|
AfCFTA-000-011 |
2.5. Rules of origin |
2020-12-05 |
Kenya: Namanga |
Tanzania, United Republic of |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Republic of Kenya has denied importation of glass products from Tanzania Company Kioo limited. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-012 |
5.1. Embargoes and other restrictions of similar effect |
2021-11-22 |
Kenya: Poultry products from Uganda have been banned from entering the Kenyan market. |
|
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The government of Kenya without giving any reason arbitrarily banned all poultry products from Uganda from accessing the Kenyan market. It is not clear when the ban will end or if it will end. My clients have lost and continue to lose a lot of money thanks to this arbitrary and protectionist measure by the government of Kenya going against all the principles of the International Trade especially Kenya's obligations as a part of the East African Community Customs Union. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-015 |
6.5. Other |
2022-01-01 |
Mozambique: Ressano Garcia (Road) |
Mozambique |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Introduction by Autoridade Tributária de Moçambique of a SINGLE ENTRY Temporary Import Permit (TIP) at a cost of MZN700, which is currently processed manually for the majority of vehicles at Ressano Garcia's KM4 facility.
The costs are prohibitive for companies moving transit cargo from South Africa to the Port of Maputo, with 15 loads per week per vehicle a common achievement. In addition, the delays experienced by the manual processing of the TIP document adds significant cost on account of the waiting time that drivers are subjected to. The Port of Maputo has collaborated with Customs in Mozambique to collect electronic payments for the TIPs, but so far only 10 companies have taken up the use of the facility. Even those companies registered on the Port's electronic system are not guaranteed speedy processing, and delays are still experienced by drivers as they still have to queue to collect the TIP document. Electronic payments should take precedent over manual payments, but in reality this is not the case. It is common knowledge that a R50 bribe will speed up the processing of the TIP document.
The SADC Protocol on Trade is clear in its reference to the removal of tariffs and non tariff barriers. At this point, the TIP cost to one company moving 180 trucks per month, is in excess of R1,4million ZAR or USD88,000. The manual processing compromises the integrity of the system and the costs directly impact the competitiveness of the trade route for imports and transit imports into Mozambique.
With the push towards the harmonization of regulations within the SADC and TRIPARTITE region, the TIP process should be harmonized with that of South Africa which has a multiple entry TIP valid for 6 months and is processed at no cost to the user. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-025 |
2.6. Customs formalities |
2023-03-10 |
South Africa: Skilpadshek |
Botswana |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Basotho nationals had gone to Zambia to buy goods. On arrival they are detained at the border by RSA authorities saying they should indefinitely SARS to evaluate the goods and the brand owners who will check if the brands of goods e.g Nike shoes are fake or original. If fake they confiscate their goods bought with lots of money. They closed the border and knocked off and left them in the taxis they were in. No food, and no toilets opened for them to help themselves. South African shops sell fake new brands in thier shops, e.g fake nike takkies. Why do they treat people buying from a SADC region like this. Why are they creating technical barriers. These goods which are not stolen but bought are only passing through South African land. Please help our people. There can't be an African free trade agreement and on the other hand Border gate employees at a border between Mahikeng and Botswana on the south African side detain people indefinitely and knock off |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-065 |
1.2. Restrictive practices tolerated by governments |
2024-03-01 |
Kenya: KAJIADO COUNTY |
|
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
THE COUNTY OF KAJIADO CHARGES TRANSIT FEES OF 2000 KSH PER FOREIGN TRANSIT TRUCKS |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-066 |
3.2. Conformity assessments |
2023-09-19 |
Nigeria: Port of Onne |
Tanzania, United Republic of |
In process |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Nigeria has made it mandatory for COTECNA( Private Company) to inspect the sisal fiber that is exported to Nigeria, the same role is performed by the Tanzania Sisal Board which is the regulator of sisal in Tanzania, hence multiple inspections, and Nigeria do not recognize certificate from Tanzania Sisal Board. COTECNA charges an annual registration fee start with USD 1000 and adding up USD 120 per additional product and the fee for a certificate of conformity is USD 350 per consignment. which the Sisal Board does not charge for certificate of conformity |
|
|
Progress:
|
AfCFTA Secretariat in contact with State Parties National Focal points to resolve the NTB |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-085 |
4.3. Other |
2024-09-24 |
Tanzania, United Republic of: Kabanga |
Burundi |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
URT IS IMPOSING TO BURUNDI A TAX FOR SALUBRITY FOR TRANSIT TRUCKS . |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-087 |
2.4. Samples |
2024-11-20 |
Lesotho: Maseru Bridge |
Lesotho |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Samples being sent by road-freight to South Africa for testing at an accredited laboratory were refused passage.
