This archive report was first published on 13 July 2020.
Published on July 13, 2020, Kenya and the United States announced they were pursuing a free trade agreement (FTA) that would be used as a model for similar deals between America and other African countries.
However, two lawyers, Christopher Oyieko and Emily Osiemo, have now filed a case at the East Africa Court of Justice to block the deal. They claim the agreement goes against Kenya's treaty with other East African Community partners.
The lawyers, who are seeking to invalidate the FTA, argue that the agreement between Kenya and the US will lead to a flooded market, with Uganda and Tanzania being the biggest casualties.
According to the case filed against Kenya's Attorney General Kihara Kariuki and EAC Secretary-General Liberat Mfumukeko, the applicants allege that the agreement exposes the region to a flood of imported goods from the US.
“The actions of the second respondent (Mfumukeko) violate Article 72(3) of the protocol on establishment of the East African Community Common Market for failing to ensure the council puts in place a mechanism for the coordination of trade relations with third parties,” the suit reads.
The proposed FTA replaces the Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (Agoa), which is set to expire in 2025. Agoa was signed by US President Bill Clinton as a 15-year trade pact allowing exporters from Africa and several other developing countries duty-free access to the US market.
President Barack Obama extended it to 2025 during his visit to Kenya in 2015. In the proposed objectives that guided the negotiations, Kenya said the new deal is compatible with the World Trade Organisation framework.
“Any EAC partner states that did not participate in these negotiations at the outset should be allowed to join, subject to terms and conditions already agreed or accede to the concluded free trade agreement,” states the document.
The lawyers want the court to annul the deal and, in particular, prohibit the US from exporting its wheat and grains to Kenya. They argue that the first respondent (AG) failed and neglected to engage the EAC secretary-general and the council on trade relations and failed to promote the participation of other EAC community partner states in the FTA agreement with USA.
