| Complaint number |
NTB Type
|
Date of incident |
Location |
Reporting country or region (additional) |
Status |
Actions |
|
NTB-000-975 |
1.8. Import bans |
2020-07-02 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture,Livestock,fisheries and cooperatives |
Uganda |
Resolved
2021-03-18 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya banned importation of sugar ,brown sugar and raw cane from Uganda |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the NMC meeting that took place in March 2021, the meeting was informed that two bilateral meetings were held with Kenya to discuss among others the NTB on the importation of brown sugar, The Trade Ministers from both sides met and Kenya agreed that the issue will be resolved. Kenya agreed to undertake a verification mission to Uganda. The Mission has not yet taken place but there has been a commendable improvement in the area, where sugar has been allowed into Kenya.
The issue on raw cane was RESOLVED |
|
|
NTB-001-013 |
1.8. Import bans |
2021-03-05 |
Kenya: All Kenyans borders |
Tanzania |
Resolved
2021-05-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 5th March, 2021 the Republic of Kenya, through the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Cooperatives (Agriculture and Food Authority) issued a letter to the Commissioner of Customs, Kenya to stop importation of maize from the United Republic of Tanzania following a report from a surveillance which indicated high levels of mycotoxins that are very consistently beyond safety limits. The letter that was sent to all Counties bordering the two Partner States was neither notified to the EAC Secretary General nor to the concerned Partner States as per the EAC notification procedures; causing disruption to traders carrying maize at those borders. This incidents has caused loss to our traders. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The REC Focal Point reported that the NTB had been resolved by the Regional Meeting held in May 2021 |
|
|
NTB-001-033 |
1.8. Import bans |
2018-08-01 |
Tanzania: Tanzania Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries |
Kenya |
Resolved
2021-10-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania denial of Permission for importation of Turkey meat into Tanzania and instead decline approval of permit and ask local distributors to source it locally in Tanzania. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Transfer of meat and meat products to Tanzania is allowed, reference is made to the importation permit issued on 24th August, 2021 (Which is attached by the importer). Also, The Animal and Animal products Movement Regulations, GN 489 published on 29th June, 2020 does not prohibit transfer of turkey meat to Tanzania. There is no evidence attached by importer to show that turkey meat from Kenya was denied market in Tanzania. Hence this is not an NTB. |
|
|
NTB-001-060 |
1.8. Import bans
Policy/Regulatory |
2022-02-16 |
|
Uganda |
Resolved
2022-06-14 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Prohibition of Sale of alcohol packed in 200ml containers and confiscation of products by CID and Local government Authorities.This is affecting only imported beverages.No Communication has been received on change of regulatory framework governing packaging of alcoholic drinks. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 14 June 2022, EAC Secretariat reported that the SCTIFI meeting was informed that Uganda banned sachet-packed alcohol.
RSS informed the meeting that this was not an NTB but a health issue. The meeting therefore agreed that the NTB should be resolved in the TBP |
|
|
NTB-001-104 |
1.8. Import bans |
2023-03-06 |
Kenya: Kenya Diary Board |
Uganda |
Resolved
2023-03-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
IMPORT BANS AND DENIAL OF MARKET ACCESS BY KENYA.
On 6 Mar 2023,the government of Kenya through the Kenya Diary Board stopped the issuing of import permits for powdered milk as a means of cushioning the surplus production and low producer prices in Kenya.
By this, Kenya is breaching EAC customs union protocol and the customs union that makes us a common market as well.This is denying ugandan powdered milk access to the kenyan Market and will negatively impact trade relations between the two countries. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The 42nd SCTIF noted that the NTB was resolved. |
|
|
NTB-001-189 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-09-17 |
Malawi: Ministry of Trade & Industry |
Kenya |
Resolved
2025-03-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Malawi Ministry of Trade & Industry has introduced a new regulation for imports of sweets. Our customer applied for Import Permit 3 times and each time it was rejected. Our customer has tried every possible way however he has not managed. Malawi authorities are not giving the reason in writing. They have informed our customer verbaaly that because of the shortage of forex in Malawi, their superiors have informed them that they are not to issue the Import Permit for sweets. Also, there is a local manufacturer already making sweets so there is no reason to import.
This action has raised great concerns, as it contravenes the trade agreements under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), to which both Kenya and Malawi are signatories.
