Ugandan traders fail to block South Sudan from joining East African Community

East African Court of Justice has dashed hopes of Ugandan traders to lock out South Sudan from the East African Community on the basis that it’s unfit for membership.

A five judge bench comprising justices Jean Butasi, Isaac Lenaola, Faustin Ntezilyayo, Monica Mugenyi and Fakihi Jundu dismissed the suit filed by Patrick Ntege, Dan Sseng and Mohammed Waiga against the Attorney Generals of the five Partner States in the bloc saying that the court could not pronounce itself on the mandate vested only on the member countries.

“The prayers sought by the Applicants would appear to require this Court to pronounce itself on a matter explicitly reserved for the above organs of the community. In any event, having decided the preceding issue in the negative, the prayers sought are not tenable,” the bench ruled.

In the case the traders doing their business in South Sudan argued that the community should be barred from admitting the President Salva Kiir Mayardit led nation saying that security officers had on various occasions raped, assaulted, tortured, conducted extra-judicial killings as well as confiscated merchandise belonging Ugandan traders.

The three alleged that the Partner States were in their final stages of admitting South Sudan as a member of the East African Community and that the decision would have far-reaching implications in contravention with the EAC treaty. They argued that, “The EAC should not grant membership to the Republic of South Sudan in the East African Community.” Adding that the atrocities amounted to violating human rights. Republic of South Sudan did submit such an application on November 11, 2011.

In defence, Attorney Generals of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania told the court that such a decision to whether the Republic of South Sudan is a fit and proper country to be granted membership of the EAC can only be taken after the verification process has been completed and the recommendations have been accepted by the Summit of the Heads of State.

The AGs argued in their separate submissions that they had demonstrated adherence and fidelity to the letter and spirit of the Treaty in the course of whole process.

The Court held that, “The process under scrutiny duly complied with the Treaty and the Protocol for admission to the EAC.” It further stated, the directive for the commencement of negotiations was grounded in the Summit’s discretionary mandate as enshrined in Article 3(2) of the Protocol for Admission to the EAC.