It is astounding that the president of the United States, the so-called leader of the free world, could fly to Israel to offer more military support to a regime that has no qualms about committing mass slaughter of civilians in Gaza. President Joe Biden’s offer of more military assistance worth billions of dollars to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has deeply dismayed not just the Palestinians in Gaza who are being killed by the thousands by US weapons, but also the millions of people and several human rights organisations around the world who believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza could amount to genocide.

To add insult to injury, Biden offered a puny US$100 million – a tiny fraction of the amount in military aid to Israel – to the more than two million Gazans whose houses are being bombed and who are now being denied basics such as food, water and electricity by the occupying Israeli state. This goes to show where the US’s priorities lie.

What the US president failed to recognise is that the Palestinians would not need this humanitarian assistance if Israel had not imposed a blockade on Gaza. The blasé attitude of the US government (and indeed of the Western media, which appears to have become a mouthpiece for US and Israeli propaganda) towards the slaughter taking place in Gaza clearly shows that there is a hierarchy among the world’s war victims. So, there is deep sympathy and support for Ukrainians who are being bombed and made homeless by Russia but Palestinians being killed and being denied food and water are seen as deserving of their fate.

The hypocrisy of the US government is now clearly on full display. How could Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine amount to a war crime but the assault on Gaza – the world’s largest open-air prison – and the denial of food, water and electricity to a people whose every move is controlled by Israel not be seen as collective punishment, which is also considered a war crime? As someone on Twitter stated, the world has finally seen the true face of the United States government – it has lost its moral authority to preach human rights and democracy to the world.

While the actions of Hamas cannot be condoned (killing Israeli civilians and taking them hostage are war crimes), there is little effort on the part of the US to understand why people who have been caged for decades might revolt against their captors. There is little attempt to acknowledge that Palestinians were turned into refugees on their own land by the Israeli state. And there is a huge blind spot when it comes to demanding accountability from Israel, which many have described as an “apartheid state”.

Even before the current crisis, Gazans had no control over their water and electricity supplies, which are controlled by Israel. Palestinians could not move freely within their territory or travel abroad. It is ironic that the Jewish people, who suffered unspeakable atrocities during the Second World War, are now inflicting similar atrocities on non-Jewish people. (Although it must be said that a sizeable number of Jews within Israel and elsewhere have vehemently opposed Israel’s actions in Gaza.) Palestinians have essentially lost their right to full citizenship. They are being punished for demanding freedom and dignity. Let us look at it this way: If a victim of domestic violence kills her abuser, would she be deemed a murderer or would a court rule that it was an act of self-defence? If slaves stage a rebellion against their owners, would they be accused of insubordination? When colonised people take up arms to fight for their freedom, are they terrorists or freedom fighters?

It is ironic that the Jewish people, who suffered unspeakable atrocities during the Second World War, are now inflicting similar atrocities on non-Jewish people.

What’s worse, the United Nations Security Council, which was created in 1945 specifically to prevent wars from occurring or escalating, has not been able to pass a resolution condemning Israel for its actions and calling for a ceasefire because the United States – one of the five permanent veto-holding members of the Security Council that contributes up to 20 per cent of the UN’s budget – vetoed a proposed resolution even though the majority of the Security Council members supported it.  The question we must ask as members of the international community is: What is the point of having a UN Security Council when it cannot prevent wars?

The power of the P-5

The UN Security Council was established in 1945 after the Second World War. The Council consists of 15 members, 10 of which are rotational non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The non-permanent members may have a say in decisions made by the Security Council, but the ultimate decision rests with the five permanent veto-holding members, namely the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China—also known as the P-5. So, if one of the P-5 members decides to go to war, to support war criminals or to supply arms to a warring faction or state, there is nothing the rest of the members can do about it. Any resolution condemning these actions can be vetoed by a permanent veto-holding member.

