The International Institute for Legislative Affairs (IILA) has called for stronger safeguards in regional trade negotiations to prevent tobacco industry interference from undermining public health protections.
In a fact sheet titled ‘Unmasking Tobacco Industry Interference in Regional Trade’, released in October 2026, IILA examines how tobacco companies may use regional and continental trade frameworks, particularly those of the East African Community (EAC) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), to challenge or circumvent national tobacco-control laws.
It identifies four areas of concern: the use of regional trade arrangements to move tobacco products across borders, industry influence in legislative discussions, legal challenges to tobacco-control measures and investment protection provisions in trade agreements.
Celine Awour, IILA CEO, said tobacco industry interference extends beyond public health institutions and can also affect trade negotiations and other government processes.
“What we need to look at in terms of legislation and policy strengthening is strengthening Article 5.3 implementation and enforcement,” Awour said, referring to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
She said safeguards against conflicts of interest should extend beyond health institutions to other ministries, departments and agencies involved in tobacco control.
Awour said regional trade negotiations require coordination between health and trade institutions to ensure public health concerns are considered during discussions and implementation of trade agreements.
The fact sheet examines how tobacco manufacturers may centralise production in one country and use regional trade arrangements to move products across borders, potentially undermining public health measures in neighbouring countries.
It also raises concerns about industry arguments presented to parliamentary committees and government ministries, including claims that higher tobacco taxes encourage illicit trade and smuggling. The document calls for greater transparency in policy submissions and independent scrutiny of such claims.
Shisha ban
Another area highlighted is the legal challenge involving Kenya’s shisha ban, which the fact sheet discusses in relation to procedural issues and weaknesses in the enforcement of public health regulations.
The document further examines investment protection provisions in trade agreements, including the AfCFTA Protocol on Investment, and international disputes.
Dr Peter Magati, a development economist at Development Hub, said the study examined vulnerable points where tobacco industry interference could affect the relationship between trade and public health.
“We thought to look at the different vulnerable points or the underbellies where we have experienced or we are experiencing tobacco industry interference, especially from a trade perspective,” Magati said.
He said the research involved consultations with stakeholders from the Ministry of Trade, the Kenya Revenue Authority, the National Treasury and the Ministry of Health. Researchers also held discussions with individuals from the AfCFTA Secretariat in Accra, Ghana, and trade officials within the East African Community.
Magati said the study identified the use of regional legislation as one of the avenues through which the tobacco industry could challenge national tobacco-control measures.
“One of them obviously is looking at how the industry uses the regional legislation such as the East African Customs Union,” he said.
Magati also raised concerns about industry arguments being repeated by policymakers without independent verification.
“When you see policymakers putting up statements and it’s the same statements that are given, the technical statements that are given by the industry, we see the industry using these avenues as echo chambers to pass their narratives,” he said.
He said the study further examined how procedural gaps in regulations could be used to challenge public health measures, citing the legal proceedings involving Kenya’s shisha ban.
Another area of concern, Magati said, was the use of investment treaties and legal mechanisms that could affect governments’ ability to introduce or maintain public health protections.
He said the study also sought to highlight the protections available to countries under the AfCFTA, including provisions that recognise their ability to safeguard public health.
“Our aim in studying the Africa Continental Free Trade Agreement is to actually highlight to policymakers, civil society, academia, people who have interest in the health benefits of our people in the country and in Africa to understand that there are certain provisions that are already there that provides the right or gives strength to countries to actually protect its national public health,” Magati said.
He said the study had two main objectives: identifying vulnerable areas in existing legislation and policy, and bringing the findings to the attention of policymakers and other stakeholders.
“The main aim of this particular study is two things. One, to identify the vulnerable points that we have in our legislation and in the policy direction that we have, looking at where the industry is trying to exploit,” Magati said.
He added that the AfCFTA was important for Africa’s economic integration but required careful scrutiny to ensure that trade processes did not undermine public health gains.
“However, the industry, the multinationals, can exploit it to their own benefit. And if we as health practitioners, health advocates are not careful to study the process, then we find ourselves in a position where reversing the gains becomes very difficult,” he said.
The fact sheet recommends making submissions by industry actors to trade and finance ministries publicly accessible, involving the Ministry of Health in national AfCFTA implementation processes, strengthening evidence-based fact-checking and safeguarding tobacco track-and-trace systems.
IILA says stronger coordination between health and trade institutions is necessary to ensure that regional trade arrangements do not weaken national tobacco-control efforts.
