Amanda Bisong is a Policy Officer in the Migration and Mobility team of the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), a think tank based in Maastricht, The Netherlands, and Brussels, Belgium. She has a background in Law and holds Master’s degrees in International Law and Economics (World Trade Institute) and International Trade Policy and Trade Law (Lund University). She has over 15 years of policy implementation and research experience in international law, development, migration, and trade. She has also worked with and liaised with political representatives at the national, regional, and continental levels.

Ruth: Aspiration 2 of Agenda 2063 aims for an integrated continent that is politically united, grounded in Pan-Africanism, and driven by Africa’s Renaissance vision. This includes facilitating ease of trade and free movement. In line with this aspiration, two key protocols were developed in 2018: the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the Free Movement of Persons (FMP) protocol. While the AfCFTA has gained significant traction, the AU Free Movement of Persons protocol has only received four ratifications so far. Could you please explain what the AU FMP is, what it aims to achieve, and why it seems to be struggling to gain more ratifications from AU Member States?

Amanda: The Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence and Right of Establishment (Free Movement Protocol) is an agreement that aims to improve the mobility of Africans on the continent. It will do this in three phases: the first phase is the Right of Entry, where Africans from a member state can enter another AU member state and stay for 90 days. The second phase is the Right of Residence, where individuals can take up residence (or stay) in another country for a certain period. The third phase is the Right of Establishment, where individuals can set up businesses, work, and essentially live in that AU member state.

Agenda 2063 exists as a vision to move the continent towards the Africa we want. Decisively, the Africa we want is an economically progressive continent, and in order to achieve that, we may need to allow people to move. When people move, skills move, and in our part of the world, when people move, trade moves; goods move with the people. These are the realities of the continent, and I think this is one of the reasons we have the Free Movement Protocol. In some parts of the continent, it’s actually easier for non-Africans to travel than it is for Africans. For example, it may be easier for a European or American to travel to Southern Africa than for another African. In other countries, there are varied visa regimes that determine whether people can enter based on agreements at the level of the regional economic community (REC) or bilateral agreements.

Furthermore, an underlying justification for the protocol is Pan-Africanism, since we are trying to move the continent forward in the spirit of unity, as Pan-Africanism requires. This is also implies a stand against the imposed colonial borders on the continent, which separated communities and families. However, Pan-Africanism, as expressed in AU protocols like the (AU FMP) sometimes clashes with national interests. However, one of the top drivers for the Free Movement Protocol is the economic aspect; we need to enable the movement of skills, people, and goods.

Indeed, the AU’s Free Movement Protocol needs to have more ratifications before it can be implemented. Currently, only four countries have ratified the protocol (Mali, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, and Rwanda). AU’s ECOSOCC, had a program where they visited different regions over the last two years to raise awareness about the Free Movement Protocol. They met with policymakers, stakeholders, and civil society in each region to understand some of the challenges behind the non-ratification of the protocol by countries. Many issues arose, such as “our borders are weak” and “security concerns about who is being let into our country.” However, the main issue is a lack of understanding. When people hear “free movement,” they think it means no borders and no checks, but that’s not the case.

Ruth: What lessons can be learned from successful RECs such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC) regarding their free movement regimes, and how might these lessons be applied to other regions in Africa to promote a more unified, borderless continent?

Amanda: The EAC incorporated free movement into its Common Market Protocol, which deals with trading goods and services, and that’s where free movement is also embedded. Because of this, there’s less debate over which provisions will or will not be implemented, as the economic aspect is important to all countries. While the economic aspect is not the only driver that motivates countries to integrate, it plays a significant role in promoting integration. There’s also a cultural aspect. In the EAC (1967-1977), it was three countries—Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania—came together with a shared identity, including a shared currency and ease of mobility. They built on a shared culture that already existed, and they continue to build on that in the current EAC (since 2000), which has now been expanded to other countries like South-Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, and DRC.

As for ECOWAS, a lot has contributed to the success of the Free Movement Protocol. One factor is culture, as people in West Africa are very mobile. 80% of movement of people remains within the region. Another is economic integration, with West African countries working together to support their economies, especially through seasonal migration and boosting the agricultural sector. These are reasons the FMP works in ECOWAS. However, we must remember that these protocols didn’t come about overnight; they have been around since 1979, with visa-free entry only starting in the early 2000s. Until the 80s and early 90s, people still needed visas to travel from Nigeria to Ghana, for instance. So, there has been progress, but it takes time.

Ruth: Do you think the word “borderless” might do more harm than good to the concept of the AU’s FMP?

Amanda: My concern with the word “borderless” isn’t that it can’t be a future possibility, but that the current Free Movement protocol doesn’t offer a borderless Africa. As a researcher, I believe we may achieve a borderless Africa, but that’s not what these free movement regimes are offering right now. They are a building block toward that concept. The borders don’t disappear with the FMP; rather, it facilitates easier entry, meaning there will still be border guards checking and stamping your passport, even if you have the right of residence in that country.

Ruth: Practically, what has been done and what else can be done to assist the AU in its efforts to mobilize support for the ratification and implementation of the AU FMP?

Amanda: Earlier, I mentioned ECOSOCC, and that’s one thing that has been done to help people understand the Free Movement Protocol. Another key effort is involving civil society actors because they can lobby their parliamentarians and governments to implement the protocol by providing a clearer understanding of what it entails. Additionally, the AU has appointed champions to support implementation. These champions are usually government representatives, but I believe we also need individual champions to push for implementation.

Since the economic aspect is important, we should tie the FMP to the AfCFTA and promote the economic benefits. Governments are more likely to respond to the economic argument than to Pan-Africanism or political integration. Identifying champions—whether business leaders, civil society actors, or even youth champions for student mobility—would help. These individuals face the practical challenges and are better equipped to pressure policymakers. Government officials have diplomatic passports, but it’s the business people, investors, and students who have to navigate the visa challenges every time they travel. They should be the ones leading the call for ratification.

Ruth: Thank you, Amanda. It’s been such an insightful conversation about demystifying the AU’s FMP.

Amanda Bisong’s extensive experience and deep understanding of migration and mobility policies across Africa, particularly her research linking the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) with the AU’s Free Movement Protocol, offer valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities for realizing a more unified continent. Through her work, Amanda has emphasized the need for better coordination between free movement and trade protocols, highlighting how labor mobility plays a critical role in driving economic progress. Her numerous articles and op-eds, such as https://ecdpm.org/work/labor-mobility-key-element-afcfta  and https://ecdpm.org/work/connecting-african-markets-people-streamlining-trade-mobility, reinforce the economic imperative behind these frameworks.

As Amanda pointed out in this conversation, the success of protocols like the ECOWAS Free Movement Protocol provides key lessons for Africa’s integration efforts. However, for the AU’s Free Movement Protocol to succeed, it requires not only political will but also a clear understanding among stakeholders about the practicalities and benefits of mobility for Africans. Drawing from her work on the challenges faced by migrants in West Africa and the role of multilevel governance in migration policy, Amanda’s insights remind us that effective regional cooperation and a clear vision for labor mobility are essential for unlocking Africa’s economic potential.

Ultimately, Amanda’s research and advocacy for the Free Movement Protocol are pivotal to shaping a future where African markets and people can connect seamlessly, paving the way for the Africa we want—one that thrives on the free movement of its people, goods, and ideas.