The East African Community (EAC) continues to position itself as one of Africa's most ambitious regional integration projects. Built upon the principles of the rule of law, good governance, accountability, and cooperation among partner states, the EAC Treaty established the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) as a guardian of legality and Treaty compliance within the region. ALSO READ: EACJ struggles with judgment enforcement, experts push for reform However, an important question deserves greater scholarly and public attention: should compliance with the EAC Treaty be measured by the number of cases filed before the Court, by the absence of litigation altogether, or by the quality and substance of the petitions brought before it? ALSO READ: Experts weigh in on new EAC funding model At first glance, fewer cases before the Court may appear to indicate strong compliance by partner states. It may seem reasonable to conclude that if partner states, citizens, civil society organizations, and businesses are not challenging government actions before the regional court, then governments are largely respecting their Treaty obligations. Yet such a conclusion may be overly simplistic. ALSO READ: Two Rwandans named judges to East African Court of Justice The few cases brought before the court especially by partner states does not necessarily mean the absence of violations. Across many developing legal systems, barriers such as limited public awareness of regional legal mechanisms, financial constraints, inadequate legal representation, fear of reprisals, and weak institutional trust can prevent deserving cases from reaching the Court. In such circumstances, silence may reflect inaccessibility rather than compliance. ALSO READ: How Rwanda's $7.2m contribution to EAC was calculated Equally, a growing number of cases before EACJ should not automatically be viewed as evidence of failure within the Community. On the contrary, active litigation can be a sign of a healthy legal culture. It may demonstrate increasing public confidence in regional institutions, greater awareness of Treaty rights and obligations, and a willingness to pursue justice through lawful mechanisms rather than political confrontation or instability. Indeed, some of the most influential judgments of regional courts around the world have emerged because individuals and institutions were willing to challenge perceived violations of regional commitments. Such cases not only resolve disputes but also strengthen jurisprudence, clarify legal obligations, and improve governance standards across member states. The quality of cases brought before the Court is therefore just as important as their quantity. Well-researched, principled, and legally grounded petitions contribute significantly to the development of regional law and the interpretation of the EAC Treaty. They help courts clarify ambiguities, strengthen accountability, and reinforce the rule of law. By contrast, poorly prepared or politically motivated claims may do little to advance regional integration and may even undermine public confidence in judicial institutions. The true measure of compliance within the EAC should therefore extend beyond statistics. Policymakers, scholars, and regional institutions should assess whether partner states genuinely uphold Treaty principles, whether citizens can effectively access justice, and whether the Court remains independent, accessible, and capable of influencing governance through sound jurisprudence. As the Community continues to deepen integration, the role of the EACJ should not be evaluated merely by the number of cases appearing on its docket. Rather, the Court should be understood as a reflection of the region's democratic maturity, legal consciousness, and commitment to accountability under the rule of law. In this context, fewer cases before the Court should not automatically be celebrated. Sometimes, the willingness and ability of citizens and institutions to challenge non-compliance may itself be the strongest evidence that the ideals of the EAC Treaty remain alive and meaningful. Ultimately, the goal should not be fewer cases or more cases, but a regional legal system that is accessible, trusted, and capable of promoting genuine compliance with Community law. The writer is a Legal Systems Analyst specializing in regional integration, access to justice, and public international law.
