The beacon and the blunder: Critiquing the EACJ’s inconsistent path to regional integration

Since its inauguration in 2001, the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has been at the forefront of championing compliance with the Treaty establishing the East African Community (the EAC Treaty) and other regional instruments by holding member states accountable and promoting access to justice.1 The Court’s boldness has often been met with discontent by member States, who have deployed tactics to instill fear in the judges, curtail the Court\'s powers, or frustrate the Court’s operations altogether.2 This was evident in the 2006 Anyang Nyong’o case, the EACJ, after making a proclamation that was unpopular with the Kenyan government, the latter sponsored a motion that sought to amend the treaty, introducing provisions on, first, the removal of a judge from office, second, the introduction of the appellate chamber, and lastly, the introduction of the two – month time limit within which complaints must be lodged before the court.3 Despite this, the Court remained unfazed and in 2007 delivered one of the most consequential decisions yet. The EACJ lacks express human rights jurisdiction; however, in James Katabazi v Secretary General of the East African Community, the Court stated that it will not abdicate its duty just because the issues before it were of human rights in nature.4 This decision opened the pearly gates of the Court, allowing any and every issue to trend through the corridors of justice, provided the complainant can frame it as a treaty violation (most commonly a violation of the rule of law or the good governance principle). Consequently, the court has positioned itself as a primary public interest litigation avenue in the region.5 In a region where the rule of law remains aspirational, the EACJ has been a key line of defence bridging the gap between aspiration and realization. From the legislature to the judiciary and even the executive, the EACJ has not shied away from weighing their actions against the EAC treaty and its protocols to ascertain compliance