The UN Security Council is, therefore, not a club of equals. The ten non-permanent members of the 15-member Council do not pose a serious threat to the five veto-holding members of the Council although membership does give these countries the illusion of being influential. Take the case of Rwanda. This tiny Central African country was elected as a rotating non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 1994, the very year the horrific genocide took place in that country. (Which goes to show how ineffectual non-permanent membership in the Security Council is.) The Security Council did little to prevent the genocide that ravaged the country and left about a million people dead. The P-5 looked the other way while Rwandans were being massacred. And Rwanda, the non-permanent UN Security Council member, sat back and watched the genocide unfold before the world’s eyes.

Another glaring example is the Iraq war. In March 2003, the United States and Britain invaded Iraq—without unanimous UN Security Council approval—on the pretext that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed “weapons of mass destruction” and had links to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. (Both claims were found to be untrue.) The UN Security Council could do absolutely nothing to prevent the invasion of Iraq; it could not even impose sanctions on the United States and Britain, which, as veto-holding members of the UN Security Council, had imposed UN sanctions on Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Although the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had publicly expressed his disappointment about the decision by the US and Britain to go to war with Iraq, and had even declared that the war was “illegal”—as it had not been sanctioned by the UN Security Council and violated the UN Charter—there was not much he could do. The war went ahead despite widespread anti-war protests on every continent around the globe. (Similar protests in Western capitals and in the Arab world have failed to convince both Biden and Netanyahu to stop the war against the Gazan people.) The George W. Bush and Tony Blair administrations did not listen to the voices of the millions of people who were opposed to the war, even as the death toll in Iraq reached alarming proportions.

How wars benefit the P-5 and the UN  

The fact is that the UN Security Council’s permanent veto-holding permanent members have never really been committed to world peace because wars keep their military industrial complexes going.  It is not lost on many people around the world that the permanent members of the UN Security Council also happen to be the biggest arms manufacturers in the world. The United States remains the biggest arms exporter in the world, followed by Russia, France and China, with Britain not very far behind. These countries have a vested interest in conflicts and in selling arms to non-arms manufacturing countries in Asia, Africa, and the rest of the world. They have no moral authority to preach peace to the world when they themselves benefit financially and geopolitically from war.

When wars occur in far-off places, arms manufacturers in these countries have a field day. Wars in former French colonies in Africa keep France’s military industrial complex well-oiled. Wars in the Middle East are viewed by British and American arms manufacturers as a boon for their arms industries. If there were no wars or civil conflicts in the world, these industries would have fewer or no customers.

The United States remains the biggest arms exporter in the world, followed by Russia, France and China, with Britain not very far behind.

Wars and other disasters also provide the UN an opportunity to fundraise for refugees and internally displaced people. The UN’s campaign in Yemen, for example, is not about ending the Saudi-led war against the Houthis, but about raising donations for the millions who are suffering as a result of the crisis. The UN, including the UN Secretary-General, views Yemen as a humanitarian crisis, not a political crisis. (Biden’s offer of assistance to Gaza also ignores the political dimension of the humanitarian crisis.) No sanctions have been imposed on Saudi Arabia for going to war in Yemen because Saudi Arabia is a strong ally of the US and a big importer of US-made weapons. Any resolution to sanction Saudi Arabia would no doubt be vetoed by the US. And because humanitarian crises fill up UN agencies’ coffers, UN humanitarian agencies are less focused on ending the political crisis—which would inevitably end the humanitarian crisis.

Reforming the UN Security Council 

The crisis in Gaza has underscored the need for the UN Security Council to be more democratic and inclusive. While giving just five nations permanent seats and veto-holding powers at the Security Council might have made sense when the UN was founded, in a world where most of the world’s population is concentrated in Asia and Africa, and where new regional powers are emerging, it is time to expand the Council, and include in it countries that are seriously committed to peace and stability rather than to wars and conflicts.

