By Leonard Chimanda Joseph
Context
The discourse surrounding African unity has been a cornerstone of the continent’s post-independence era, with central figures such as Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah – each the first president of their respective countries – engaging in a crucial debate on the pace and urgency of unification. In this debate, Nkrumah championed immediate unity, calling for a ‘United States of Africa’, whereas Nyerere advocated for a more gradual approach, emphasizing progressive unity. The latter was supported by most African presidents, leading to the proliferation of regional integrations across Africa, with the underlying premise that these blocs would serve as stepping stones towards a unified continent. The emergence of regional organizations including the East African Community (EAC), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) can be seen as a manifestation of this vision.
From this perspective, it is reasonable to argue that regional integrations in Africa are on paper a decolonial endeavor seeking to dismantle the artificial borders imposed upon the continent by the 1884–85 Berlin Conference and move towards the envisaged ‘United States of Africa’. However, a critical examination of these regional blocs reveals a disconcerting reality: they have largely failed to realize their stated objectives. A significant body of literature suggests that these organizations are predominantly state-centric, prioritizing the interests of partner states over the needs and involvement of citizens of the partner states. I argue that this statist approach has resulted in regional integrations that serve primarily as a means for state engagement and interests, rather than fostering people-centred development.
This further supports my argument that regional integration in Africa perpetuates the legacy of colonialism by creating an amalgamation of artificially constructed states that facilitate the enduring influence of the Global North over the Global South. I equate this phenomenon to the Swahili idiom ua ndege wawili kwa jiwe moja, meaning ‘killing two birds with one stone’ where the Global North effectively advances its interests by engaging with African states collectively rather than individually. To advance my argument, I use the protracted refugee situation in Tanzania as a case study, specifically focusing on refugees in Kigoma villages, to illustrate the limitations and implications of the EAC as one of the regional economic communities in Africa.
The EAC and Colonial Legacy
The nexus between colonial legacy and regional integration in Africa has been the subject of extensive scholarly inquiry, with the main argument being that African regional integration has been profoundly influenced by Western models of integration. Specifically, the definition of a ‘region’ has been largely predicated on a state-centric paradigm, which has significant implications for the actors deemed relevant to the integration process, potentially excluding non-state actors. This paradigm not only overlooks the agency of other influential actors in African societies, but also perpetuates a narrow and restrictive understanding of regional integration. I argue that, like many other regional integrations in Africa, the EAC is predicated upon colonial legacies.
Originally established in 1967 and disintegrated in 1977, the EAC was re-established in 2000 and is currently composed of eight partner states: Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda as founding members, and Burundi, Rwanda, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Somalia as later entrants. According to Article 5(2) of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community of 1999 (the EAC Treaty), the EAC seeks to achieve a political federation as its highest stage of integration after becoming a customs union, common market and monetary union. This trajectory is similar to that of the European Union (EU) except for the last stage.
Scholars argue that the EAC’s model is not only patterned after the EU but also continues to rely on EU support – both financial and technical – thereby undermining the region’s autonomy and exacerbating the risk of modern colonialism. They further contend that the EAC’s state-centric conception of regional integration is inconsistent with the region’s context, as it entrenches colonial legacies and ignores the complexities of Africa’s historical, cultural and social realities. By prioritizing states as the primary actors in the integration process, the EAC risks perpetuating the exclusion of communities and groups that do not conform to the artificial boundaries imposed by colonial powers.
Notably, all EAC partner states, have communities that share ethnicities but were arbitrarily separated by colonialism. Yet the bloc’s approach remains state-centric, neglecting the need for a people-centred framework that acknowledges and incorporates the region’s diverse cultural, historical and social realities. This oversight has significant implications for the EAC’s ability to foster meaningful regional integration and development, as it fails to tap into the rich social capital and agency of local communities, ultimately undermining the bloc’s potential for sustainable and inclusive growth. This potential shortcoming validates Julius Nyerere’s 1995 assertion in Accra, Ghana that Africa should apologize to Kwame Nkrumah for not heeding his call for immediate post-independence continental unity, as self-serving state interests have since impeded pan-African integration and made it a more difficult task.
Refugees in Kigoma Villages and the Failure of the EAC
Despite its existence, the EAC has failed to meaningfully integrate its citizens, perpetuating an inference that the bloc primarily serves state interests rather than citizens of partner states. Colonially imposed borders continue to hinder the free movement of citizens within the region, as exemplified by the sufferings of Burundian refugees in Kigoma villages in Tanzania. These refugees, originating from Burundi – a fellow EAC partner state – have been stranded in Tanzania since 1972 without a durable solution, highlighting the EAC’s ineffectiveness in addressing refugee issues within its borders.
An assessment by the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) between May and September 2025 explored solutions for Burundian refugees in Tanzania, including those in Kigoma villages. However, the findings presented focused predominantly on camp-based refugees, neglecting the specific needs of the 21,507 refugees in Kigoma villages who have endured more than 50 years of displacement. This oversight, though more attributable to the UNHCR, underscores the EAC’s continued inadequate response to protracted refugee challenges, raising questions about its commitment to eradicating colonial-era borders and improving the welfare of its citizens across partner states.
The EAC’s legislative framework, including Article 124(4) and (5) of the EAC Treaty and Articles 2(3)(g), 3(2)g and 10 of the EAC Protocol on Peace and Security (2013), acknowledges the need for collective refugee management. However, these provisions lack concrete mechanisms for implementation, rendering them ineffective in addressing refugee situations within the region. The EAC’s inaction perpetuates the colonial legacy of artificial borders, disproportionately affecting refugees in Kigoma villages who share ethnicities with the local Ha tribe, highlighting the need for decolonization. This failure reinforces the perception that the EAC prioritizes state interests over people, thereby exacerbating regional disparities.
Conclusion
In the context of the EAC, the bloc appears to enable the Global North to achieve a dual objective – ua ndege wawili kwa jiwe moja (killing two birds with one stone) – by perpetuating the coloniality of a state-centric approach to regionalism. This approach reinforces the dominance of states, which were artificially constructed by external forces in Africa, making them more central actors in the integration process than the people they are meant to serve. To overcome this, the EAC must undergo a transformative shift that prioritizes people-centred integration and dismantles the legacies of coloniality that undermine its effectiveness. Only then can the EAC become a meaningful vehicle for regional integration, rather than a tool of modern colonialism and move closer to realizing the visionary ideals of Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere, who championed a unified Africa in the aspiration for the ‘United States of Africa’.
Leonard Chimanda Joseph is a PhD Candidate at the University of Sussex School of Law. The author thanks Dr. Stephanie Berry for her comments on earlier drafts of the text.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.
I don not have much to say over the study at hand, though I have impressed with the highlighted (revealed challenges) especially that, despite the historical fact thst depict goals from most prominent figure such as late Mwalimu J.K Nyerere as well as late Kwane Nkrumah, to the essence that their goal to unity African, taking EAC’s block as case study currently suffer from preference of national sovereign and state’s interest instead of observing interest of its citizens consequently difficulties in handling the problem of Refugees.
Sir Shikamoo. How are you.. I think you are well where you are!! I don not have much to say over the study at hand, though I have impressed with the highlighted (revealed challenges) especially that, despite the historical fact thst depict goals from most prominent figure such as late Mwalimu J.K Nyerere as well as late Kwane Nkrumah, to the essence that their goal to unity African, taking EAC’s block as case study currently suffer from preference of national sovereign and state’s interest instead of observing interest of its citizens consequently difficulties in handling the problem of Refugees.