Beyond regional silos - How reinterpreting the AfCFTA acquis could transform African integration
Signature ceremony of the AfCFTA Agreement during the March 2018, 10th AU Extraordinary Summit, in Kigali, Rwanda.
The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) stands as one of the most ambitious integration projects in the world today. Described as a "game-changer" by leading economists and policymakers, the agreement has generated unprecedented enthusiasm among scholars, international organisations, and African governments alike.
This enthusiasm is well-founded. Economic models suggest the AfCFTA could boost intra-African trade by up to 52% by the end of its implementation period and potentially lift 30 million people out of extreme poverty. Beyond these impressive figures, the agreement represents a critical cornerstone in advancing the African Union's development agenda, particularly its Agenda 2063 vision of "an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa."
However, a troubling gap has emerged between the AfCFTA's transformative promise and its practical reality five years into implementation. Negotiations continue to drag on well past their initial deadlines, commitments remain unfulfilled, and the rules of procedure are inconsistently applied across different negotiating tracks. This implementation gap raises a fundamental question: Why is an initiative with such enormous potential and political support struggling to deliver on its promises?
At the heart of these challenges lies a fundamental misinterpretation of one of the agreement's guiding principles – the "preservation of the acquis." This principle, enshrined in Article 5(f) of the Framework Agreement, has been predominantly interpreted in a narrow manner focused exclusively on existing Regional Economic Community (REC) free trade arrangements. I argue that this restricted interpretation has created significant implementation challenges, fragmenting rather than integrating Africa's trade landscape.
This article examines how a broader interpretation of the AfCFTA acquis – one that encompasses the entire African Union legal framework rather than just REC trade arrangements – could resolve many current implementation challenges while better serving Africa's comprehensive development agenda.
The stakes of this interpretative shift are significant. If the AfCFTA continues to be implemented under the narrow REC-focused understanding of the acquis principle, it risks perpetuating fragmentation, undermining development objectives, weakening Africa's collective position in global forums, and ultimately limiting the transformative potential of continental integration. A broader interpretation, on the other hand, would align trade rules with development objectives, strengthen coordination between trade and development institutions, and ensure that the AfCFTA fulfills its promise as a cornerstone of Africa's development architecture.
The AfCFTA acquis: Understanding the current interpretation challenge
The concept of "acquis" – a term borrowed from European integration – refers, in its original conception, to the accumulated body of legal obligations, principles, and objectives that bind participants in an integration project.
In the AfCFTA context, the preservation of the acquis is established as a core guiding principle under Article 5(f) of the Framework Agreement. However, unlike in the European Union, where the acquis communautaire has a clear and comprehensive definition, the scope and content of the AfCFTA acquis remain undefined in the agreement itself.
This definitional vacuum has led to a prevailing interpretation that restricts the AfCFTA acquis primarily to existing REC free trade arrangements. According to Kufuor,
“the acquis is in the assertion that the members reaffirm their existing rights and obligations under other trade agreements of which they are members. Two of the principles outlined in Article 5 refer to the RECs as building blocks for the AfCFTA and state that best practices in the RECs are recognised”.
Kufuor, K. O. (2024). The African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429329623
This interpretation is reinforced by other provisions in the Framework Agreement, particularly Article 5(b), which establishes RECs as building blocks for the AfCFTA, and Article 19, which addresses potential conflicts with existing regional trade agreements.
This interpretation is reflected in negotiation approaches, particularly in tariff offers and rules of origin discussions, where existing REC arrangements are treated as sacrosanct starting points rather than components to be harmonised within a broader continental framework. The effect essentially treats the AfCFTA as an additional layer of trade liberalisation that must carefully preserve existing regional arrangements.
The consequences of this conception are profound. Rather than building upon existing regional integration achievements to create a coherent continental framework, the implementation process reinforces fragmentation. For this reason, technical negotiations, particularly on rules of origin, have become mired in debates between competing regional approaches, with SADC-style rules advocated by some countries and COMESA-style regulations pushed by others. These technical deadlocks have delayed implementation and limited the agreement's impact.
Moreover, this narrow interpretation fundamentally contradicts the original intent behind the AfCFTA's creation. The 2012 AU Assembly Decision on Boosting Intra-African Trade and Fast-Tracking the Continental Free Trade Area (Assembly/AU/Dec.394(XVIII)) explicitly called for the "reservation" of the acquis – implying its protection as part of a larger whole – rather than its "preservation" as a separate entity. This subtle shift from "reservation" to "preservation" represents more than semantic drift; it reflects a fundamental reconceptualisation that has undermined the AfCFTA's integrative potential.
