Discussions of regional integration often centre on economic indicators such as market entry, trade liberalisation, capital flows and the elimination of non-tariff obstacles. Yet the true impact of such schemes hinges on whether the obligations created at the regional level can be interpreted, enforced and adjudicated within national jurisdictions. This consideration is especially pertinent for Zambia. As a participant in the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), Zambia is bound by a regional legal-economic architecture that influences trade, investment, competition, finance and market accessibility. Consequently, the COMESA Court of Justice plays a key role in transforming regional commitments from political statements into enforceable legal duties.
Domestication and regional alignment
On 8 December 1994, Zambia gave its formal consent to the COMESA Treaty, thereby undertaking obligations that arise under the COMESA legal order both regionally and internationally. Nonetheless, Zambia generally adheres to a dualist system of international law, meaning that treaty provisions do not automatically acquire domestic legal force merely through ratification.
For a treaty provision to obtain effect inside Zambia, it must be incorporated by legislation or another recognised domestic mechanism. In this context, the Ratification of International Agreements Act No 34 of 2016—enabled by Articles 63(2)(e) and 92(2)(c) of the Constitution of Zambia (Amendment) Act No 2 of 2016—provides a framework for the ratification and domestication of international accords, defining “domestication” as the act of granting legal effect to an international agreement via legislation or other enforceable means.
Accordingly, it would be inaccurate to claim that the entire COMESA Treaty has automatically become part of Zambian law. The precise situation is that Zambia’s ratification creates binding regional duties, while the ability to enforce any particular treaty clause domestically depends on whether that clause or related COMESA instruments have been formally incorporated into Zambian statutes.
The jurisdiction of the COMESA Court stems directly from the treaty itself. When the treaty confers jurisdiction on the court and the procedural prerequisites are satisfied, a matter may be properly lodged before it. The COMESA dispute-resolution system should also be understood alongside Zambia’s domestic trade, investment and competition laws.
The Competition and Consumer Protection Act No 24 of 2010 serves as Zambia’s chief competition and consumer-protection law. It establishes the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission and governs restrictive agreements, abuse of dominance, merger control, unfair trading practices and consumer-protection issues. The Competition and Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act No. 21 of 2023 strengthens this framework by expressly incorporating the COMESA Competition Regulations in relation to economic activity that impacts Zambia and has an effect in at least two COMESA member states.
The Investment, Trade and Business Development Act No. 18 of 2022 is also relevant because it promotes trade, investment, exports, industrial development, and business growth, while recognising Zambia’s participation in regional markets such as COMESA. Although this Act does not itself confer jurisdiction on the COMESA Court, it illustrates Zambia’s policy alignment with regional trade and investment integration. Collectively, these statutes reveal a growing domestic recognition of the regional character of trade, investment and competition regulation.
For businesses operating across borders, the distinction between a treaty duty and a domestic statute is material. When a company encounters a trade barrier that originates from a COMESA provision, the initial task is to ascertain whether that specific rule has been transcribed into Zambian law. If it has not, the company may still invoke the treaty directly before the regional court, but that route involves procedural requirements distinct from a conventional civil action in a Zambian court.
Relevance to investment disputes
The significance of the COMESA Court of Justice lies in its capacity to give legal effect to regional integration. For Zambia, COMESA membership extends beyond commercial cooperation or political pledges; it also generates legal responsibilities that can influence traders, investors, regulators and public bodies. A notable illustration is the case titled The Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank v Republic of Zambia, Reference No. 1 of 2010.
In that proceeding, the Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank initiated action against Zambia concerning the privileges and immunities of institutions created under the COMESA Treaty and the PTA Bank Charter. Although the matter was ultimately discontinued, it remains instructive because it shows how regional duties can intersect with domestic legal processes, institutional immunities and the obligations of member states under COMESA instruments.
A more recent authority is Tewodros Getachew Tulu v COMESA Secretariat, COMESA Secretary General and Others, Reference No. 1 of 2025 (Tulu). Although this was not a trade or investment dispute against Zambia, it is relevant because the COMESA Court, sitting in Lusaka, considered issues concerning the governance and institutional integrity of COMESA, particularly the election and appointment of judges to the court. The Tulu decision demonstrates that the COMESA Court is capable of reviewing the legality of actions taken by COMESA organs. For Zambia, as an active COMESA member and a jurisdiction linked to COMESA proceedings, the case shows the importance of a functional and independent regional judiciary.
Appeals, procedure and enforcement
The COMESA Court has a First Instance Division and an Appellate Division. Appeals lie to the Appellate Division on limited grounds, namely points of law, lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity. An appeal is therefore not a full rehearing of the matter. Proceedings before the court are commenced by filing a reference with the registrar. A reference must contain the parties’ details, a concise statement of facts, the relief sought, supporting documents, witness statements where applicable, and proof of authority to act such as a practicing certificate by counsel from a member state.
The COMESA Competition Commission as a related mechanism
By incorporating the COMESA Competition Regulations into domestic law for economic activity affecting Zambia and at least two COMESA member states, Zambia has given regional competition rules a clearer domestic footing. Several Zambia-related matters before the COMESA Competition Commission illustrate this development.
These include the merger between Access Bank Zambia Limited and Cavmont Bank Limited (filed as CCC/MER/9/22/2020) and the proposed transaction involving First National Bank Zambia Limited and the wealth and retail business of Standard Chartered Bank Zambia PLC (filed as CCC/MER/11/50/2025). These examples indicate that regional dispute resolution within COMESA should be viewed broadly: the COMESA Court offers a judicial forum for treaty-based conflicts, whereas the COMESA Competition Commission supplies a regulatory forum for competition and consumer-protection issues with cross-border implications.