When East African Community Heads of State convene for their next summit, they face a decision that will seal the fate of the bloc: choosing the next Secretary-General. This is not merely another routine appointment. It is a referendum on whether our leaders are serious about resurrecting the EAC integration project.

The EAC as originally conceived is dead. Partner states don't pay dues, leaving key institutions dysfunctional. Crucial protocols remain unratified. The monetary union has stalled, and no one is seriously talking of a political confederation anymore.

VIDEO: Kagame addresses EAC leaders on DR Congo crisis

The choice of the next Secretary-General will determine whether the Community is resurrected.

Learning from our history

History offers lessons on what worked. Tanzania’s Juma Mwapachu was highly experienced and respected, enabling him to push through key decisions such as the Common Market Protocol. Similarly, Uganda’s Amanya Mushega and Rwanda’s Richard Sezibera were former ministers. Their successes in securing ratification of the Customs and Monetary Union Protocols lay in their ability to broker compromises among Presidents and Minsters because they themselves had sat at those highest levels of government.

ALSO READ: How has EAC positioned itself for 2017 and beyond?

On the other side, Kenya's 2021-2026 term has been disappointing.

The tenure was marred by serious corruption allegations leading to the sacking of Secretary-General Peter Mathuki. His successor, a bureaucrat, attempted institutional strengthening despite time and financial constraints. But structural problems require more than administrative patchwork.

Senior statesperson needed, not a bureaucratic careerist

Recent technocratic Secretary-Generals have struggled with consensus-building and influence over Ministers and Presidents. Resurrecting EAC requires more than technical competence. Political capital is now the currency of success.

ALSO READ: EAC-SADC leaders urge for political solution to silence the guns in eastern DR Congo

The next Secretary-General should therefore be a seasoned senior political figure who commands the respect of presidents and ministers. Someone who can authoritatively advise them and thoroughly prepare fundamental decisions in a way that secures their buy-in.

It must not be someone with domestic or international political ambitions. Rather we need someone at the twilight of their political career, who can approach EAC as a crowning achievement, not as a stepping stone. A Musalia Mudavadi, a Rebecca Kadaga, or a Palamagamba Kabudi type. A calm but firm consensus builder with a clear compass and who can actually lead a government. A former Foreign or EAC Minister or even Vice President with decades of regional engagement would fit this bill perfectly.

Critically, the Secretary-General must come from a Partner State with demonstrated commitment to EAC. From domestication of Community law, to harmonising laws and policies and consistently paying dues. Without this, that Secretary-General has no authority at all and will just be the choirmaster of the requiem leading the Community to its gravesite.

The South Sudan question

According to the rotation principle, the next Secretary General is to come from South Sudan. But does South Sudan's engagement with EAC position it to provide the transformative leadership required?

Ten years after joining the EAC, South Sudan had not domesticated the EAC Treaty. Only toward the end of 2025, as the Secretary-General position approached, did its Parliament pass the EAC Treaty Bill. It has also not applied the EAC Customs Act nor integrated into the Single Customs Territory. Its record of unpaid dues compounds the picture.

Can a Secretary-General from such a country credibly demand that others honour their obligations? Can EAC, crippled by chronic underfunding, afford to be led by a representative of a country that doesn't pay up?

Returning to the pioneers

If the Community is to be resurrected, the next Secretary-General should come from Uganda or Tanzania. These countries last produced a Secretary-General around 20 years ago. Somalia joined recently and is still integrating. DR Congo has virtually paid nothing since joining, while South Sudan is deep in arrears. ⁠Burundi produced the Secretary-General before the current Kenya term, while Rwanda was just before Burundi.

As founding members, Tanzania and Uganda have demonstrated consistent commitment and deeply understand the Community’s history and objectives, including the ultimate political union. They have the capacity to offer the consolidation EAC urgently requires and to steadily lead us toward its goals.

The choice before us

The question before the Summit is simple: Do the leaders want the EAC resurrected, or are they content with performative integration that delivers nothing?

The rotation principle has its place in ensuring fair representation. But when the institution needs resurrection rather than routine management, rotation cannot override fundamental requirements for effective leadership. Slavish adherence to the rotation is not principle. It is choosing permanent death.

Heads of State should not fear that a strong Secretary-General might grab power. Choosing a highly respected yet politically retired elder could ease those concerns. Someone viewed not as a rival, but as a devoted and honest broker who can steer EAC without threatening national sovereignties.

If South Sudan gets the position despite non-commitment to the EAC, our leaders will have chosen permanent death. If they instead choose a senior statesperson from Uganda or Tanzania, then there is genuine hope that Jumuiya can rise from its ashes.

East Africa deserves honesty, not performative integration. Heads of State must choose wisely.

Mugendi Nyaga is an actuary and a public policy analyst.