The restrictive interpretation also fails to account for the AfCFTA's unique positioning within the broader AU legal framework. Unlike standalone trade agreements, the AfCFTA was conceived as an integral component of Africa's development architecture, designed to advance multiple continental objectives simultaneously. By restricting the acquis to existing trade arrangements, the current interpretation detaches the AfCFTA from this broader ecosystem, limiting its effectiveness as a development tool.
As implementation challenges mount and negotiation deadlocks persist, the limitations of the current interpretation have become increasingly apparent. The question now is not whether the interpretation should change but how a broader understanding of the AfCFTA acquis might resolve these challenges and better serve Africa's integration goals.
A broader vision: Redefining the AfCFTA acquis
An alternative interpretation is needed to reconceptualise the AfCFTA acquis. This new conception encompasses the entire body of African Union law relevant to economic integration and development. This broader understanding would include existing REC trade arrangements, AU constitutional documents, Assembly decisions on economic growth, human rights instruments (particularly those recognising the right to development), and continental strategies like Agenda 2063.
This expanded conception of the AfCFTA acquis finds strong textual support within the agreement itself. Article 3(a) of the Framework Agreement establishes the AfCFTA's primary objective as creating
"a single market for goods, services, facilitated by movement of persons in order to deepen the economic integration of the African continent and in accordance with the Pan African Vision of 'An integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa' enshrined in Agenda 2063."
This explicit reference to Agenda 2063 anchors the AfCFTA within the AU's broader development vision.
Furthermore, Article 5(l) of the Framework Agreement recognises "best practices in the RECs, State Parties and International Conventions binding the African Union" as guiding principles for interpretation and implementation. This provision suggests expanding the relevant legal context beyond RECs to include the full spectrum of AU obligations. The preamble similarly affirms State Parties' existing rights and obligations under other agreements to which the AU is a party, further supporting a broader conception of the relevant legal framework.
The case for this broader interpretation is strengthened by several key considerations.
First, it reflects the AfCFTA's institutional positioning within the AU architecture. As one of Agenda 2063's flagship projects, the AfCFTA was explicitly designed to advance multiple continental objectives simultaneously, including accelerating industrial development, enhancing competitiveness, promoting sustainable development, and strengthening Africa's common position in global trade negotiations. These objectives cannot be achieved by focusing on tariff liberalisation alone.
Second, this broader interpretation aligns with the AU's established approach to norm hierarchy and legal coherence. The AU legal system is built upon foundational principles enshrined in instruments like the Constitutive Act and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. More specialised instruments, including trade agreements, must be interpreted in light of these foundational principles. The right to development, recognised under Article 22 of the African Charter, holds particular relevance for AfCFTA implementation as it establishes development as a fundamental human right that must inform all AU policies and programs.
Third, this expanded conception of the AfCFTA acquis better serves the goal of "Africanisation" and strengthening Africa's agency in global economic governance. By embedding trade rules within Africa's broader development framework, this interpretation ensures that the AfCFTA serves as a platform for advancing African interests rather than simply replicating external models of trade liberalisation.
The implications of this broader interpretation are far-reaching. Rather than preserving fragmentation, it would enhance coherence and integration. Rather than treating trade as an end in itself, it would position trade liberalisation as one component of a comprehensive development strategy. And rather than allowing regional interests to override continental objectives, it would establish a clear framework for balancing these sometimes competing priorities.
This is not merely a theoretical exercise. As the next section will demonstrate through the case of Rules of Origin negotiations, adopting this broader interpretation would have tangible impacts on the AfCFTA's implementation and effectiveness.
Implications and implementation: Operationalising the broader AfCFTA acquis
Reinterpreting the AfCFTA acquis is not merely an academic exercise – it would have profound practical implications for the agreement's implementation and effectiveness. This section explores how this broader interpretation could be operationalised through concrete reforms to institutional frameworks, negotiation procedures, and implementation mechanisms.
First, this reinterpretation would transform the institutional coordination between the AfCFTA and other AU bodies. Currently, the AfCFTA Secretariat operates largely in isolation from other AU institutions responsible for various aspects of development policy. A broader understanding of the acquis would necessitate stronger coordination mechanisms between the AfCFTA Secretariat and entities like the AU Commission's Departments of Economic Development, Trade and Industry; the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD); and specialised agencies dealing with women, youth, and human rights.
This enhanced coordination could take several forms. Joint technical working groups could be established to ensure alignment between trade negotiations and sectoral development strategies. Regular impact assessment mechanisms could evaluate how implementation affects various development objectives. And formal consultation procedures could ensure that affected stakeholders – including marginalised groups and civil society organisations – have meaningful input into trade-related decisions that affect their rights and interests.