We kindly request this issue be addressed promptly. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Ministry of Trade and Industry granted an import licence to Manosalwa Food Industry on 10th March, 2025, for 31500 Cartons of Assorted sweets (Happy Mint, Fruit Drops, Cool Cow and Lollipops).
The licence was granted according to the quantity that was applied for. |
|
|
NTB-001-194 |
1.8. Import bans |
2024-08-13 |
Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, State Department for Agriculture |
Uganda |
Resolved
2024-11-23 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
On 13th August 2024, the Government of Kenya, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development's State Department for Agriculture, imposed a ban on the importation of brown/table sugar into Kenya through an internal communication from the Principal Secretary. This decision was based on the significant improvements in the production of locally manufactured sugar in Kenya as quoted in the letter.
The letter though internal nal was brought to our attention.This action is in direct violation of the East African Community (EAC) Customs Union Treaty. Under Article 75 of the Treaty, the EAC establishes a free trade area for goods and services among partner states, while also outlining the application of Common External Tariffs (CET). Furthermore, Articles 76 and 104 of the Common Market Protocols emphasize the free movement of goods, people, labour, services, and capital between partner states, as well as the rights of establishment and residence, without restrictions that may hinder regional integration.
The ban, therefore, undermines the principles of regional cooperation and integration enshrined in the EAC Treaty.
There is no mention that the ban won't affect member states. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the 45th SCTIFI meeting, the Republic of Kenya reported that the communication was an internal proposal that was not implemented. There is no ban on Sugar transfers from EAC Partner States per the Public Notice of 9 September 2024 issued by the Office of the Cabinet Secretary from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development. |
|
|
NTB-001-250 |
1.8. Import bans |
2022-01-06 |
Tanzania: CPRA |
Uganda |
Resolved
2025-08-07 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
The Director General Cereals and Mixed Crops Regulatory Authority (CPRA) informed the public that no permits for exporting maize and rice would be issued before the completion of a certain assessment. Traders and stakeholders were advised to wait until the evaluation was completed. The issuance of epermits was to resume after 1 May 2025, and applications submitted before that date would not be processed or approved. On 30th April 2025, an extension was announced.
We request that there be non-discriminatory treatment for rice,grain and other crops from Uganda from Uganda during this assessment |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 7 August 2025, the Focal for Tanzania reported that this matter was discussed and resolved during the 38 RMC in Nairobi |
|
|
NTB-000-669 |
8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit)
Policy/Regulatory |
2014-09-02 |
Tanzania: Immigration |
Kenya |
Resolved
2016-06-30 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Delay of issuance of work permit by United Republic of Tanzania |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The issue is not about integrating the permits but the 'delays' in issuing the permit. This anomaly can be corrected. Focal points need to get more information on the nature of Delay. At the Tanzania NMC meeting, Immigration reported that the work permits are processed within 14 days maximum if all information is provided. |
|
|
NTB-000-688 |
8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) |
2016-03-29 |
South Africa: Beit Bridge |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2016-05-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
South Africa Immigration Offices at Beit Bridge gives drivers maximum 14 days on their passports when entering into SA at point of entry. When a driver departs before the 14 days are fully utilized, the next time you want to enter, they tell you to use those remaining days before they can add more days on your passport. This causes drivers to end up running short of days should their trip be longer than the remaining days before the normal 14 days. Zimbabwe transporters are therefore forced to send their drivers back to Beit Bridge without their trucks to get their passports re stamped or they are faced with fines or worse still, they will not be allowed to enter SA again for not exiting on or before the set day when they entered SA initially. This is increasing the cost of doing business. Transporters have lost business during the time drivers are hiking to the border to get passports stamped, the extra night allowances and bus fares and also the down time spent in the process. This problem is a lot worse if loads are short in SA as well.
This matter needs urgent attention on the part of Home Affairs in South Africa as the hampering of transporter and driver movements is not in the interests of trade facilitation and inters regional trade in the region. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 09 May 2016, the South African Focal Point provided the current Visa and Immigration requirements that state that: ‘Visas are not required by passport holders of Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Malawi who are entering the Republic as commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers provide their visits do not exceed 15 days and on condition that they can produce a letter confirming their employment with a transport company on entry.
The same principle applies to Zimbabwean commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers, except that their sojourn may not exceed 30 days at a time. The afore-mentioned does not apply to commercial heavy-duty vehicle drivers who transport goods for a South African transport company. Such drivers must be in possession of a valid work visa.’
