On May 19, when Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan warned “foreign activists” not to meddle in Tanzania’s internal affairs, the message was pointed, even if it stopped short of naming any country.
The remarks followed the detention and deportation of Kenyan civil society figures, including former Justice Minister Martha Karua and former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga, who had travelled to observe the court proceedings of Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu.
While framed as a defence of national sovereignty, Suluhu’s warning also revealed deeper tensions within the East African Community (EAC). These tensions are largely over democracy, civic space, and the limits of regional solidarity.
Suluhu’s comments are best read not merely as a political
response, but as a reflection of how civil society is increasingly securitized
across East Africa. The notion that activists from neighbouring states pose a
threat to internal order illuminate regional anxieties about democratic
scrutiny, particularly when such scrutiny flows from countries with more open
civic traditions, like Kenya. In this context, civil society actors are no
longer seen as regional partners or observers but are framed as potential
disruptors, whose presence alone becomes politically sensitive.
Yet this contradiction lies at the heart of East African integration. Kenya and Tanzania have followed divergent democratic trajectories. On one hand, Kenya, though turbulent, has experienced judicial contestation, public protest, and presidential electoral nullification.
Tanzania, especially under both the late Magufuli and Suluhu, has taken a more
statist and controlled approach to political dissent. These contrasting norms
do not stay within national borders but they inevitably spill over into how states
perceive one another, especially when citizens cross boundaries in the name of
solidarity.
This episode also invites a bigger reflection on the EAC’s often-stated goal of “people-centred” integration. If citizens, especially those engaged in civic oversight, legal observation, or human rights advocacy, can be deported or branded as threats when they act across borders, how meaningful is this participation?
As scholars like Adar and Kaburu argue, EAC
integration cannot be elite-led if it is to be legitimate and enduring, but
participation cannot be popular if it is policed. It cannot be people-driven if
the people themselves are treated as foreign meddlers when they act in pursuit
of accountability and democratic norms.
As such, this exposes the thinness of the EAC’s democratic imagination. While integration has made strides in areas like customs, harmonization and trade, it has avoided confronting the democratic and civic divergence between and amongst member states.
The bloc has developed extensive
frameworks for economic cooperation but remains largely silent on civil
liberties, electoral legitimacy, and political tolerance. Suluhu’s remarks
reflect this vacuum where cross-border civic engagement is viewed not as a right,
but as a risk.
The historical roots of this tension run deep. The first EAC collapsed in 1977 in part due to ideological and political differences amongst the three member states. Today, while less ideologically defined, similar divergences persist.
Tanzania continues to view national sovereignty and regime
stability as paramount, while Kenya, with its more confrontational public
sphere, often exports civic critique; whether through NGOs, jurists, or media.
This dynamic generates mutual suspicion and reinforces the fragility of
integration.
To be clear, Tanzania is not alone in resisting civic
scrutiny. Across the region, governments have grown increasingly wary of
foreign-funded civil society, transnational legal networks, and pan-African
advocacy. Kenya’s own foreign policy under President Ruto has, at times, been
read as assertive and erratic to the point of overreach. But what makes
Suluhu’s framing distinct is the implicit rejection of the very idea of
cross-border civic solidarity, an idea that the EAC has long held up as a
foundational principle.
If the EAC is to mature as a regional bloc, it must reckon
with these contradictions. Economic integration without civic trust is shallow.
Political federation without political tolerance is hollow. The bloc needs not
just to facilitate the movement of goods and services, but to protect the
legitimacy of democratic norms and civil society across its member states.
Suluhu’s remarks are not just about one group of activists.
They are a symptom of a deeper discomfort with the role of citizens in shaping
regional futures. If East African integration is truly to be people-driven,
then the people, regardless of which side of the border they come from must be
free to speak, observe, and act without fear.
Mikhail Nyamweya is a foreign policy
analyst and holds an Msc in African Studies from the University of Oxford. [email protected]
