Why Nations Must Break the Deadlock Over Kimberley Process Leadership
PUBLISHED on CNBC Africa: Mon, 06 Oct 2025
For more than 20 years, the Kimberley Process (KP) has been a model of multilateral cooperation, protecting the diamond trade from the scourge of conflict financing. It has maintained consumer confidence, shielded African producers, and kept one of the world’s most valuable resources out of the hands of warlords.
That achievement is now in jeopardy. Despite three nations offering to lead, political divisions have prevented consensus on the 2025 Chair. The United Arab Emirates has stepped in as Custodian Chair to keep the process alive – but this stopgap cannot last. Without elected leadership, the KP risks irrelevance at a time when global governance is under unprecedented strain.
Global Stakes, African Impact
The KP was established to ensure that diamonds would never again fuel wars on the African continent. Failing to agree on leadership now sends a dangerous signal: that geopolitical rivalries outweigh the shared responsibility to protect stability in fragile regions. The credibility of the UN-recognised certification system itself is on the line.
This November, ministers will gather in Dubai for the first KP Ministerial since its launch in Interlaken in 2002. They cannot afford to leave without progress on three urgent priorities. First, they must finally adopt a modernised definition of conflict diamonds – a debate that has stalled for more than a decade. Second, they must accelerate the transition to digital certification and AI-enabled traceability. Third, they must confront the re-emerging nexus between diamonds and arms flows which demands renewed vigilance in light of ongoing conflicts.
Who Should Lead?
Chairing the KP is not a ceremonial honour; it is a position of real responsibility. The Chair reports directly to the UN General Assembly and sets the agenda for consumer trust, trade enforcement, and development outcomes. That responsibility requires a nation with scale, neutrality, or unique credibility.
Several nations are well-placed to assume this responsibility.
The United States, with its unmatched market influence and leadership in AI governance, could restore momentum. China has the scale and technological capacity to digitise certification and transform global traceability. Norway’s sanctions expertise and rule-of-law credibility make it a natural guardian of system integrity. Singapore, as a neutral and technology-driven convenor, could bridge divides. Most importantly, African nations such as Ghana, South Africa, Angola, or Mauritius – each with legitimacy, production power, and governance strength – could ensure that producer voices remain central.
The case for Ghana
Ghana, in particular, shows what credible and reform-minded KP leadership could look like. Within months of returning to office in January, President John Dramani Mahama has moved decisively on the very priorities the KP is trying to advance: enforcement of the rule of law, end-to-end traceability, and severing the link between minerals and arms. His government has banned foreign nationals from artisanal gold markets, consolidated oversight into a new Ghana Gold Board, deployed security-backed task forces, and even introduced whistle-blower rewards to curb smuggling. By coupling digital traceability plans with regional action against arms trafficking, Accra is delivering the kind of results-driven model that a modernised KP urgently needs.
Time for Leadership
The KP has 60 Participants representing 86 countries. All have the power to step forward. This is not about prestige; it is about preserving one of the most effective conflict-prevention frameworks of the past generation.
The alternative – drift and division – would endanger both African livelihoods and global confidence in the diamond trade. Nations must act now, not only to protect the KP, but to demonstrate that multilateral cooperation can still deliver in an era of fracture