The requirements are uploaded onto the Notifications window of the Online system www.tradebarriers.org as information to stakeholders . This document can be dowloaded by the public . |
|
|
NTB-000-857 |
8.3. Immigration requirements (Visa, travel permit) |
2018-10-01 |
Tanzania: Kilambo |
|
Resolved
2023-02-20 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Tanzania charging of Business Visa of USD 250 to EAC business persons entering URT charged as Certificate of Temporary Assignment (CTA) at all borders |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The regulations went through the legal draftspersons. They decided to do away with having Regulations as this was not provided for under the CMP. However, some of the provisions that were in the Regulations were included in the revised EAC Schedule on Progressive Liberalization of Services. This includes the provision on the Removal of Barriers to Trade in Services. With this, all barriers under Trade in Services will be progressively removed as per the EAC Schedule. Hence the meeting agreed to resolve this NTB as it has been taken care of in the Schedule. |
|
|
NTB-000-511 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-03-14 |
Tanzania: Ministry of Transport |
Kenya |
Resolved
2012-06-01 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
Kenya tourist vans are not allowed to enter Tanzania. They are required to off load tourists to Tanzania registered vans. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 1 June 2012, Tanzania reported that, Tourist vans from Kenya are allowed to enter into Tanzania as foreign vans provided they have C32 formerly known as C36. A van carrying below 9 passengers are allowed free for 7 days. Van with 10 and above passengers are categorized as commercial vans and required as per Transit Act, 1995 to pay US$ 16 per axles in every 100 kms.
Tanzania advises Partner states to adhere to requirements for entry into another Partner State to avoid delays and inconveniences. Tourist vans should make sure they check all requirements and have fulfilled them before they set off for Tanzania. |
|
|
NTB-000-524 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-08-06 |
Zimbabwe: At road blocks |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-09-13 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Zimbabwe road traffic authorities are enforcing vehicle equipment regulations that pertain only to their own country and are not harmonized with other countries.
An example of this is for a truck to display its tare and gross mass on the exterior of the vehicle, in numbers and letters of a particular size. This requirement is not the same as for other countries. The Zimbabwe authorities should accept the certificates of roadworthiness from other countries. Zimbabwe should not harass drivers for such issues. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 13 September 2013, FESARTA reported that they had subsequently received a letter from the Ministry of Transport, Communications and Infrastructural Development, directed to the Zimbabwe Republic Police, instructing the police to accept the standards of South African vehicles. FESARTA believes that this letter will also indirectly apply to vehicles from countries other than South Africa entering Zimbabwe. Therefore, FESARTA recommends that NTBs 524 and 563 be considered resolved. |
|
|
NTB-000-528 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-10 |
Zimbabwe: Nyamapanda |
Zimbabwe |
Resolved
2015-06-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Port Health at Nyamapanda, Zimbabwe, has issued a notice to the effect that all goods transiting the border are to be inspected, from 10th September.
The inspection in itself is not a problem.
However, a charge is to be levied for this inspection. This is unacceptable.
Port Health is a government department, which has a duty to perform, in the course of its daily work.
This duty is part of Port Health's daily workload and it budgeted for from Central Government.
Health inspections are done in the interests of the country and are not asked for by the transporter.
There should be no extra charge for this.
What would happen if every government department charged citizens for carrying out their daily duties? |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
During the meeting of COMESA Heads of Customs Sub- Committee held in Nairobi on 19-20 June 2015, Zimbabwe reported that the NTB was an internal control measure and what was required was sensitization of stakeholders on various import and export requirements. This was resolved at the 31st COMESA Trade and Customs Committee meeting held on 7-10 September 2015. |
|
|
NTB-000-531 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-09-28 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
Botswana |
Resolved
2016-08-15 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Chobe municipality is charging foreign transporters a fee to pass through its area of jurisdiction.
There is no justification for any municipality to charge transporters for travelling on the national roads through their areas.
The municipalities do not provide services to the transporters and the national roads are maintained by the national roads authorities.
This practice was started by Zambian municipalities and was halted by the Zambian government.
However, some Zambian municipalities continue to charge.
