In early July, Uganda doubled the visa entry fees from $50 to $100 for all non-tourist visitors. Although it is not unusual for countries to increase their visa fees, doubling them raises some serious concerns.

In the case of Uganda, we should be concerned about the country’s attitude towards investment and tourism, as well as its alignment with the EAC’s Common Market Protocol.

Uganda’s decision reignites the age-old debate about state sovereignty. The debate’s underlying issue is the extent to which states retain their sovereignty when they join a commonwealth of states, in this case the EAC.

We can evaluate Uganda’s decision as an act of a sovereign state, whereby immigration policy is a state’s right. But Uganda has also signed the EAC Common Market Protocol, which outlines the immigration roadmap for the region.

The freedoms granted in the Protocol include free movement of persons, goods, labour, services and capital and the right to establishment and residence.

One product of the protocol is the East African Tourist Visa. The visa was negotiated by partner states to allow non-EAC visitors to traverse the economic bloc without the necessity of obtaining entry visas for each partner state upon payment of $100. Within the EAC, a model of sharing visa fees has been agreed upon.

However, this decision has not been fully implemented by all the partner states. This will mean that a tourist visiting Uganda will have to pay just as much as one who visits the country, but with the option of going to other countries in the region courtesy of the single tourist visa.

At first glance, Uganda’s decision is not contradictory to the Common Market Protocol. After all, EAC citizens are exempted from visa requirements within the region so the impact only affects travellers from outside the bloc.

However, the EU-modelled EAC also seeks economic development over and above integration. Whereas it may be admirable to have a political federation, it is more desirable to develop an economically thriving region. A decision by one partner state impacts the other states as well as the larger region.

The doubled fee for visas to Uganda posits several hypothetical trajectories for Kenya and other EAC policymakers.

Kenya has positioned itself as a quality-oriented tourist destination, but has suffered a series of insecurity incidents. Should Kenya also consider increasing the visa fees on the basis of revenue requirements and more effective deterrence of improperly documented persons?

In line with the EAC integration agenda, Kenya may instead opt to rally partner states to standardise the different entry visa fees charged by the respective countries in the region.

Under this arrangement, partner states will have the option of either adjusting the fees upward or having the entire region charge visa fees at the current levels. Such a discussion would require the support of each state since the decision has to be arrived at by consensus.

These hypothetical trajectories for visa fees policymaking should be evaluated for efficacy, efficiency and alignment to protocols and the objectives of integration.

State sovereignty alone is not justification enough for a decision that impacts a wider region. In Kenya, policymakers should make sense of Uganda’s position and act accordingly.

Robert Aswani is a manager with PwC Kenya’s human resource solutions-visa unit in tax services.