Second, this broader interpretation would fundamentally alter negotiation procedures. Currently, negotiations on technical issues like tariff schedules, rules of origin, and services commitments are based mainly on traditional, national trade interests, with limited consideration of broader development implications. A development-oriented approach would integrate impact assessment throughout the negotiation process, requiring explicit consideration of how proposed rules would affect industrial development, SME participation, gender equality, and other AU priorities.
This procedural shift would have concrete impacts on negotiation outcomes. For example, when considering product-specific rules of origin for textiles – currently a contentious issue – negotiators would explicitly evaluate how different approaches would affect the development of regional textile value chains, employment opportunities (particularly for women), and alignment with Africa's industrialisation strategy. This broader framework would help transcend the current deadlock between competing regional approaches by focusing on shared continental objectives.
Third, this reinterpretation would significantly impact dispute settlement and treaty interpretation. The AfCFTA Protocol on Rules and Procedures on the Settlement of Disputes establishes a mechanism for resolving trade-related conflicts between State Parties. Under a broader conception of the acquis, panels and the Appellate Body would be required to consider the full spectrum of relevant AU legal instruments when interpreting AfCFTA provisions. This would ensure that trade rules are not applied in isolation from human rights obligations, environmental commitments, or development objectives.
This approach to treaty interpretation finds support in established principles of international law, particularly the principle of systemic integration embodied in Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This principle requires treaties to be interpreted in light of "any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties" – which in the AfCFTA context would include the broader AU legal framework.
Fourth, this broader interpretation would enhance monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. Rather than focusing narrowly on trade flows and tariff reductions, implementation assessment would track a comprehensive set of development indicators aligned with Agenda 2063 and other AU frameworks. This expanded evaluation approach would provide a more accurate picture of the AfCFTA's contribution to Africa's development goals and help identify areas where implementation may be undermining other continental objectives.
Some may question whether member states would accept this broader interpretation, given the sovereignty concerns that often arise in integration projects. However, it's important to note that this approach does not create new obligations for states – it simply ensures coherence between commitments they have already made in various AU frameworks. By emphasising this continuity, advocates of the broader interpretation can address potential sovereignty concerns while advancing a more effective implementation approach.
The upcoming review of the AfCFTA, mandated by Article 28 of the Framework Agreement, provides a critical opportunity to formalise this broader interpretation. Through this review process, member states could adopt explicit interpretation guidelines that clarify the comprehensive nature of the AfCFTA acquis and establish concrete mechanisms for ensuring coherence with broader development objectives.
Conclusion: Towards a development-focused AfCFTA acquis
The AfCFTA stands at a critical juncture. After the initial enthusiasm surrounding its adoption and entry into force, the agreement now faces the complex challenges of implementation. The choices made during this implementation phase will determine whether the AfCFTA fulfills its transformative potential or becomes just another unfulfilled promise in Africa's integration journey.
This article has argued that one of the most important choices concerns the interpretation of the "preservation of the acquis" principle. The current narrow interpretation, focused exclusively on existing REC trade arrangements, has contributed to implementation challenges by reinforcing fragmentation, prioritising regional interests over continental objectives, and detaching trade rules from broader development goals. By contrast, a broader interpretation that encompasses the entire AU legal framework relevant to economic integration would enhance coherence, strengthen development linkages, and better serve Africa's comprehensive integration agenda.
This reinterpretation is not merely desirable but necessary if the AfCFTA is to achieve its stated objectives. The agreement explicitly positions itself within the broader framework of Agenda 2063 and commits to advancing multiple development objectives simultaneously. It cannot fulfill this mandate while operating in isolation from the AU's comprehensive development architecture.
The practical implications of this broader interpretation demonstrate its potential to resolve current implementation challenges and enhance the impact of AfCFTA's development. By providing clearer guidance for technical negotiations, strengthening institutional coordination, and ensuring coherence across policy domains, this approach would transform the AfCFTA from a traditional trade agreement into a genuine instrument for development-led integration.
As African policymakers prepare for the mandated review of the AfCFTA, they have a unique opportunity to clarify the interpretation of key principles and strengthen implementation mechanisms. By formally adopting a broader understanding of the AfCFTA acquis, they can ensure that the agreement fulfills its promise as a cornerstone of Africa's development architecture rather than just another layer in its already complex trade landscape.
The path forward requires both political will and technical innovation. Member states must recognise that their interests are best served not by preserving fragmentation but by advancing coherent continental integration. Institutions must develop new mechanisms for coordination across policy domains. And stakeholders across African society – from business leaders to civil society organisations – must engage meaningfully with implementation to ensure it serves the interests of Africa's peoples.
The AfCFTA represents Africa's boldest attempt yet to take control of its economic destiny and chart a development path defined by African priorities rather than external models. By grounding its implementation in the continent's comprehensive legal and developmental framework, African leaders can ensure that this landmark agreement delivers on its transformative promise.