Company was informed that the only way to send the samples for testing was to send via air |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-088 |
3.1. Technical regulations, and standards including packaging, labelling and marking requirements |
2024-08-01 |
Tanzania, United Republic of: Tunduma |
South Africa |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Certain African countries are now requiring annual renewal of all test reports for our safety footwear crossing their borders. Financially, this translates to approximately R55,000 per test per style. For manufacturers such as ourselves exporting multiple styles annually, the cost could potentially run into millions, significantly impacting our margins but also creating potential delays or disruptions. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-105 |
2.1. Customs valuation |
2025-07-23 |
Côte d'Ivoire: |
Ghana |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
In July 2025, B5 Plus Limited Export to Cote D'Ivoire under the ETLS was met with an arbitrary and excessive uplift in dutiable value of exports ranging from 2.4 times and 3.11times our actual transaction value in spite of having valid ECOWAS Certification of Origin. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-109 |
1.3. Other |
2025-07-24 |
Comoros: Port of Moroni |
Comoros |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
L’Union des Comores, État archipel composé de trois îles autonomes (Grande-Comore, Anjouan, Mohéli), présente une organisation institutionnelle originale où chaque île dispose d’une autonomie fiscale . Cette autonomie, bien qu’inscrite dans un cadre unionnel, entraîne des pratiques différenciées en matière de taxation et de régulation des flux commerciaux. L’exemple du transbordement de marchandises dédouanées à la Grande Comore vers Anjouan met en évidence l’existence de barrières commerciales internes, qui structurent le fonctionnement économique de l’archipel.
Le dédouanement effectué dans une île ne confère pas automatiquement un droit de libre circulation vers une autre.
L’absence d’un mécanisme harmonisé de reconnaissance mutuelle des formalités douanières favorise la coexistence de régimes distincts, créant une segmentation du marché intérieur. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-110 |
7.1. Transport, Clearing and Forwarding |
2025-06-19 |
Comoros: Port of Moroni |
Comoros |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
La situation observée au port de Moroni, où l’entreprise en charge de la manutention, du déchargement et de la gestion des conteneurs impose des taxes incontrôlables et aléatoires, constitue une barrière non tarifaire pour plusieurs raisons :
• Absence de transparence et prévisibilité :Les taxes appliquées ne suivent aucun barème officiel ni réglementation claire. Cette imprévisibilité crée une incertitude pour les importateurs et exportateurs, qui ne peuvent anticiper leurs coûts logistiques.
• Entrave au commerce international :Les frais aléatoires augmentent artificiellement le coût des opérations portuaires. Cela réduit la compétitivité des entreprises locales et décourage les partenaires étrangers, ce qui limite la fluidité des échanges commerciaux.
• Effet équivalent à un droit de douane caché : Bien que ces prélèvements ne soient pas des droits de douane officiels, ils produisent le même effet : ils renchérissent le prix des marchandises importées et exportées, constituant ainsi une barrière non tarifaire déguisée.
• Distorsion de concurrence Les opérateurs qui acceptent ou peuvent absorber ces coûts imprévisibles bénéficient d’un avantage par rapport à ceux qui ne le peuvent pas. Cela crée une inégalité d’accès au marché et fausse la concurrence.
• Impact sur la sécurité juridique et la confiance L’arbitraire dans la fixation des taxes mine la confiance des acteurs économiques et fragilise l’attractivité du port de Moroni comme plateforme logistique régionale.
|
|
|
AfCFTA-000-113 |
2.6. Customs formalities |
2025-04-16 |
Comoros: Port of Moroni |
Comoros |
New |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
En premier lieu, la procédure de dédouanement aux Comores implique plusieurs acteurs : les services des douanes, les autorités portuaires, les ministères sectoriels (santé, agriculture, commerce), ainsi que les transitaires et autres organismes de contrôle. Cette multiplicité entraîne une succession de formalités souvent redondantes, ce qui rallonge considérablement les délais de mise en circulation des marchandises. Le temps perdu devient une contrainte qui limite l’accès au marché comorien, équivalente à une restriction tarifaire.
