European colonialism in Africa, from the mid-19th century to decolonization in the 1960s and 1970s, left many indelible legacies in the continent. One of the legacies concerns the borders drawn by the European colonial powers. In recent years, the promotion of trade liberalization has taken center stage in Africa’s pursuit of economic progress. This shift in policy orientation marks a significant turning point, with a strong focus on stimulating growth, enhancing competitiveness, and integrating African economies into the global marketplace. As the continent continues to strive towards achieving its full economic potential, trade liberalization has become a key driver, with African countries actively pursuing regional trade agreements, reducing tariffs, and implementing market-oriented reforms. These efforts are aimed at breaking down enduring barriers and unleashing the untapped potential of the region.
Agriculture is an important sector in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region and is of major social and economic significance to national economies. It contributes a fair share of the gross domestic product (GDP) of a number of SADC member states. According to the SADC Statistical Year Book 2015, agriculture contributed about 40% to the Democratic Republic of Congo’s economy as of 2011; 30% for Malawi (2013); 29% for Tanzania (2015); 24% for Madagascar (2015); and 23% for Mozambique (2014). Recently, Tanzania’s ministry of agriculture banned imports of all agricultural produce from Malawi and South Africa and also banned exports to Malawi of Tanzanian fertilizer, which Malawi relies on. The ban on fertilizer exports to Malawi has now also been lifted.
All three countries involved, Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa, are members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which promotes economic integration and free trade. Despite having a comprehensive regional integration agenda, ably supported by a robust legal framework, SADC continues to face challenges with regard to slow domestication of agreed policies and legal frameworks. The fact that the various Member States have different processes towards ratification and domestication of regional statutes tends to delay the implementation of the regional integration agenda. For some countries, the process of getting a regional protocol through the internal processes takes several years, hence delaying regional programmes in the process.
Initially, the ban was on agricultural imports, like maize, onions, and apples, and this appears to reveal underlying mistrust and economic nationalism in intra-African trade relations. The temporary blockade, which lasted just over three weeks, was officially framed as a “defensive measure to protect local agriculture from alleged biosecurity threats.” Yet behind the government’s technical explanations, many observers detected the familiar scent of protectionism and political pressure from domestic farming interests. While the ban’s reversal might have closed one chapter, the questions it raised about Africa’s readiness for true economic integration remain wide open.
How They Got Here
Yet, some insiders point to deeper, less technical motives. This is because Tanzania’s ultimatum to Malawi and South Africa to lift their bans on Tanzanian agricultural goods went unheeded, prompting the country’s Agriculture Minister, Hussein Bashe, to confirm the countries’ non-compliance. The bans by Malawi and South Africa targeted various Tanzanian products, including maize flour, rice, ginger, and bananas. According to Tanzanian Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe, Tanzania then imposed bans on agricultural imports from the two countries in response to similar measures imposed by them. The minister stated that Tanzania would prohibit imports from the two countries, effective immediately, saying, “We won’t allow any agricultural products from South Africa in our country.”
He emphasized the need to “protect our business” and promote mutual respect, adding, “This is business, and we should all respect each other.” For political and economic analysts, countries banning each other carry undertones of reasserting the countries’ sovereignty in the region. For example, in early March this year, 2025, Malawian Minister of Trade and Industry Vitumbiko Mumba revealed the Malawi government imposed a ban on the importation of food items and goods, effective until March 12, 2027. This strategic move, according to the minister, aims to protect and promote local industries, encouraging economic growth and self-sufficiency.
“The strategy aims at moving Malawi from a predominantly importing to an exporting economy, which also answers directly to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) number 8; ‘Promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, employment, and decent work for all.” “The strategy encourages the need for local industries to continue working towards improving the quality and packaging of products in order to compete with foreign products,” the Minister revealed. However good as this may appear, a pertinent question to ask is: does it show that African solidarity may often crumble when national interests are at stake?
