On October 5, 2026, the Caretaker Commissioner of Juba County, Hon. Kalisto Lado, announced that foreign nationals would be barred from engaging in small-scale trade in the county. The directive specifically mentioned chapati stalls, boda-boda riding, and the sale of tomatoes, onions, and charcoal as businesses that should be reserved for South Sudanese. This move has been met with criticism from various quarters, with many arguing that it is unlawful and goes against the country's international commitments.
The ban is in contravention of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, which South Sudan signed in April 2016. Article 104 of the Treaty commits Partner States to the free movement of persons, labour, and services, and to the rights of establishment and residence for one another's citizens. Furthermore, Article 8(1)(c) obliges each state to abstain from any measure likely to jeopardize the Community's objectives. The Treaty has been ratified by South Sudan, and the country's laws are supposed to be in compliance with its provisions.
The East African Court of Justice has also weighed in on this issue, ruling in Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda (2013) that a Partner State's sovereignty is not a defence for failing to comply with the Treaty and the Protocol. The Court held that national provisions inconsistent with the Treaty and Protocol are inoperative as against citizens of Partner States. This ruling has significant implications for the current ban on foreign traders in Juba County.
The ban has also been criticized for being ungrateful, given the history of East African countries providing shelter and support to South Sudanese during the country's liberation struggle. Countries such as Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia have hosted large numbers of South Sudanese refugees and have provided them with a means of livelihood. In fact, Uganda alone hosts over 1 million South Sudanese refugees, and many more South Sudanese families live in the country by choice, renting homes, paying school fees, and running businesses.
The Investment Promotion Act of 2009, which reserves certain businesses for nationals, was written before South Sudan joined the East African Community. The Act gives no power to a county official to rewrite the terms on which East Africans may earn a living in the country. The Commissioner himself conceded that removing people from the country lies outside his mandate, and that rewriting the terms on which East Africans may earn a living here is also beyond his powers.
The chargé d'affaires of South Sudan in Kampala has rejected the statement, saying it does not reflect the position of the Government of South Sudan. The African Union's Protocol on Free Movement of Persons, which South Sudan signed in 2018, also promotes the free movement of persons and economic integration among African countries. The protocol has not yet come into force, but it is expected to further promote economic integration and cooperation among African countries.
The ban on foreign traders is likely to hurt the very people it claims to protect, including South Sudanese youth who are jobless. The directive is also expected to have negative economic implications for the country, including reduced economic activity and decreased revenue. The government needs to reconsider the ban and find alternative solutions to address the concerns of local traders and entrepreneurs.
Key points
- The ban on foreign traders in Juba County is in contravention of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community and the country's international commitments.
- The ban has been criticized for being ungrateful, given the history of East African countries providing shelter and support to South Sudanese during the country's liberation struggle.
- The directive is likely to hurt the very people it claims to protect, including South Sudanese youth who are jobless.
