Juba County: Foreign Trader Ban Legality Questioned by EAC Law

• On October 5, 2026, Juba County Commissioner Kalisto Lado directed foreign nationals to cease small-scale trade, including chapati stalls and charcoal sales, reserving these for South Sudanese.
• This directive, despite a subsequent clarification, appears to violate South Sudan's commitments under the East African Community Treaty and its Common Market Protocol, which guarantee free movement and non-discrimination for citizens of member states.
• The East African Court of Justice's ruling in `Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda` establishes that EAC law takes precedence over conflicting national legislation, rendering South Sudan's 2009 Investment Promotion Act inoperative where it contradicts EAC principles.
• The Commissioner's directive also exceeds his legal authority, as changes to protected economic activities require legislative instruments from national ministries, not local officials.
• The Government of South Sudan has publicly disavowed the directive, stating it does not reflect the official national position.

This directive, which sorts individuals by their nationality to restrict economic participation, directly contravenes the fundamental principles of regional integration and free movement enshrined in the East African Community framework.

On October 5, 2026, the Caretaker Commissioner of Juba County, Hon. Kalisto Lado, issued a directive from Kubri Haboba market, instructing foreign nationals to vacate small-scale trade activities, reserving them for South Sudanese citizens. Specific businesses cited included chapati stalls, boda-boda operations, and the sale of tomatoes, onions, and charcoal.

A day later, Commissioner Lado clarified that no expulsions were intended and that foreign investors remained welcome in wholesale trade, companies, and factories. However, the core of the directive, which categorizes market participants by nationality and restricts access to certain economic sectors, remains a point of contention, raising questions about the Juba County foreign trader ban legality.

South Sudan formally joined the East African Community (EAC) by signing its Treaty in April 2016 and depositing its instruments of ratification in Arusha on September 5 of the same year. This membership entails significant legal obligations, particularly concerning the free movement of people and economic activities within the bloc. Article 104 of the EAC Treaty commits Partner States to ensuring the free movement of persons, labor, and services, alongside the rights of establishment and residence for their respective citizens.

Further reinforcing these commitments, Article 8(1)(c) of the Treaty obliges member states to refrain from any actions that could undermine the Community's objectives. Crucially, Article 8(4) establishes the supremacy of Community law over national legislation. The Common Market Protocol, which operationalizes these principles, explicitly mandates non-discrimination against nationals of other Partner States based on nationality, as per Article 3(2). Article 13 guarantees the right of establishment, encompassing the right to engage in economic activities as a self-employed person, directly protecting individuals like a chapati seller from Arua operating in Gudele. Article 13(5) further prohibits Partner States from introducing new nationality-based restrictions on establishment and requires the removal of existing ones, with exceptions only for public policy, security, or health, none of which apply to shielding local traders from competition.

The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has previously affirmed the supremacy of EAC law in the 2013 case of `Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda`. In this landmark ruling, the Court clarified that while Partner States retain their sovereignty, its exercise must align with the Treaty and Protocol. National provisions found inconsistent with these foundational documents are deemed inoperative against citizens of other Partner States, establishing a clear precedent for the Juba County foreign trader ban legality.

This judicial stance directly impacts South Sudan's Investment Promotion Act of 2009, which designates micro-enterprises as 'Priority Businesses for Nationals.' Enacted seven years before South Sudan joined the EAC, this national law is superseded by EAC Community law, as dictated by Article 8(4) of the Treaty and the `Mohochi` ruling. Furthermore, the 2009 Act reserves any modifications to the list of protected activities for the Investment Authority's board (now the Ministry of Investment and national ministers), requiring a legislative instrument published in the Gazette. This statutory framework indicates that a county official, such as Commissioner Lado, lacks the authority to unilaterally impose such trade restrictions. The Commissioner himself acknowledged that removing individuals from the country falls outside his mandate, and the South Sudanese chargé d’affaires in Kampala has publicly stated that the directive does not reflect the official position of the Government of South Sudan.

The directive from Juba County represents a significant challenge to the principles of the East African Community, particularly regarding the South Sudan EAC free movement violation. Such protectionist measures, which aim to restrict economic participation based on nationality, undermine the very objectives of regional integration and the Common Market Protocol. They risk setting a precedent that could destabilize cross-border trade and investment within the EAC.

Upholding the non-discrimination principle and the right of establishment is crucial for fostering a cohesive and economically vibrant East African bloc. Directives like the Kalisto Lado foreign trader directive not only contradict South Sudan's treaty obligations but also have the potential to be self-defeating, hindering broader economic growth and regional cooperation.

Lawyers advising foreign nationals or businesses operating in South Sudan, particularly in Juba County, must be aware that local directives restricting trade may be unlawful under East African Community treaties and protocols. They should monitor for similar protectionist measures and be prepared to challenge them, citing the precedence of EAC law over national or local regulations, and advise clients on the potential for legal recourse.

Source: Original reporting via legal analysis