Biting off more than you can chew? The African Continental Free Trade Area

In Brief

• The AfCFTA is the world's largest free trade area by membership (1.4 billion people, $3.4 trillion GDP), but intra-African trade remains just 16% of total trade, compared to 59% in Asia and 68% in Europe.

• Logistics, not tariffs, are the main obstacle: shipping within Africa is often slower and pricier than shipping to Europe. PAPSS and a new digital customs platform aim to fix this.

• Geopolitically, the AfCFTA is Africa's main tool for reducing reliance on the US and China post-AGOA – but it asks states to accept short-term costs for long-term gains, with no real enforcement to back that up.

• Unlike Europe's complementary dynamics, Africa's bigger and smaller economies are industrialising simultaneously, putting them in direct competition rather than balance.

• Legally, the AfCFTA's dispute mechanisms are largely untested: African states rarely litigate against each other, and key protocols, like investment disputes, remain to be finalised.

• Socially, the AfCFTA targets formal trade while most cross-border commerce, remains informal and unprotected.

• The biggest risk isn't collapse but stagnation: an expanding list of protocols outpacing the capacity to implement them.

Key Takeaways for Investors

• Check sector by sector. Real progress (e.g. the 2025 automotive rules-of-origin deal) is happening in pockets, not across the board.

• Legal protection still sits at the national level. Dispute resolution under the AfCFTA is unlikely to be tested soon; bilateral treaties and regional mechanisms matter more for now.

• Positive effects aren't uniform. Larger, more industrialised economies (Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco) stand to gain first; smaller ones face higher short term risks.

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is the world's largest free trade area by number of participating countries, a market of 1.4 billion people with a combined GDP of $3.4 trillion. Today, intra-African trade stands at just 16% of total trade, compared to 59% in Asia and 68% in Europe. The AfCFTA aims to fix this.

Africa's low intra-continental trade share is not merely a tariff problem. Before the AfCFTA was put in place, the average customs dwell time and logistics costs were nearly double the global average. For instance, Ghanaian respondents indicated that  ‘It takes roughly 18 days to ship something from Ghana to Europe but twice as long to ship something from Ghana to Kenya and a package costing $350 to ship to Europe would cost $12,000 to ship to Kenya.'

The AfCFTA attempts to address this through tariff liberalisation (90% of tariff lines over 5-10 years), introducing the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS) to reduce currency conversion costs across 42 currencies, and establishing a digital customs platform. In July 2025, the AfCFTA launched the digital customs platform designed to cut border processing times by 65%, introducing AI-powered pre-clearance and real-time trade document verification.

However, the framework as currently designed rests on three structural tensions – geopolitical, legal, and social – that threaten to hollow it out. These tensions need to be discussed together.

1. The Geopolitical Imperative and the Question of Sovereignty

The external argument for the AfCFTA has never been stronger. However, internally, the argument remains contested and the important differences in the level of development between African economies will only fragilise the sustainability of the agreement.

Externally, as mentioned, the pressure to accelerate the AfCFTA has intensified dramatically. AGOA – the US preferential trade framework for Africa – formally expired in September 2025 and its renewal under the Trump administration is highly uncertain. Meanwhile, China has moved to fill the void, offering zero-tariff access for 100% of tariff lines to 53 African nations. Russia and Gulf states are increasing investment in defence, logistics, and mining sectors. Africa is a theatre for great-power competition dressed up as trade partnership.

The AfCFTA is, in this context, Africa's best tool for asserting collective agency. The demand for a "third path" – avoiding overreliance on either the US, China, or another power – is gaining strength within the African Union and regional bodies. 

Internally however, the geopolitical case for unity comes at a domestic political cost – economic sovereignty. Consider Nigeria's 2019 border closure: justified as protecting local agriculture from smuggling, it triggered regional enforcement failures and highlighted the need for harmonized tariffs, but also revealed how domestic lobbies can strong-arm governments into protectionist relief from cheaper rival imports. Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt – the continent's largest economies – each have powerful domestic industries that could greatly capitalise on easier exports to the rest of Africa. Other smaller and less developed economies might just find themselves relying on different imports and losing tariff revenue.

Europe's experience offers a useful comparison. Within the EU, integrating economies at different development levels works because the differences were complementary rather than competing: the more advanced economies had already moved past industrialisation and into services, with slower but stable growth, while the less developed members drove growth precisely through their own rapid industrialisation. Each was doing something different.

Africa's situation is structurally different. All AfCFTA members are industrialising, just at different speeds. None of the continent's larger economies are "developed" in the European sense: they are  just industrialising with more capital, infrastructure, and investment behind them, giving them a substantial head start over other African economies. That means that these economies’ interests are not complementary; they are direct competitors for the same industries, investments, and export markets. Without safeguards, the more advanced economies' risk crowding out the early-stage industries that smaller, poorer states need to develop.

The AfCFTA asks states to set aside short-term national interest in favour of long-term continental gains. There is however currently no enforcement mechanism robust enough to make that trade-off credible; and it is a trade-off that will be hard to justify to more fragile populations who will bear most of the short-term cost.

