Visa-free Africa loosens colonial shackles

At its 1964 meeting in Cairo, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of the African Union (AU), passed a resolution on the inviolability of colonial borders, pledging to respect the inherited boundaries that existed at independence, says Dennis Mulilo, a Mail & Guardian writer. He says the meeting adopted a principle of international law expressed in Latin as uti possidetis, meaning ‘as you possess, so you may continue to possess’. ‘In practise, it meant that when a new state was born, its borders defaulted to the administrative boundaries it had before independence, rather than being redrawn from scratch. African leaders acknowledged that the borders were arbitrary lines drawn as tools of colonial control, with no regard for language, culture, customs or kinship. Therefore, the resolution was not an endorsement of colonial cartography. It was a realistic response to a fragile moment in history.’ Mulilo states that faced with the real risk that territorial disputes could spiral into endless conflict and derail the project of African emancipation, the OAU chose stability as a necessary foundation for freedom. ‘It was about peace over perfection. Across the continent, Africans have long seen themselves as one people and borders as little more than lines on a map. For instance, the Chewa people stretch across Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique and share a heritage, language and customs. It is common for villages in African border towns to share a headman, a borehole, a market, a school or farming fields.’

Mulilo notes in the M&G that, that sense of Africanness is increasingly being expressed in policy. ‘A growing number of countries are adopting visa-free arrangements for fellow Africans, the latest being between Zambia and Ghana, announced last week during a state visit to Zambia by President John Dramani Mahama. As states loosen visa regimes for one another, they are performing a subtle but powerful act of historical correction.’ He says visa-free policies do not erase borders but they do question their moral authority. ‘What we are witnessing is not a betrayal of the OAU decision but its evolution. That is why in championing a visa-free Africa, the AU says in its Agenda 2063 that “the physical and invisible barriers that have prevented the integration of Africa’s people need to be removed”. Just as communities have long moved across borders without impediment, modern states are beginning to codify the mobility into law.’ Mulilo believes that visa liberalisation does not redraw borders; but loosens the colonial grip on everyday African life. ‘It allows states to maintain sovereignty while refusing to let colonial lines dictate social, economic and cultural connectivity. In this sense, contemporary mobility reforms respect the letter of the OAU’s commitment while rethinking its spirit for a more confident era. Importantly, the shift is not a promotion or endorsement of disorder. It is a reorientation of law and order towards African realities.’ He states that mobility predates the modern African state: the pastoralist moving with the seasons, the trader following markets, the family divided by a straight line on a colonial map.

‘The movements were once governed by norms, reciprocity and local authority. Today, they are being re-legitimised through modern legal frameworks such as immigration systems, regional agreements and shared bilateral security protocols. What makes this moment significant is its restraint. States are not abandoning control; they are redefining it. Openness and order are no longer treated as opposites. Instead, order becomes the condition that makes freedom durable.’ Mulilo feels that visa abolition among African countries hus becomes a quiet but firm postcolonial critique. He says in the M&G that in the context of initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area, whose goal is a single African market, visa-free movement becomes essential to translating this lived oneness into economic reality. ‘To move freely within Africa, under African law, is to affirm that the future will not be governed by lines drawn for a different purpose in a different time.’

Full Mail & Guardian analysis