The Surprising Economic Interactions Between Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa
Though economists were quick to warn of unintended consequences, some of Tanzania’s farmers and netizens celebrated the move, claiming that “Tanzania has the right to defend itself. If South Africa and Malawi refuse to buy Tanzanian goods, then Tanzania equally has the right to stop buying goods from South Africa and Malawi. Mutual respect in trade is important, and Tanzania will always protect its economic interests.”
In between, reports revealed that Malawi’s agricultural sector faces uncertainty as Tanzania’s short trade ban was speculated to threaten the country’s access to crucial inputs like fertilizer. It is pertinent to state that Malawi’s agriculture sector is crucial to its economy and society, accounting for 38% of GDP and providing a livelihood for 85% of the population.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, achieving agricultural growth is essential for Malawi to deliver on its vision of creating wealth and employment for its people. In contrast, Tanzania’s temporary trade ban disrupted regional supply chains, threatening Malawi’s agricultural growth and food security. The ban’s impact, if prolonged, could worsen food shortages, undermining Malawi’s efforts to achieve sustainable agricultural growth and poverty reduction. On the part of South Africa, the implication may extend to its fruit exportation.
How the Rift Challenges Southern Africa’s Economic Integration
While Malawi lodged formal protests and South Africa sought clarifications, the regional body offered no immediate mediation. “It’s embarrassing that these are all SADC countries. One would expect free movement of goods and people by now. This exposes our region’s lack of seriousness and highlights that we have a leadership gap,” posted by a commentator on X. This means SADC’s lack of immediate action highlighted the need for stronger regional cooperation.
The episode has now accelerated calls within SADC for a binding dispute resolution mechanism, something that would force states to arbitrate rather than resort to trade bans. Whether such reforms gain traction remains to be seen. For SADC to effectively manage regional integration and resolve disputes, it will need to strengthen its institutional capacity.
Africa’s Bigger Lesson: Regionalism or Regression?
Beyond Southern Africa, the incident carries a potent lesson for the entire continent. At a time when Africa is investing immense hope in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which is the largest free trade agreement by a number of countries, the Tanzania retaliatory ban served as a cautionary tale. Without strong enforcement of agreements and mutual respect for economic partnerships, AfCFTA risks being undermined before it fully takes off.
Although there have been green lights. For example, analyst Etim Etim on BusinessDay Newspaper posited in a report that Africans may be complaining “about bad leadership, corruption, the economy, the weather, and even our accent. But the continent continues to record noticeable achievements in key sectors. Take intra-African trade, for example. Decades ago, we rarely had anything to buy from one another. But according to Afrexim Bank, in 2023, despite a volatile global economic landscape, intra-African trade remained resilient, standing as a beacon of hope for sustainable development in Africa.” “It grew at 7.2 percent year-on-year, reaching $192 billion, which accounted for 15 percent of total African trade in 2023, up from 13.6 percent from the previous year. Although this is a notable triumph, African business leaders are not resting on their oars. They want to trade more amongst themselves, break down barriers that keep us from visiting each other more freely, and integrate the continent into a large economic bloc.”
The above analysis raises hope but the recent trade war highlights how vulnerable Africa’s food security is to policy shocks. Also, it is important to state that as climate change strains harvests and conflicts displace populations, intra-African trade must become more resilient, not more fractured. African commentators on various social media buttress this by warning that words alone will not mend what was exposed. Without stronger mechanisms to prevent and resolve such crises, the dream of an economically united Africa risks remaining elusive.
The Tanzania-Malawi-South Africa agricultural ban was short-lived but deeply instructive. It peeled back layers of political posturing to reveal real tensions under Africa’s integration efforts. It reminded Southern Africa, and the whole continent that solidarity is easy to preach but hard to practice when local interests are at stake. If there is any silver lining, it lies in the renewed urgency the little crisis flashed. Discussions around stronger regional trade governance, better crisis communication, and mutual respect have gained new momentum. Africa’s economic future depends not only on ambitious treaties like AfCFTA but also on a shared culture of trust, compromise, and dialogue. The lifting of the ban is a step in the right direction. But the real journey toward an integrated, resilient, and prosperous Africa seems to be “too much” ahead.