2. The Legal Fiction: a Framework without a Foundation

The AfCFTA's dispute resolution architecture exists on paper. In practice, African states do not litigate against each other.

This is perhaps the most structurally serious problem. The AfCFTA contains a detailed Protocol on Rules and Procedures for the Settlement of Disputes  modelled on the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding – but it is unlikely that State Parties will ever use it. In Africa's Regional Economic Communities, governments rarely litigate against each other over implementation disputes. There are regional courts in COMESA, ECOWAS, and the EAC, but they have never heard disputes filed by member states. The SADC Tribunal was abolished shortly after  it ruled against Zimbabwe's land expropriation in 2008, at President Mugabe's request. 

Adopted in 2023, the AfCFTA Protocol on Investment compounds this: it promises a stable legal environment with investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms – but the negotiation of the annex detailing actual dispute resolution rules was meant to be finalized within 12 months of the Protocol’s adoption, which has not happened yet.

Underneath the protocols lies a deeper legal fragmentation: 54 legal systems, many built on incompatible colonial commercial codes, with varying standards for contract enforcement, judicial independence, and arbitration. Additionally, rules of origin negotiations on textiles, clothing, and automotive products remain unfinished.

The risk is not that the AfCFTA collapses, it is that it becomes a permanent work-in-progress: ratified, celebrated, and largely ineffectual. 

3. The Social Divide Problem: Unequal Benefits between and within African States

The AfCFTA is designed at the level of states and formal enterprises. The majority of intra-African trade is conducted by people the agreement barely acknowledges.

Informal cross-border trade amounts to 30% to 72% of formal trade among neighbouring countries, according to the UN Economic Commission for Africa, with women representing up to 80% of informal traders. Despite their substantial economic impact, informal cross-border traders are excluded from official trade statistics, leading to inaccurate assessments of Africa's trade dynamics.

The AfCFTA's Protocol on Women and Youth in Trade acknowledges this gap and attempts to address it. However, the mechanisms to access simplified trade regimes remain poorly understood at ground level. Participants in Ghana reported that simplified trade regimes – which allow small traders to bypass complex customs procedures for consignments under a certain threshold – are largely underutilised due to limited awareness, inadequate documentation, and widespread use of costly intermediary agents.

There is a broader structural risk here that echoes the EU's own post-enlargement backlash: if the gains from integration flow predominantly to large, often foreign-linked corporations, and the disruption flows to the informal traders who constitute the social fabric of cross-border commerce, the domestic legitimacy of the AfCFTA will erode among the populations it is supposed to serve. Trade union analyses of the AfCFTA's post-implementation phase have called for enforceable labour and social protection clauses to be embedded directly into AfCFTA protocols in order to ensure some kind of protection for local populations.

A formal mechanism ensuring that liberalisation gains are redistributed to disrupted informal workers and small-scale traders is a political sustainability condition.

4. Conclusion: the Ambition Trap

The Economic Commission for Africa projects that by 2045, intra-African trade will increase by 45% and enhance Africa’s GDP by 1.2%. The AfCFTA will also “significantly boost expansion in sectors such as agri-food by 60%, industry by 48%, services by 34%, and energy and mining by 28%” – but only if the AfCFTA is fully implemented. That condition carries enormous weight. While the AfCFTA now encompasses protocols on trade in goods, services, investment, intellectual property, competition policy, digital trade, and women and youth – most of these are still being negotiated or awaiting ratification; and as previously exposed, many tensions weigh on their feasibility. 

There is also African states’ reluctance to transition to new frameworks to contend with. Countries participating in the Guided Trade Initiative (GTI) – the AfCFTA's pilot mechanism for actual commercial trade under its rules – but belonging to the same Regional Economic Community, continued trading under their existing regime rather than the AfCFTA.

The sequencing problem is real: you cannot build a continental single market while simultaneously negotiating its foundational rules, managing 54 domestic political economies, attempting to include informal traders, and constructing a dispute resolution architecture that states are unlikely to use. The EU took 40 years to get from a Coal and Steel Community to a single market. The AfCFTA has given itself a decade in a larger and much more diverse setting.

The proposal here is not pessimism but prioritisation. A credible, narrower AfCFTA – with binding dispute mechanisms in a limited number of sectors, a genuine social protection protocol, and a moratorium on new protocol expansion until ratification catches up – would do more for African integration than an ever-expanding framework whose ambition outruns its implementation capacity. The Council of African Trade Ministers has already shown it can reach practical agreements, as demonstrated by the 2025 accord on automotive rules of origin, requiring 40% African content for AfCFTA trade preferences. That kind of concrete, sector-specific progress is the model worth scaling.

The AfCFTA is not a fiction, it is a genuine and necessary ambition. But ambition without sequencing, legal enforceability, and social grounding becomes a self-perpetuating process of summitry and protocol adoption that substitutes for actual integration. The external moment – post-AGOA, amid US-China rivalry – has never been more propitious for Africa to build real collective bargaining power through intra-continental trade. Squandering that window with an over-engineered framework that states quietly bypass would be the real failure.

The article can be downloaded with all references below.