Ensuite, ces retards génèrent des coûts indirects pour les opérateurs économiques. Les importateurs doivent assumer des frais de stockage dans les ports de Moroni ou de Mutsamudu, des surestaries liées au retard de déchargement des conteneurs, ainsi que des pénalités contractuelles en cas de non-respect des délais de livraison. Ces charges additionnelles réduisent la compétitivité des produits importés et favorisent, de manière implicite, la protection des producteurs locaux.
Par ailleurs, l’imprévisibilité des délais de dédouanement en Union des Comores crée une incertitude qui décourage les partenaires commerciaux étrangers. L’absence de visibilité sur la durée des procédures fragilise la confiance des investisseurs et rend difficile la planification des flux logistiques. Cette incertitude agit comme une barrière invisible, mais bien réelle, à l’accès au marché comorien.
Enfin, cette situation engendre une distorsion de concurrence. Les opérateurs locaux, plus familiers avec les rouages administratifs et les différents intervenants, parviennent à mieux s’adapter à ces contraintes. Les entreprises étrangères, en revanche, se trouvent désavantagées, ce qui fausse le jeu de la concurrence internationale et limite l’intégration des Comores dans les circuits commerciaux régionaux et mondiaux.
Ainsi, en Union des Comores, le retard de dédouanement dû à la multiplicité des intervenants ne se limite pas à un simple problème administratif : il constitue une véritable barrière non tarifaire. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-114 |
6.2. Surcharges, port taxes, statistical taxes, etc. |
2025-09-13 |
Tanzania, United Republic of: |
Uganda |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Currently, Tanzania Ports Authority (TPA) Tariffs (2023) and the Tanzania Shipping Agencies Act Cap 145 (2026) do not address recent developments in regional transport, particularly the introduction and operation of Roll-on Roll-off (RoRo) vessels within the East Africa lake transport corridor.
In particular, at Mwanza Port, port charges levied on RoRo cargo by TPA are considerably high, and in most instances, include stevedoring and cargo handling fees that are not actually incurred. Given that RoRo cargo is driven on and off vessels without manual handling, the application of such charges is inconsistent with the nature of service provided. Additionally, wharfage fees are assessed at high levels compared to other regional ports, that further increase the overall cost burden on customers.
Despite efforts to engage port officials in constructive dialogue and propose a case-by-case assessment framework that would more accurately align charges with the actual services rendered, there has been limited willingness to review and adjust the existing approach. Charges continue to be applied under the prevailing tariff structure without adequate consideration of the unique operational characteristics of RoRo transport.
The cumulative effect of these high and misaligned port charges is that prospective customers are discouraged from utilizing lake transport services. This is particularly concerning given that water transport offers a shorter, more cost-effective alternative to the long and less efficient road route via the Mutukula border between Uganda and Tanzania.
Furthermore, lake transport provides broader economic and environmental benefits. It is a more environmentally sustainable mode of transport, contributing to reduced carbon emissions, lower fuel consumption per-kilometer, and decreased road congestion. Increased utilization of water transport relieves pressure off regional road infrastructure, thereby reducing road maintenance costs and promotes the use of available multimodal transport corridors.
In light of the foregoing, there is a clear need for a review and modernization of the existing lake tariff framework to incorporate RoRo-specific provisions. Such reforms would promote fair pricing, encourage modal shift to more sustainable transport options, and the broader objectives of regional trade facilitation and infrastructure optimization`.
|
|
|
AfCFTA-000-117 |
poor road infrastructure |
2026-03-06 |
Djibouti: Galafi |
Ethiopia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The movement of goods through the Galafi border corridor is significantly constrained by poor road infrastructure between Ethiopian border and Djibouti, particularly around the Dikil town corridor, which stretches approximately 80 kilometers. Traders and transporters said that traveling within this route can take up to 19 hours for a relatively short distance compared to the same distance takes 4 hours in normal road infrastructure, mainly due to the poor condition of the road.
The prolonged travel time has several direct and indirect impacts on traders. First, delays in transportation often result in late arrival at the border post, which in turn leads to additional costs such as extended storage/container fees, and missed clearance schedules. These delays also significantly affect perishable goods, including agricultural products and livestock trade. Traders indicated that animals transported along this route sometimes suffer from stress, illness, or death due to the long and difficult journey, resulting in financial losses.
Another major concern is the health and safety of drivers. Spending nearly a full day to cover only 80 km exposes drivers to extreme fatigue, poor working conditions, and limited access to medical or emergency services along the route. The difficult road conditions also increase the likelihood of vehicle accidents and mechanical failures.
