The East African Community (EAC) is facing growing criticism following a controversial resolution by the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) Heads of State Summit that many observers say could undermine the region’s long-standing integration ambitions.
On March 7, 2026, the summit resolved that partner states should assume responsibility for paying the salaries and benefits of their respective representatives in EALA.
The move comes as the EAC Secretariat grapples with a worsening financial crisis caused by persistent delays and defaults in member states’ financial contributions.
While some officials see the decision as a practical response to budgetary pressures, critics argue it signals a deeper retreat from the collective institutional framework envisioned when the regional bloc was revived in 2000.
In Uganda, the directive has immediately raised constitutional questions. Under Article 78 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, a Member of Parliament is defined as someone directly elected to represent a constituency, with remuneration determined by the Parliamentary Commission.
Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, the MP for Kira Municipality and a member of the parliamentary Budget Committee, says the proposal could clash with Uganda’s legal framework.
“What they are proposing is going to become impractical. The Constitution of Uganda does not say that you go and pay MPs in any other parliament,” Ssemujju said.
“They will now need to come to Uganda and amend the Constitution to include members of the East African Parliament. This summarizes the attitude of the heads of state—they look at it as a burden.”
Ssemujju argued that if the region’s leaders no longer consider the regional parliament essential, they should openly reconsider its role.
“Why don’t they just dissolve? You say that at this stage we don’t need this parliament because it has not performed to our expectations. This is like an advisory council… they are only saying, take back your advisors, they can advise from your country.”
The directive also raises questions about the diplomatic status traditionally associated with EALA legislators. Mukasa Mbidde, a former EALA representative, noted that members of the regional parliament operate under a unique arrangement distinct from national lawmakers.
“A member of EALA is not given a housing allowance. Even when parliament sits in your own country, you are still paid as if you are a foreign member who stays in a hotel per diem,” Mbidde explained.
He added that EALA members currently receive benefits comparable to national legislators, including vehicle facilitation, but their professional identity is tied to regional service rather than domestic political structures.
“You live on a substantial salary… you get a number plate for East Africa, which metamorphoses into a red number plate as a returning diplomat. But whatever the purchases are, they are personal,” he said.
Beyond the technical issues of pay and logistics, critics warn the policy reflects a deeper shift toward what some describe as creeping provincialism within the regional bloc. By decentralizing the financing of its legislative body, analysts say the EAC risks weakening one of the key institutions designed to drive regional lawmaking and oversight.
The debate has revived memories of the collapse of the original East African Community in 1977, when political and economic disagreements between member states brought the first integration experiment to an abrupt end.
For a region that has already committed to a customs union, a common market and a future monetary union, critics argue that failing to jointly sustain the salary bill of its own lawmakers raises uncomfortable questions about political commitment.
As the directive moves to national parliaments for interpretation and possible legislative action, observers say the controversy has become a litmus test for the future of the integration project.
At stake, they argue, is whether the EAC will evolve into a deeper political and economic union or remain a forum where leaders meet periodically while the costs of shared institutions are increasingly pushed back to national governments.