Editor’s note: In this opinion, Martin Chomba argues that the proposed multilateral refinery in Tanga, Tanzania, reflects ambition but rests on fragile political foundations, as East African cooperation lacks the institutional cohesion to withstand shifting national interests and leadership changes. He contends that Kenya risks compromising its energy security by relying on shared infrastructure it does not control. He urges the country to prioritise building its own domestic refining capacity before engaging in deeper regional integration.
The idea of a shared refinery in Tanga—backed by Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and now Rwanda—has been presented as a bold symbol of East African unity. On the surface, it reflects the spirit of regional cooperation and economic integration. But beneath that optimism lies a deeper, more uncomfortable truth: multilateral ambition without political cohesion is structurally fragile.
We are living in a time when global realities are shifting. The world is quietly, but decisively, moving away from multilateralism toward strategic nationalism. Countries are prioritizing energy security, supply chain control, and domestic resilience over shared dependency. Even established blocs like the European Union are experiencing internal strain when political leadership changes or national interests diverge.
This is the fundamental flaw in the Tanga refinery proposition
Multilateral projects in East Africa are not anchored in a unified political structure. They are dependent on goodwill between governments and, more critically, on individual political leaders. Leadership, by nature, is transient. Policies shift. Priorities change. And when that happens, shared infrastructure becomes vulnerable—not because the idea was wrong, but because the foundation was incomplete.
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline already demonstrates how strategic infrastructure can be geographically and politically concentrated outside Kenya’s direct control. Extending that model into refining capacity introduces even greater risk. It potentially places a critical component of Kenya’s energy security within a framework it does not fully control.
Kenya must think carefully—and strategically
We are not a landlocked country searching for access. We have direct access to the sea through the Port of Mombasa, and we are developing additional capacity through the LAPSSET Corridor. We have an established downstream petroleum logistics ecosystem and proximity to crude sources in the region. These are not minor advantages—they are strategic assets.
The question, therefore, is not whether East Africa should cooperate. It is a question of whether cooperation should come before or after capacity.
My view is simple: Kenya must first build its own refinery capacity within its borders. This is not a rejection of regional integration; it is a recognition of the need for sequencing. National strength must precede regional dependence. Once Kenya has secured its energy infrastructure and strengthened its internal systems, it can then engage in regional frameworks from a position of stability and influence.
Without that foundation, we risk building agreements that are vulnerable to political shifts, leadership transitions, and competing national interests.
True integration is not declared—it is built. And it must be anchored in strong political institutions, not personalities.
Until East Africa develops a cohesive political framework that guarantees continuity beyond individual leaders, large-scale multilateral infrastructure projects will remain exposed.
Kenya must not confuse aspiration with strategy.
We must build Kenya first.
The author is Martin Chomba, a PhD student in Development Studies and the Petroleum Outlets Association of Kenya (POAK) chair.
The views presented here are those of the writer and do not represent the position of News Nine.
Discussion about this post