The East African Community (EAC) Common Market Protocol has come under renewed focus after a September 2 directive from Kenyan president, William Ruto, targeting small-scale trade left foreign traders in the country on tenterhooks.
The vast bulk of the foreign traders affected hail from EAC member countries that are legally required to follow and implement the EAC Common Market Protocol.
While the Common Market Protocol, which came into force on July 1, 2010, remains a work in progress, with full compliance still some way off, images of Burundians queuing at the Embassy of Burundi Chancery in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, have given many a severe jolt.
Burundi is among the eight EAC partner states. Whereas the EAC Common Market Protocol makes it abundantly clear that free movement of workers ‘is subject to limitations imposed by the host Partner State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health’, the Ruto directive is widely expected to blunt the EAC’s integration plans.
The legality of the directive is also being called into question, with the East Africa Law Society (EALS) warning this week that a foray into uncharted territory could ensue if ‘nationality […], in itself, [is] treated as evidence of illegality.’
We wholeheartedly agree with the EALS that it is imperative that Nairobi squarely addresses ambiguities whose silences are potentially very dangerous.
As the EALS succinctly put it, the clarity of purpose should show itself the legal basis, scope and procedures governing the Ruto directive.
The latest threat to what was an already floundering Common Market in the EAC has to be decisively dealt with if anything because it is a double whammy.
One part of the twofold blow is decipherable in the obstacles presented to intra-community trade. Simply put, they are enormous.
The EAC Common Market Protocol is quite coherent and intelligible about the rich benefits of integrating into a single market typified by free movement of capital, labour, goods and services.
The second part of the twofold blow can be made out from the impact on democracy in the EAC. Kenya is a paragon for liberal democracy in the EAC, and could not be allowed to turn into a Wild West where an imperial presidency and its inequities reign supreme.
It is also important to note that protectionism and economic nationalism-both of which President Ruto’s September 2 directive are either wittingly or unwittingly promoting-are deeply intertwined with the global retreat of liberal democracy.
This populist backlash to integration, which often rears an ugly head during an election cycle, should be treated with the contempt that it merits.
A rules-based framework that cherishes cooperation, transparency, and shared legal standards, the like of which the EAC is holding out, should not be placed on the metaphorical back-burner by so-called ‘orders from above.’
If this pain point is paid insufficient attention, as currently appears to be the case, we yet could be witnessing the creation of a hybrid regime in a country that is supposed to be-as previously stated- the paragon of liberal democracy in the EAC.