The UN Security Council, as currently constituted, mainly represents the interests of the winners of the Second World War, even though the world has changed considerably since then in terms of geopolitics, demographics, and economic influence. Emerging economies such as India (the second most populous country in the world after China), Brazil, and Nigeria (both regional powerhouses) not only hold sizeable populations, they are also becoming important economically. Some of these countries even have nuclear capability. They and others should have a say in UN Security Council decisions. Moreover, today’s most deadly wars are being waged by insurgents or terrorist groups, which have become transnational. So, new forms of international cooperation are required.

Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (regions that hold the majority of the world’s population) must demand to be included as permanent members of the Security Council. Most UN Security Council resolutions have to do with conflicts in Africa, yet African countries have little or no say in the passing of these resolutions, whether they be about imposing sanctions on a country, sending in peacekeepers to conflict zones or deciding whether or not a country should be invaded.

Most importantly, membership should be allocated to those countries that have no vested interest in the arms industry and which have not waged war on other countries since the Security Council was established in 1945—countries that are genuinely committed to world peace. And in order to eliminate the threat of nuclear war, absence of nuclear capability should be a condition for permanent membership.

However, if reforming the UN Security is not possible (because the P-5 will veto such a decision), then perhaps it is time to disband the Council altogether. There is no point in pretending anymore that there is a body in the UN that actually cares about preventing wars and human rights violations and has the clout and the will to do so.

Israel’s assault on Gaza has shown, once again, that the UN Security Council is ineffective when it comes to protecting the human rights of all people and preventing wars. Wars will continue as long as they serve the economic or geopolitical interests of the five permanent members of the UN, especially the United States.

There is no point in pretending anymore that there is a body in the UN that actually cares about preventing wars and human rights violations and has the clout and the will to do so.

The tragedy is that this war could fuel a wider war in the Middle East and beyond that might be hard to contain once it is unleashed. If that happens, the US must be held accountable for aiding and abetting an unjustified war that led to escalation of conflict in the region and resulted in colossal casualties and human rights violations.

For decades, Kibera has been touted as the largest and most famous slum in Africa (even though the former claim is exaggerated – Kibera is home to around 200,000 people, making it smaller than many other slums around the continent). Various celebrities, from former US president Barack Obama to comedian Chris Rock, have visited this informal settlement in Nairobi where people live in mud and tin shacks that lack the most basic amenities, like proper toilets and electricity in their homes. Kibera has also attracted a lot of NGOs that claim to improve the living conditions of the people living there. However, despite their visible presence, Kibera remains one of the poorest and most overcrowded slums in the world, with among the worst living conditions.

Slum upgrading efforts in Kibera by United Nations agencies and others have also largely failed. Kibera has seen three upgrading projects since 2004 but none has significantly improved residents’ lives. The main reasons for this, according to research by Urban ARK, a global research programme, are corruption, poor management, and lack of consultation with the slum residents. UN-Habitat’s slum upgrading programme in Kibera, for instance, which saw 1,200 families move to high-rise housing units, faced lawsuits from residents who claimed that the allocations were made unfairly. Studies have also found that many of the beneficiaries ended up renting out their units (because they needed the extra income or could not afford the repayments) and moving back to the slum.

Efforts to move slum dwellers out of slums have failed for many reasons, the most salient of which is that Nairobi’s urban poor – who work largely in the informal sector – can only afford to live in slums. The average monthly rent for a low-cost housing unit in places like Umoja is roughly 7,000 shillings a month, which is unaffordable for someone earning less than 20,000 shillings, especially when one factors in the cost of food, transport and school fees. In slums like Kibera, rents range from 2,000 to 5,000 shillings a month. (A World Bank study in 2016 found that the average Nairobian earns less than 30,000 shillings a month, an income that cannot service any kind of mortgage scheme, even that for low-income housing.)

