positive change. And for Africa, India's choices matter enormously. India has three great strategic opportunities. First, to drive digitalisation by championing an effective traceability solution and moving the KP out of the paper age, thereby positioning itself as the global leader in diamond supply chain technology. Second, to break the deadlock on expanding the conflict diamond definition. As a founding member of the KP, India does possess the diplomatic weight and the relationships with both African producers and Western powers to broker a compromise that finally includes state actors and human rights abuses. And third, to build a unified global front against the threats we all face, which are misrepresentation of lab-grown diamonds, protectionist tariffs, and sophisticated smuggling efforts. By bringing together African producers, Indian polishers, and global retailers, India can forge a powerful coalition that speaks with one voice in defence of the natural diamond. If India seizes these opportunities, it will not only modernise the Kimberley Process, but also secure its own position as the indispensable hub of the world's most trusted diamond trade. The question is whether India will rise to that challenge?

Given failed ministers, foreign extractors, and a powerless intergovernmental association, what single shift would let Africa control its diamond wealth for its people?

Making the invisible visible and this would require three concrete actions. First, publish every mining contract and side letter within sixty days, so no secret waivers can be slipped past public scrutiny. Second, install independent state valuers at every diamond sale and release their figures monthly, so companies cannot understate what they owe. Third, force every license holder to name its ultimate beneficial owner. I am referring to a real person, rather than a chain of shells, so that no foreign extractor can hide behind anonymity. Do these three things, and any minister who betrays their people must do so in broad daylight. Foreign companies may threaten to leave, but they won’t, because diamonds are portrayed as scarce and transparency actually attracts better investors. This is the one shift with no intergovernmental bodies to lead. Real leadership must come from within each country, which means that a civil society that demands transparency, a parliament that enforces disclosure, and a president who calculates that hiding a deal costs more than revealing it. An intergovernmental association can help by creating a model contract, shaming non‑disclosing members, and training local auditors. But if a country wants to keep its diamonds secret, there is no continental body that can force it open. It can only follow, and make no mistake: this is brutally difficult to achieve, yet without it, no other reform stands a chance.

How do lab-grown diamonds complicate market regulation, and which country is emerging as a major producer?

Lab-grown diamonds have thrown a thick and unwelcome fog over our market. They are chemically and optically identical to natural diamonds, yet they come from factories, not from the earth. Without a global, mandatory disclosure framework, it becomes nearly impossible for customs officers or even jewellers to distinguish a synthetic stone from a natural one. This opens the door to ungovernable fraud, misrepresentation, and a silent erosion of consumer trust in all diamonds. And the country that is emerging as the dominant producer of these lab-grown stones is China, which now supplies roughly three-quarters of the world's output, with massive industrial production centred in Henan Province. For African nations whose economies depend on the natural diamond sector, this is not just a market complication, but an existential threat to millions of livelihoods, and we must demand a global response that recognises natural diamonds as a unique, finite, and life-giving resource.

What geopolitical factors affect the diamond trade?

The diamond trade today is caught in the crossfire of great power rivalries and global conflicts. Let us speak plainly about the tariffs, where the United States initially expressed interest in imposing a crushing 100% duty on diamonds from Botswana, the second-largest producer on our continent, and similar tariffs on South Africa and Namibia. In my eyes, these are not neutral trade policies. From where I stand, it can be deemed as weapons that threaten to dismantle decades of economic partnership. Then there is the war in Ukraine, which has exposed a fatal and unspoken flaw in the Kimberley Process (KP). Russia, which accounts for one-third of the world's diamond production, has used its position to block discussions on how its diamond revenues are funding its aggression. Western nations accuse Russia of obstruction, and the KP has been paralysed as a result. Meanwhile, new alliances are forming, such as the $12 billion deal between Botswana and Qatar, which reshapes who holds power in this industry. The African Diamond Council (ADC) cannot pretend that our diamond trade exists apart from geopolitics. It is at the very heart of it.

Mathew Nyaungwa, Editor-In-Chief, Rough & Polished