The practice also does not align with the RECs requirement that the transporters should pay road user charges and not other charges. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
The Focal Point advised that the Chobe Municipality no longer charges foreign transporters the fees. |
|
|
NTB-000-549 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations
Policy/Regulatory |
2012-11-01 |
Mozambique: Maputo |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Matola Council, near Maputo, is requiring transporters to purchase a permit to enter its area.
The permit costs in the region of US$80 per trip.
It is not acceptable for a municipality to charge transporters to enter its area.
Transporters pay road user charges for the wear and tear they cause to the roads.
Furthermore, they purchase services and goods from the area and so increase trade. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Mozambique reported that road user charges were charged at national level and not by Municipalities and that such charges are not legal. Mozambique requested FESRATA to provide proof of payment on the said charges as this is not legal in Mozambique. Proof of payment is provided in the online system. It was therefore agreed that this NTB be resolved and that FESRATA should report any such further charges to Mozambique authorities. |
|
|
NTB-000-535 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-10-12 |
South Africa: Vioolsdrift |
South Africa |
Resolved
2014-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by the Road Freight Association.
The South African Cross-Border Road Transport Agency is requiring cross-border permits for two vehicles to take one load from South Africa to Namibia.
One permit is required to take the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington, and another permit to take the load from Upington to Namibia.
The Truck taking the load from Johannesburg or Cape Town to Upington should not require a cross-border permit, since the transport is being done wholly in South Africa.
The CBRTA quotes the following excerpt from the Act: "“cross-border road transport” means the transport of passengers for reward or the transport of freight to or from the Republic crossing or intending to cross its borders into the territory of another state or in transit across the Republic or the territory of another state with a vehicle on a public road; (xv)"
If this clause means that two permits are required, then the clause must be changed.
In the meantime, a moratorium to remove the requirement for two permits, must be put in place. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 10 April 2014, Namibia Focal Point reported that the explanation provided by South Africa Focal Point confirming that CBRTA was acting within the legal framework was adequate evidence to have this NTB resolved. This NTB is therefore resolved on the grounds that the CBRTA action was legal. |
|
|
NTB-000-548 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-30 |
Botswana: Kazungula Ferry |
South Africa |
Resolved
2015-03-25 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The Botswana Department of Veterinary Services is requiring a permit for agricultural products to be purchased in Gaborone and for the original to be carried on the truck.
This procedure is time-consuming and inefficient.
The process should be done electronically and the truck carry an electronic copy. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
On 25 March 2015, Botswana Focal Point reported that transit permits are now issued in various Veterinary Offices countrywide. Issuance of such permits has now been decentralized. Botswana still requires that permits original (hard) copies MUST always accompany consignment. It must be noted that 1 consignment requires 1 permit which is neither time consuming nor inefficient. Introduction of electronic copies (for convenience) is still being considered. With this explanation, and that transporters can obtain permits easily, the NTB should be considered resolved |
|
|
NTB-000-553 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2012-11-20 |
Zambia: Mbala town |
South Africa |
Resolved
2013-04-10 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
Mbala town in Zambia is levying a parking fee on all transporters.
Transporters are not allowed to park along the roadside, but have to use ZAMESCO's parking yard, at a cost of US$36 per day.
This is not acceptable as the transporters are not given any alternative and the parking fee is high. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
At the Tripartite NTBs Online Reporting, Monitoring and Eliminating Mechanism Meeting to Launch the SMS Reporting Tool held from 9-10 April 2013 in Lusaka, Zambia, Zambia reported that transporters are allowed to park along the road side. |
|
|
NTB-000-575 |
8.1. Government Policy and regulations |
2013-03-14 |
Zimbabwe: Beitbridge |
South Africa |
Resolved
2017-06-09 |
View |
|
Complaint:
|
This complaint is registered by FESARTA.
The old bridge at Beitbridge cannot be opened to traffic because of an existing agreement between the government of Zimbabwe and a private sector company.
It is accepted that it is an old bridge and that it may not be safe for many heavy trucks using it at one time. However, there is a railway line over it and there does not seem to be any refusal to allow trains to use it.
It could be used by private motorists, so freeing the new bridge for heavy goods.
There seems to be no justification to renew the existing agreement. |
|
|
Resolution status note:
|
Zimbabwe reported that the two Governments of Zimbabwe and South Africa had agreed that the old Bridge remain closed following commissioning of the new bridge that is functioning properly without congestion. |
|
English
Français