Moreover, the majority of slum dwellers view themselves as temporary residents of slums (even if many end up spending their wholes lives there). Their aspiration is to eventually move out of the slum to better housing once their incomes improve or to use the money they make in the city to improve their housing in their rural villages. Slum dwellers in Nairobi do not yearn for better homes in the city; rather, they yearn for higher and steadier incomes (which will facilitate their eventual move out of the slum).

Slum residents in Nairobi also view slum upgrading efforts by the government and other agencies as slum eviction exercises, disguised as upgrading, which is not so far from the truth. In Mombasa, for instance, 520 tenants were evicted from Buxton estate to pave the way for a so-called low-cost housing project that only benefitted the rich and middle classes, as documented by the NGO Haki Yetu. Ninety per cent of the evictees moved to other slums as they could not afford to move into the units. What is even more scandalous is that 90 per cent of the units were allocated to the developer; the County Government of Mombasa got only 10 per cent. This project neither reduced the slum population in Mombasa, nor improved their lives.

Which is why the announcement by President William Ruto that Kibera will be history in ten years because every family living there will be moved to proper housing is probably sending shudders down the spine of every Kibera resident. Experience has shown that slum upgrading initiatives either benefit the developers of the housing or the rich and the middle classes who can afford to buy the upgraded units, as demonstrated by the Buxton case.

Secondly, given the authoritarian style of our current government, and its disdain for public participation or consultation with affected Kenyans, it is very likely that the Kibera project will be mired in secrecy and controversy. Perhaps the intention is not to ensure the residents of Kibera have a better quality of life but to grab the 630 acres of government land they live on, which, based on current market rates is worth more than 60 billion shillings. Which makes many wonder if this project is a state-sponsored land grab.

Conflicting claims to land ownership 

On the other hand, maybe there is a genuine effort by the government to improve living conditions in Kibera, to finally get rid of a slum that has remained an embarrassing eyesore for decades. However, before any plan is dreamed up for the slum dwellers, there must be genuine public participation and consultation with the residents and their associations because the case of Kibera is particularly complicated. For more than a century, the Nubian community living there has claimed that the land on which Kibera sits was given to them by the British colonial government as a reward for their service in the King’s African Rifles, a regiment of the colonial armed forces. However, despite living on the land for more than a century, post-colonial governments did not recognise the Nubian community’s ownership of the land. It was only in 2017 that President Uhuru Kenyatta granted a communal title for 288 acres to the community (that has its origins in Sudan). Any efforts to disenfranchise this much-marginalised group will no doubt be met with a lot of resistance.

Kibera’s land tenure status is further complicated by the fact that the structures in which people live are owned by private individuals who extract rents from the inhabitants. While the government claims ownership of the land, the poor-quality shacks residents live in are built and rented out by individuals who charge anywhere between 1,000 and 5,000 shillings in monthly rent. Landlords have made a killing from their slum rentals over the years, yet have done little to improve the structures or to provide basic amenities like toilets. They are likely to resist efforts to deny them this lucrative source of income. Tenants, on the other hand, will likely see the project as another slum eviction exercise. No one wants to live in a slum, but if the alternative proves untenable or has dire financial consequences, then there could be a backlash.

Do cities like Nairobi need slums?

More than two decades ago, Babar Mumtaz, a technical advisor to the UN in Indonesia made a startling claim – that cities in poor countries need slums because slum dwellers are a source of cheap labour that is used to build those cities. Slums reflect the level of economic activity in a city, he argued. Domestic workers, jua kali artisans, construction workers, street vendors – these people who live in slums make cities function. “While we should deplore the conditions in slums, we should see their formation as an indicator of urban success,” he wrote. “They provide a useful role in providing cheap (though not necessarily cheerful) housing for those who cannot or, as likely, will not, want to spend any more on housing than they possibly can,” he wrote.

Mumtaz further argued that slums will always exist as long as wages for low-income groups remain low. “I have yet to hear those wanting to get rid of slums and informal settlements make a plea for wages that allow affordable housing as a solution. As long as gross wage disparities exist (making it possible for cities to employ cheap labour), slums are here to stay,” he said.

