Why S Sudan shouldn't produce the next EAC Secretary-General

South Sudan President Salva Kiir hands over instruments of power to President William Ruto after he was elected as EAC Chairperson during the 24th Ordinary Summit of EAC Heads of State in Arusha, on November 30, 2024. [File, Standard]

When East African Community (EAC) Heads of State convene for their next summit, they face a decision that will seal the fate of the bloc: Choosing the next Secretary-General. This is not merely another routine appointment. It is a referendum on whether our leaders are serious about resurrecting the collapsed EAC integration project.

The EAC as originally conceived is dead. Member states don't pay their dues, leaving key institutions dysfunctional. Crucial protocols remain unratified. The monetary union has stalled, and no one is seriously talking of a political confederation anymore. The choice of the next Secretary-General will determine whether the community is resurrected.

History offers lessons on what worked. Tanzania’s Juma Mwapachu was highly experienced and respected, enabling him to push through key decisions such as the Common Market Protocol. Similarly, Uganda’s Amanya Mushega and Rwanda’s Richard Sezibera were former ministers. Their successes in securing ratification of the Customs and Monetary Union Protocols lay in their ability to broker compromises among presidents and ministers.

On the other side, Kenya's 2021-2026 term has been disappointing. The tenure was marred by serious corruption allegations leading to the recalling of Secretary-General Peter Mathuki. His successor, a technocratic, attempted institutional strengthening despite time and financial constraints. But structural problems require more than administrative patchwork.

Recent technocratic Secretary-Generals have struggled with consensus-building and influence over ministers and presidents. Resurrecting EAC requires more than technical excellence. Political capital is now the currency of success.

The next Secretary-General should therefore be a seasoned, senior political personality who commands respect of presidents and ministers as a political peer. Someone who can authoritatively advise them and thoroughly prepare fundamental decisions in a way that secures their buy-in.

It must not be someone with domestic or international political ambitions. Rather we need someone at the twilight of their political career, who can approach EAC as a crowning achievement, not as a stepping stone. A Musalia Mudavadi, a Rebecca Kadaga, or a Palamagamba Kabudi type. A calm but firm consensus builder with a clear compass of where the community should go and who can actually lead a government.

Critically, the Secretary-General must come from a Partner State with demonstrated commitment to EAC. From domestication of community law, to harmonising laws and policies and consistently paying dues. Without this, that Secretary-General has no authority at all and will just be the choirmaster of the requiem leading the community to its gravesite.

According to the rotation principle, the next Secretary-General is to come from South Sudan. But does South Sudan's engagement with EAC position it to provide the transformative leadership required?

Ten years after joining the EAC, South Sudan had not domesticated the EAC Treaty. Only toward the end of 2025, conveniently as the Secretary-General position approached, did its Parliament pass the EAC Treaty Bill. It has also not applied the EAC Customs law nor integrated into the Single Customs Territory. South Sudan’s record of unpaid dues compounds the picture.

Can a Secretary-General from such a country credibly demand that others honour their obligations? Can EAC, crippled by underfunding, afford to be led by a representative of a country that doesn't pay up?

If the community is to be resurrected, the next Secretary-General should come from Uganda or Tanzania. As founding members, they have demonstrated consistent commitment and deeply understand the community’s history and objectives, including the ultimate political union. They have the capacity to offer the consolidation EAC urgently requires and to steadily lead us toward its goals.

The question before the Summit is brutally simple: Do they want the EAC resurrected, or are they content with performative integration that delivers nothing? The rotation principle has its place in ensuring fair representation. But when the institution needs resurrection rather than routine management, rotation cannot override fundamental requirements for effective leadership. Slavish adherence to the rotation is not principle. It is choosing permanent death.

Mr Mugendi is an actuary and a public policy analyst. [email protected]