In cases of vehicle breakdown or accidents, transporters face additional burdens such as expensive car towing services, which further increase operational costs. Moreover, traders highlighted that insurance coverage for goods in transit is either unavailable or extremely expensive for this route. Because of the high risk associated with the road condition, many transporters are unable to afford insurance, leaving them financially vulnerable in the event of accidents, cargo or container damage, or loss.
Traders also emphasized that these challenges persist despite the existence of an alternative road that has already been constructed but is not yet operational. If this alternative route were opened and fully functional, it could significantly reduce travel time, lower transport costs, improve driver safety, and minimize losses related to perishable goods and livestock.
Overall, the poor infrastructure along the Galafi–Dikil corridor represents a substantial non-tariff barrier to trade, creating delays, increasing costs, and exposing traders and transporters to significant financial and safety risks. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-118 |
6.5. Other |
2026-03-17 |
Zimbabwe: Victoria Falls |
Zambia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Informal traders carrying small quantities of goods, such as fresh produce, cooking oil, rice, sugar and pasta.
These traders cross the Victoria Falls border post by bike or foot.
The complaint concerns over 50 traders per day, crossing the border.
When entering Zimbabwe, they get stopped by Customs and will face seemingly arbitrary restrictions on quantities of goods that can enters (which change on a daily basis and depending on the specific officer on duty). When these arbitrary quantities are exceeded, the officers often confiscate all of the goods or demand bribes to release the traders. They also face threats when questioning the behaviour of the officer.
When returning after selling goods on the market in Zimbabwe, and after clearing the Zimbabwe Customs, they will often get stopped by police or soldiers in the no-mans-land between the borders to be demanded further bribes from the proceeds of their sales.
If bringing merchandise from Zimbabwe back to Zambia, depending on the officers at the border and despite the small quantities carried, they will be asked to obtain an export license from Harare. Or to pay another bribe to be released. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-119 |
2.6. Customs formalities |
2026-01-14 |
Ethiopia: Dilla Customs Office |
Ethiopia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Dilla Customs Office has repeatedly delayed the clearance of export goods destined for the Moyale Border for extended periods, despite all required documents and formalities having been duly completed. These products were issued permits with specific validity periods, yet the delays persist, causing unnecessary disruptions. This issue has occurred several times at the same government institution. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-121 |
7.2. Other |
2026-02-16 |
Kenya: Moyale |
Ethiopia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Under the East African Community (EAC) Vehicle Load Control Act, 2016, Kenya applies permissible maximum axle load limit of 28-ton along the Moyale–Nairobi (A2) corridor. In contrast, Ethiopian trucks are permitted to carry loads of up to 40 tons up to the Moyale One-Stop Border Post (OSBP). Due to this regulatory mismatch, Ethiopian trucks cannot proceed further into Kenya and must offload their cargo at the border.
This process is further delayed by the limited availability of Kenyan trucks to take over the cargo, as well as a shortage of warehouse facilities at the border, which forces vehicles to wait longer with their goods. Conversely, Kenyan trucks are generally able to transport goods into Ethiopia without similar restrictions. |
|
|
AfCFTA-000-122 |
2.6. Customs formalities |
2026-02-02 |
Djibouti: Port of Djibouti |
Ethiopia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The importer experienced significant challenges during the customs clearance process at the Port of Djibouti. Upon arrival of the shipments (both containerized cargo and vehicles), they were informed of multiple documentation-request by customs authorities. These issues included minor discrepancies such as spelling errors in the Bill of Lading, as well as requirements to provide additional supporting documents that had not been communicated to them prior to the arrival of the cargo.
Importantly, these documentation requirement were not raised in advance, which prevented them from making the necessary corrections before the shipment has reached to the port. As a result, they were required to repeatedly amend and resubmit documents under a time pressure leading to delays in the clearance process.
Due to these combined challenges, the cargo remained at the port beyond the allowed free storage period. Consequently, the importers has incurred significant unplanned costs, including demurrage charges and other related port fees.
|
|
|
AfCFTA-000-124 |
3.2. Conformity assessments |
2026-01-08 |
Ethiopia: Dewele |
Ethiopia |
Transferred |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Imported tyres are subject to duplicated conformity assessment at destination, despite having undergone identical testing procedures in the country of origin. The absence of recognition of prior test results leads to unnecessary duplication and additional testing cost. |
|