No one wants to live in a slum, but if the alternative proves untenable or has dire financial consequences, then there could be a backlash.

Moreover, as I have stated before, Kenya’s urban poor are not interested in home ownership; rather, they are interested in earning higher incomes, getting and keeping jobs, and having access to improved infrastructure, like roads and sanitation. They do not want to enter into long-term mortgage arrangements, especially in an environment where jobs are insecure and low-paying. Any effort to force them to own homes will therefore fail. This is why even if low-cost housing units are built in Kibera, they will end up benefitting the rich and the middle classes.

The world over slums disappear when the incomes of people grow sufficiently enough to enable them to live in proper housing or when the authorities build affordable rental housing that is highly subsidised by the local authority (as happened in London in the 1950s after the Second World War when the authorities decided to get rid of slums and build affordable low-income rental housing). In a market-driven economy like Kenya’s, slums will only disappear when the majority of urban residents can afford better housing, and when the incomes of the general population rise to levels where they do not have to lead undignified lives in shacks. (There are no signs that the government is looking to build public rental housing, which would be a better option given that the majority of Kenyans cannot afford mortgages.)

We as a country are not there yet, and are not likely to reach high- or even middle-income status any time soon. We are still a very poor country with a per capita income of slightly more than US$2,000 a year, among the lowest in the world. The aim of this government should be to ensure that people enjoy incomes that are high enough to enable them to move out of slum conditions. This will automatically reduce the size of slum populations. But with the IMF-imposed policy of forcing higher taxes on struggling citizens, and a government eager to extract as much money from citizens without offering much in terms of employment and business opportunities in return (on the contrary, the harsh tax regime detailed in the Finance Bill 2023 is likely to close down many businesses and lead to massive layoffs), chances are the majority of Kenyans will remain poor for a very long time to come. And continue to live in slums.

The aim of this government should be to ensure that people enjoy incomes that are high enough to enable them to move out of slum conditions.

The Kibera housing project envisioned by the president is either a pipe dream, or a plot to evict Kibera’s residents so that some private developers (and their benefactors in the political class) can make enormous profits. The eviction of the residents will likely lead to the creation of slums elsewhere, and lead to much hardship for people who call Kibera home. It may also become the source of much conflict. Under the current extremely harsh economic conditions of high unemployment, high taxes, inflation, and a tanking economy, implementing such a project will be a foolhardy exercise.

As the two East African countries heighten competition against each other in providing transshipment logistics for the region’s landlocked countries, how the one-year-old Kenya Kwanza government employs its diplomatic tact to navigate a costly non-tariff barrier erected by Tanzania to deny Mombasa Port transit business will put Kenya in the spotlight.

Although the two countries can be applauded for tackling a significant number of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTBs) between them since President Samia Suluhu came to power – more than any previous administration – Tanzania has scored poorly on a single – sinister – NTB; the country has consistently failed to create a geofence on a 15-kilometre stretch of road past the Taveta-Holili One-Stop Border Post that would allow Kenya to use the new Voi-Taveta-Singida-Kobero link road to serve Burundi, Rwanda and some parts of Tanzania instead of the longer Central Corridor Road that connects them to the port of Dar es Salaam.

For a road section to be considered geofenced, it is supposed to have inspection points and cargo passing through it can be tracked electronically for taxation and avoidance of dumping of goods in a country. Geofencing also guards against cargo theft or loss while in transit.

The East African region has embraced this concept for a number of years now. The Northern Corridor route from Mombasa Port to Malaba and onward to Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi has been fully geofenced and the movement of cargo is monitored through a Regional Electronic Cargo Tracking System (ECTS) system operated by the Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA). Any slight movement of the goods outside the geofence sends a red alert for immediate action.

