Twelve civil society organisations from across Africa, Europe, and Russia have issued a scathing report warning against the increasing adoption of nuclear energy by African governments, describing it as a “false climate solution” and a threat to the continent’s future.
The report, “The Alarming Rise of False Climate Solutions in Africa: The Nuclear Energy Misadventure”, was released in advance of the Bonn Climate Conference (SB62) scheduled to begin on June 16 in Germany. It critiques the nuclear power plans of 14 African countries—Angola, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Uganda—all of which have made public announcements about introducing nuclear energy into their national grids.
South Africa remains the only African country with an operational nuclear plant, built in 1984 during apartheid.
The report accuses the nuclear lobby of promoting an expensive, slow, and unsafe energy solution, warning that it will derail the continent’s efforts to achieve a just, equitable energy transition and net-zero carbon goals. It advocates instead for investment in clean, renewable energy options such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power.
“The demand for a just transition to a post-carbon economy means it must be green, sustainable and socially inclusive. This comprehensive report lays out the case for why the nuclear energy option is not compatible with these demands,” said Makoma Lekalakala, 2018 Goldman Prize recipient for Africa, in the report’s foreword.
The report asserts that Africa is being targeted as a testing ground for nuclear technologies and a battleground for geopolitical competition among global nuclear exporters. It further notes that a significant portion of Africa’s climate finance needs remain unmet, with over half of current funding provided through debt instruments—making costly nuclear projects financially unsound.
In Nigeria, concerns over safety and infrastructure inadequacies remain high.
“Nigeria is not ready to host nuclear plants. We lack the capacity to manage such facilities,” said Philip Jakpor, Executive Director of Renevlyn Development Initiative (RDI). “Our experience with oil and gas infrastructure—often targeted by sabotage and terrorism—shows how dangerous a nuclear site would be. It could become a military-grade target.”
Alberta Kpeleku, Executive Director of 360 Human Rights in Ghana, echoed the concerns.
“From environmental disasters to health risks and economic burdens, it’s time for Ghana to reject nuclear power. The risks—accidents, waste, proliferation, and terrorism—are too high. We must prioritise renewables instead,” she said.
Phyllis Omido, Kenyan environmentalist and Goldman Prize winner, reinforced this stance:
“Nuclear energy translates to energy slavery for African people. Renewable energy offers freedom—for people and the planet.”
In Uganda, where the government plans to use nuclear energy to improve electricity access to 99% by 2030, critics say the timeline and financing are unrealistic.
“Uganda has more than 1,000 MW in excess power already. A nuclear project could cost a quarter of our national budget,” said Sam Mucunguzi, Executive Director of Uganda Environment Action Now. “With ongoing debt and challenges from oil and gas extraction, adding nuclear will only compound our problems.”
Environmental activists also drew attention to nuclear energy’s vulnerability to conflict and climate change. Francesca de Gasparis, Executive Director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, dismissed nuclear energy as a viable option.
“When we compare nuclear to other energy choices on the table in the 21st century—cost, safety, construction time, waste—there is no rationale for nuclear,” she stated.
Vladimir Slivyak, Co-Chair of Russia’s Ecodefense and an Alternative Nobel Prize laureate, warning of compounded risks said: “Climate change and war make nuclear power more dangerous than ever. From Ukraine to Africa, we see how reactors can become strategic military targets. Civilian plants also raise the risk of proliferation.”
The report, backed by a coalition of organizations including Earthlife Africa, Tipping Point North South (UK), Ecodefense (Russia), and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (Germany), presents several critical recommendations to address the risks of nuclear energy expansion in Africa. It urges an immediate end to the continent being used as a testing ground or geopolitical battleground for nuclear technology exports.
Additionally, the report calls for the cancellation of all nuclear power plant plans, advocating for the redirection of funds toward safe, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydro. It also demands a moratorium by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on nuclear projects in Africa until broad, inclusive consultations are conducted. Finally, the coalition recommends that the World Bank reject financing for nuclear energy under its “Mission 300” initiative, emphasizing the need to prioritize sustainable alternatives to meet Africa’s climate and energy needs.
The groups argue that nuclear energy will crowd out already limited and debt-heavy climate finance, and fail to address Africa’s urgent energy poverty.
The full report is available here.