Picture this: over a century ago, in the stately halls of Berlin, seven European powers, Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Italy, gathered to carve up Africa with rulers and pens. Between 1884 and 1914, they imposed borders that severed communities, fractured economies, and disrupted centuries-old trade routes. Only Liberia and Ethiopia escaped this colonial cartography.
The Nigerian scholar Olyae mi Akinwumi captures this tragedy starkly: “The partition of Africa was done without any consideration for the history of the society… It inflicted irreparable damage on Africa, damage that many countries still suffer today.” These lines, drawn in European capitals, became the prison bars of our modern nations. It is at the heart of Africa’s development crisis.
When the Organisation of African Unity was formed in 1963, Africa’s leaders chose pragmatism: preserve these colonial borders “for now,” prioritising peace over unity. Paradoxically, six decades later, those same lines remain fiercely protected, even as they undermine Africa’s economic consolidation potential.
Now, with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), we stand at a historic threshold. AfCFTA promises the world’s largest free trade area by membership. With 1.5 billion people and $3.4 trillion in GDP, the size of this economy, if combined, is projected to double by 2035. It is the boldest attempt since independence to transform Africa’s fragmentation into continental strength. But here is the hard truth: without a supranational court to enforce its rules, AfCFTA will remain a hollow aspiration.
The AfCFTA’s Dispute Settlement Body: Important but Insufficient
At the heart of AfCFTA’s legal architecture is the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), modelled more on the Organisation (WTO) system. The DSB is composed of representatives of member states and oversees panels that adjudicate disputes between states concerning trade in goods, services, and investment. In theory, it can authorise retaliatory measures if a state fails to comply with a ruling.
But there are four critical limitations:
- State-to-State Focus – Only governments can bring disputes. The private sector, SMEs, traders, and investors, who are the true drivers ofAfCFTA, have no standing. This leaves most cross-border trade conflicts unresolved or politicised.
- Ad Hoc Nature – Panels are set up on a case-by-case basis and lack permanence, which slows proceedings and undermines consistency in legal interpretations across the continent.
- Political Enforcement – Compliance relies heavily on peer pressure and diplomacy rather than binding enforcement mechanisms. There are no automatic penalties or sanctions to deter breaches.
- Fragmentation with Regional Blocs – The DSB must navigate overlaps with ECOWAS, SADC, EAC, and other regional courts and protocols, creating confusion and jurisdictional gaps.