The absence of geofencing on that section of the Voi-Taveta-Singida-Kobero road has worked against Rwanda and Burundi, in particular, as they now use the much longer route to import through the port of Dar es Salaam.

To use the Taveta route, which was tarmacked in 2018, importers are forced to use the traditional bonds system that has been abandoned by the region, a tedious manual process that causes costly delays that surpass any benefit that would accrue from using the shortened distance.

Bilateral trade between Kenya and Tanzania was expected to get a major boost when the road was constructed and a One Stop Border Post (OSBP) at Taveta and Holili, hosting government agencies on either side of the border, was opened.

In Kenya, the new road deviates from the Northern Corridor at Voi town, making it the most important link between Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, especially for imports and exports. It was estimated that the OSBP would reduce transit time at the two border posts by 30 per cent.

“It’s a demonstration of the trust between the two countries and that the One People, One Destiny dream is slowly being realised through various East Africa Community initiatives,” Tanzania Authorities put it during the OSBP launch.

The Kenyan section of the Holili-Taveta-Mwatate Road is 135 km long. The section between Voi and Mwatate was not under the project since it was in good condition.

Up to 2003, at least 60 per cent of the cargo destined for Rwanda and Burundi passed through Mombasa and the Northern Corridor before traders began to shun the Kenyan facilities citing congestion at the port and insecurity and corruption on the roads, which Kenya comprehensively addressed in 2007 when it introduced Container Freight Stations (CFSs) that gave the port breathing space to tackle its perennial congestion problem by expanding port facilities.

According to Justus Nyarandi, the Executive Secretary of the Northern Corridor Transit Transport Coordination Authority (NCTTCA) headquartered in Mombasa, there is a great need to agree to geofence the Taveta Road section, which would allow the use of the single customs facility that allows some goods to be cleared and taxed at the points of entry.

Up to 2003, at least 60 per cent of the cargo destined for Rwanda and Burundi passed through Mombasa and the Northern Corridor.

NCTTCA has already presented this geofencing case to the East African Community Council of Ministers and is now roping in the Commissioners of Customs to compel Tanzania to geofence so that transporters can use Regional Electronic Cargo Tracking Seals (RECTS) instead of the tedious bond application and cancellation processes.

The NCTTCA’s annual Northern Corridor Transport Observatory Report for 2022 indicates that the port of Mombasa handled only 977 tonnes of cargo destined for Burundi, constituting 0.1 per cent of the transit market, and 181,286 tonnes of cargo for Rwanda, representing 4.2 per cent of the market. At over 75 per cent and 12 per cent for Uganda and South Sudan, respectively, these two countries are the biggest transit markets for Mombasa Port.

“The volume of the Burundi cargo passing through the port of Mombasa is too low. If the geofencing is implemented, the volume would go up to 30–40 per cent,” Nyarandi said, adding that by using the port of Mombasa, Rwanda and Burundi would cut the transit distance by between 300 and 400 kilometres, translating to a significant drop in the cost of fuel and reducing the cost of transport, the crossing of two border points notwithstanding.

The new route was expected to open up fresh competition between Kenya and Tanzania, especially for transit cargo. For over a decade now, the two countries have strived to outsmart each other to become the preferred hub for the East African regional transit market. Rwanda and Burundi prefer to use Dar es Salaam Port while South Sudan prefers Mombasa Port.

Due to the emerging strength of the port of Dar es Salaam in recent years, the Kenyan government has initiated a number of reforms to cement its position as the gateway to East and Central Africa. For instance, it has now increased the free storage days before the return of empty containers to the shipping lines from 9 to 15 days.

The Intergovernmental Steering Committee on Ease of Doing Business through the Port Reforms Working Group High-Level Consultative Forum recently made a raft of recommendations that, once fully implemented, will make the Northern Corridor more competitive.

