Africa’s drive for deeper regional integration rests on widespread public backing for the free flow of people and goods. According to the Afrobarometer African Insights Report, 56% of Africans support allowing individuals to move freely across borders for work and trade, reflecting a clear desire for economic unity and cooperation. However, this support exists alongside significant reservations, with 40% of citizens favouring restrictions to protect domestic jobs and resources.
This gap between aspiration and experience is quantified in the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) Visa Openness Index, which consistently shows that Africans still require visas to travel to 47% of other African countries. Consequently, the continent remains bifurcated: ideologically pan-African in the abstract, but operationally fragmented on the ground. The visa-free travel promised by the African Union’s Protocol on Free Movement of Persons—ratified by only a handful of nations—remains a distant goal rather than a functioning reality, trapping the majority in a procedural quagmire of consular applications and border delays.
READ ALSO: The Future of Urban Mobility: Electric Motorcycles Are Transforming African Cities
The 40% who advocate for strict limits on cross-border movement are not acting irrationally; they are responding to harsh labour market realities in economies characterised by high informality and underemployment. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimates that over 80% of Africa’s employment is informal, with youth unemployment exceeding 25% in countries like South Africa and Nigeria.
In this context, even perceived competition from foreign workers becomes politically charged. The fear that “foreigners take jobs” is a potent narrative, mirrored in findings that 64% of citizens prefer limiting or halting the entry of new foreign job seekers. This protectionist sentiment directly fuels movements like Operation Dudula in South Africa and other grassroots anti-immigrant groups that frame economic precarity as a zero-sum game between locals and foreigners. For national governments, this dynamic makes the politics of free movement exceptionally volatile.
The counterintuitive finding that the wealthiest, most educated, and highly skilled Africans are the most resistant to immigration reveals an inverted dynamic compared to trends in Europe or North America. Data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) indicates that Africa faces a severe shortage of high-skill human capital, producing only a fraction of the engineers, doctors, and managers needed for its population size.
However, this very scarcity means that the small, domestic professional class enjoys a “scarcity premium” in the labour market, marked by artificially high wages and guaranteed employment. An analysis by the Centre for Global Development suggests that these elites rationally oppose free movement to protect these benefits. They view skilled diaspora returnees or continental migrants not as collaborators, but as direct competitors for a limited number of lucrative positions in multinational corporations, government, and the formal private sector.
Regional dynamics also vary dramatically. West African support for open borders stands at 69%, contrasting sharply with South Africa (51% favouring strict controls) and Botswana (68%). This divergence is rooted in distinct integration histories:
• ECOWAS Legacy: The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has a decades-long legacy of free movement protocols. Citizens have enjoyed visa-free travel and, in principle, the right of residence and establishment since 1979.
• SADC Restrictions: In contrast, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has remained far more restrictive, with South Africa’s economy acting as a powerful magnet in a region of deep inequality.
According to Statistics South Africa, the country hosts over 3.9 million international migrants, making it the continent’s largest migration destination. This visible concentration, combined with an official unemployment rate exceeding 32%, foments a fortress mentality where domestic economic failures are externalised onto a perceived migrant “threat.” This occurs despite World Bank studies showing that immigrants in South Africa contribute positively to the fiscal balance and fill critical skills gaps.
The coexistence of high social tolerance (77% comfortable with foreign neighbours) and protectionist economic views (44% believing immigrants harm the economy) illustrates a sophisticated public capable of distinguishing between interpersonal and systemic concerns. This aligns with findings from the World Values Survey, which show that Africans score high on trust in known individuals but harbour deep anxieties about abstract economic competition.
However, this social tolerance remains fragile. Research from the African Centre for Migration & Society documents how localised economic shocks—such as the closure of a mine or factory—can rapidly transform neighbourly tolerance into xenophobic mobilisation, scapegoating foreign-owned shops and migrant workers. The social fabric is resilient during periods of stability, but highly vulnerable to tearing when mediated through acute material deprivation and political rhetoric that blames migrants for systemic governance failures.
Practical barriers—such as corruption, high visa costs, and logistical delays cited by 63% of respondents—act as a direct tax on productivity and regional value chains. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) calculates that the average cost of moving goods across an African border is 50% higher than in East Asia.
Bribery remains endemic; Afrobarometer’s cross-national surveys show that citizens rate border officials among the most corrupt public service providers, alongside traffic police. These delays disproportionately harm small-scale cross-border traders, who are predominantly women. A UN Women report found that female traders in the Great Lakes region lose an average of 12% of their profit margins to bribes and informal payments at border posts. This friction directly suppresses the potential of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), as a manufacturer in Accra faces higher costs integrating with a supplier in Lomé than a Chinese competitor does shipping to the same market.
Despite the flagship status of the AU’s Protocol on Free Movement of Persons, Right of Residence, and Right of Establishment, its ratification has stalled. Only 32 AU member states have signed it, and a mere four have ratified it.
The primary obstacle is a sovereignty paradox: governments fear losing bilateral control over labour markets and national security. Data from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) shows that 80% of African migration occurs within the continent, often through irregular channels due to the absence of legal pathways. This lack of ratification creates a self-defeating cycle: the absence of legal frameworks fuels irregular migration, which in turn provokes security crackdowns and border closures, further entrenching the very barriers the Protocol seeks to dismantle. Ultimately, governments prioritise short-term political expediency over long-term collective gains.
Conversely, the finding that Africans living near land borders strongly support free movement reflects the grassroots economic logic of integration. For border communities, a boundary is often an artificial barrier dividing a single economic and cultural ecosystem.
Research by the AfDB on major border posts like Busia (Kenya–Uganda) and Seme (Nigeria–Benin) demonstrates that local populations engage in daily, high-intensity cross-border commerce that formal GDP statistics fail to capture. These communities intuitively understand the trade and livelihood opportunities that free mobility enables. Consequently, they are the most direct victims of sudden border closures—such as those during the COVID-19 pandemic or political disputes—where abrupt shutdowns can devastate local economies overnight. Their support for free movement is not an abstract political preference, but a practical lesson in economic survival.
Resistance from educated and wealthy elites is less a rejection of migration itself than a defence of monopolistic privilege in segmented labour markets. A study by the Migration Policy Institute reveals that professional bodies in many African countries actively lobby against the mutual recognition of qualifications across Regional Economic Communities (RECs), shielding their members from continental competition.
For example, lawyers, architects, and doctors often face fewer regulatory barriers to practice in London or Paris than in a neighbouring African country—a stark anomaly of regulatory protectionism. This elite resistance aligns with Afrobarometer findings showing that “targeted competition” in white-collar sectors drives opposition. The African Union’s push for a Continental Qualifications Framework represents a direct attempt to dismantle these professional cartels, though it continues to face fierce lobbying from associations benefiting from closed-shop environments.
Africa’s free movement paradox—where majority support is strangled by protectionism and poor facilitation—demands a policy approach that is simultaneously bold, pragmatic, and carefully sequenced. The path forward is not a simplistic call for open borders, but a targeted strategy to dismantle the procedural barriers driving public frustration.
Achieving this requires investing in actionable, immediate solutions:
• Abolishing visas for AfCFTA signatories (following the lead of Seychelles, Benin, Rwanda, and The Gambia)
• Digitising border management to eliminate corrupt human interfaces
• Launching targeted public campaigns explaining how controlled labour mobility expands the overall economic pie
Closing the gap between the 56% who support free movement and the 63% who face severe travel difficulties means making African border points of connection rather than sites of extortion. Only then can the continent build a truly integrated market from the ground up.