The conveners of the forum were led by the Head of State, President William Ruto, the Council of Governors Chairperson Ann Waiguru, the Cabinet Secretary in charge of the Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry Moses Kuria, Roads and Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen, and Salim Mvurya, Cabinet Secretary in charge of Mining, Blue Economy, and Maritime Affairs.

In a report released in July 2023, the forum tasked all the Partner Government Agencies (PGA) involved in cargo clearance and the private sector to embrace round-the-clock work including weekends to ensure faster clearance of goods and improve cargo dwell time and ship turnaround.

The county governments through which the corridor traverses were asked to stop levying cess or any fees on transit trucks to facilitate international trade and improve the competitiveness of the Northern Corridor.

The report noted that there is a need to review and harmonise the charges levied by various shipping lines and to regulate the arbitrary charges introduced by other cargo interveners that have made Mombasa Port more expensive by up to US$500 per container, the report noted.

“Shipping lines operating in Mombasa Port grant 9 days free period for the return of the empty containers for local imports, 30 days for Uganda, and 15 days for Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan cargo. The ports of Dar es Salaam, Durban, and Egypt grant more days. This makes the port of Mombasa non-competitive and discourages customers from using the facility since they incur demurrage charges due to the shorter free period by shipping lines taking into account the transit distance for DRC and South Sudan,” the report said.

Dar es Salaam Port does not charge shippers Terminal Handling Charges and Lift-on/Lift-off (LoLo) while Mombasa Port charges US$99 and US$148 for a 20ft and a 40ft container, respectively, for the former, and US$30 and US$40 for a 20ft and a 40ft container, respectively, for the latter.

Other unique charges levied by the shipping lines in Mombasa Port include Container Cleaning Charges, Container Management Fees, Logistics Management Fees and Equipment Management Fees.

KRA was also asked to acquire additional drive-through scanners. This will minimise scanning delays and result in efficient cargo offtake at the port of Mombasa, with the task force recommending fast-tracking of the Customs Agents and Freight Forwarders’ Bill that has been developed by the Federation of East African Freight Forwarders Associations (FEAFFA) to professionalise the sector.

Compared to Mombasa Port, Dar es Salaam Port is rapidly closing existing infrastructural gaps and it has gone up in World Bank rankings. Kenya now ranks below both the port of Dar Salaam and Port Berbera in Somaliland.

Of a total of 348 ports surveyed in 2022, the World Bank’s annual Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) ranked Mombasa – the largest port in East Africa – at position 326; Dar es Salaam, its main regional competitor, was ranked at 312.

This compares poorly with the 2021 CPPI report that ranked the port of Mombasa at 296 and Dar es Salaam Port at 316. In the 2022 CPPI report, Kenya also compares poorly with both Djibouti Port and Port Berbera – the two biggest competitors for Lamu Port – which were ranked at 26 and 144, respectively.

Dar Port ranking has been boosted by new infrastructure projects; Tanzania Ports Authority (TPA) projects currently at different stages of implementation include the expansion and modernisation of the Indian Ocean ports of Dar es Salaam, Tanga and Mtwara, as well as the lake ports of Mwanza and Kigoma.

Dar es Salaam port is rapidly closing existing infrastructural gaps and it has gone up in World Bank rankings.

Other projects in the pipeline include the establishment of Kwala Dry Port, the construction of a Standard Gauge Railway, paving trunk roads and overhauling the operations of the Tanzania-Zambia Railways Authority (Tazara).

The expansion and modernisation of the port under the Dar es Salaam Maritime Gateway Project (DMGP) includes strengthening and deepening of berths 1 to 7 and the Roll-on/Roll-off terminal (berth 0) at Gerezani Creek; dredging of the entrance channel, turning circle and harbour basin; strengthening and deepening berths 8–11. The Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) terminal, which has a capacity of 600,000 vehicles annually, has already been completed. Last year, the new 320-meter berth broke both its own handling capacity record and those of all other Eastern and Southern African ports – except South Africa – by accommodating the cargo ship MOL Tranquil Ace to discharge 3,743 cars.

Dar es Salaam Port is contributing US$357 million to the DMGP, a World Bank project financed through an International Development Association Scale-up Facility credit. The project, which was initiated in 2017 and will be finalised 2024, will support the financing of crucial investments in the Port of Dar es Salaam with the aim of improving its effectiveness and efficiency for the benefit of public and private stakeholders.

The DMGP will increase Dar es Salaam Port’s capacity from the current 15 million metric tonnes annually to 28 million tonnes.

For the port of Mombasa to remain competitive, maritime experts propose that the government cede its development to the private sector. It took about ten years to construct three berths at Lamu Port with Kenya government funding, a luxury the port of Mombasa may not enjoy owing to the growth in cargo volumes, which almost surpassed 34 million metric tonnes of total throughput last year. Studies show that the port will surpass its maximum capacity by 2028.

Privatising the port would require political goodwill. Efforts to have the port operations privatised have always faced resistance from the region’s politicians and the giant Dock Workers Union (DWU) that has successfully prosecuted the matter in the courts. Privatisation has been wrongly perceived as a strategy to cut down the workforce.

With the lack of capacity at the state-run KPA, Dubai Port World (DP World) has already expressed interest in managing Lamu Port. It has also expressed interest in running other Kenyan ports. Located in Dubai, DP World UAE is at the heart of DP World. It is home to the flagship Jebel Ali Port, the premier maritime commercial gateway and hub to a region of more than 3.5 billion people. It has a huge portfolio managing many ports globally, including in Africa.

For the port of Mombasa to remain competitive, maritime experts propose that the government cede its development to the private sector.

This year, President William Ruto’s administration said Kenya will lease the operations and management of five critical ports through an ambitious KSh1.4 trillion public-private partnership (PPP) aimed at revitalising the country’s maritime industry.

Efforts to increase the port infrastructure at the port of Mombasa have in the past maintained a good pace, however. KPA has completed the construction of Phase 2 of the Second Container Terminal (CT2) and brought on board an additional capacity of 450,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs). The new facility increased the Mombasa port capacity to 2.1 million TEUs. It acquired modern cargo handling equipment this year, which has enhanced its capacity to go into the transshipment business should the KRA reduce the customs procedures that have caused shipping lines to shy away from using Kenya’s ports.

KPA recently commissioned the Kipevu Oil Terminal (KOT) which will have four berths capable of handling the import and export of five different hydrocarbon products including crude oil, heavy fuel oil, LPG and three types of white oil products. The KSh40 billion KOT facility will enable Kenya to double its capacity to handle transit products related to energy and petroleum.

The construction of the Standard Gauge Railway connecting Mombasa Port to Naivasha has already been completed. Kenya has also constructed the Inland Container Depot in Naivasha that is serving its Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) transit markets. It has also rehabilitated the MGR line to Malaba, where an ICD is to be constructed.

Last year, the KRA launched the Integrated Customs Management System (iCMS) which has reduced the paperwork cargo clearance period from 24 hours to under 10 minutes. The system was also integrated into the National Open Electrical Single Window System, which is operated by KenTrade, and has fully automated the cargo clearance processes.

As Mombasa Port moves towards maximum utilisation, there is a great need to also focus on Lamu as an alternative port and how it can be connected to the existing corridors by seeking private partnerships. The enthusiasm with which the government has rolled out infrastructure development at Mombasa Port should be replicated in Lamu Port.

Tanzanian has proposed to construct the biggest port in the region at Bagamoyo. President Samia Suluhu last year hinted that she would revive the construction of the Bagamoyo port project that was initiated by the former Tanzanian head of state Jakaya Kikwete, who is now an advisor to the current president. The project was blocked by the late President John Magufuli when he took power. If it intends to remain the regional transshipment hub, Kenya needs to keep its own eyes wide open, considering that other competing ports – Djibouti and Berbera – are rapidly expanding.