When President Yoweri Museveni recently remarked that the Indian Ocean “belongs to all of us” and hinted that future tensions could arise over access, reactions ranged from laughter to concern. But beneath the headlines was a serious point often lost in the noise: being landlocked is not a neutral geographic fact. It carries profound economic costs, political risks, and historical roots that many rarely consider.

More importantly—and this is the core of Museveni’s argument—access to the sea isn’t just a matter of negotiation or goodwill. It is a right recognised and protected by international law.

A Problem Africa Didn’t Create

To understand why this matters, we must return to 1884–85, when European powers sat in Berlin and carved up a continent without African input. Borders were drawn with straight lines and rulers, ignoring existing trade routes, ethnic communities, and natural geography.

Some territories were granted ports and open ocean access. Others—like Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan, and the DRC—were locked inland.

That colonial map still dictates today’s reality. Consider this:

· 16 African countries are landlocked
· They face higher transport costs and slower trade
· Their economies depend on their neighbours’ infrastructure and political stability

Landlocked status is more than geography—it is an active legacy that stifles growth, complicates diplomacy, and undermines economic sovereignty.

The Real Cost of Being Landlocked

In a world where nearly 90% of trade travels by sea, countries without ports operate at a structural disadvantage. They face:

· Higher shipping and insurance costs
· Longer delays for imports and exports
· Reduced competitiveness on the global stage
· Vulnerability to political disputes with transit nations

Uganda learned this lesson starkly in 1986 when Kenya briefly closed the border. Overnight, Uganda’s primary trade route through Mombasa was severed. Though not a single shot was fired, the economic squeeze was immediate and severe.

Incidents like that underscore Museveni’s central point: a nation’s economic lifeline should not depend on temporary goodwill or the political mood of a neighbour. It must be systematic, reliable, and guaranteed.

The Legal Blueprint: A Right, Not a Favour

When Museveni invoked international law, he wasn’t improvising. He was pointing to a century-old global commitment designed to prevent the very tensions he warned about.

Here’s what the law actually says:

1. The Barcelona Convention (1921): The Foundation
Established in the aftermath of World War I,this convention introduced the foundational principle of “freedom of transit.” In simple terms, it states that if your neighbour has a coast and you don’t, they must allow your goods to pass through fairly and without obstruction. It framed coastal access not as a privilege but as a responsibility to the hinterland.

2. UNCLOS (1982): The Ocean’s Constitution
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea modernised and strengthened these rights.For landlocked countries, Part X (Articles 124–132) is crucial.

· Article 125 establishes that landlocked states "have the right of access to and from the sea."
· Coastal states are forbidden from discriminating or imposing special taxes solely for transit.
· The law obligates nations to cooperate in "good faith" to establish transit agreements.

This isn’t a mere suggestion—it’s a binding principle of international law.

3. WTO Rules (GATT Article V): The Enforcement Tool
The World Trade Organization adds enforceable teeth to these rights.It mandates that there be no unnecessary delays, discriminatory charges, or restrictions on goods in transit. If a coastal country illegally blocks or hinders trade, it isn’t just being unfriendly—it’s violating global trade law and can face formal disputes.

Museveni’s point is therefore legally sound: the world has already agreed on the principle. The struggle is in its execution.

The Gap Between Law and Reality

This is where the frustration truly lies. The right exists on paper, but its implementation hinges on infrastructure, efficiency, and consistent political will. Goods still face delays at borders, unpredictable fees, and the risk of political disruption.

Museveni’s candid tone, therefore, is a strategic move. It shifts the conversation from “Should Uganda have access?” to the more pressing question: “We already have the right—so when will it function smoothly and predictably?”

A Reassuring Response—and a Path Forward

In a testament to regional maturity, Kenya’s Prime Cabinet Secretary, Musalia Mudavadi, responded with exactly the right spirit: calm, clear, and cooperative. He reaffirmed that Uganda’s access to the Indian Ocean is guaranteed.

This reassurance is significant. It signals a shared understanding that the future of East Africa depends on interconnection, not isolation.

A Better Future: Connected, Not Confined

If the East African Community continues to deepen its integration—through shared port infrastructure, harmonised customs, and a future political federation—the term “landlocked” will become obsolete for its member states.

They will be “sea-linked,” much like nations in the European Union, where German industry relies on Dutch and Belgian ports as seamlessly as its own. In such a future, Museveni’s comment won’t sound controversial. It will sound obvious.

The Bigger Message

President Museveni was not joking, threatening, or demanding ownership of a coastline. He was issuing a reminder of three fundamental truths:

1. Africa’s borders were not drawn for African prosperity.
2. International law already protects the right to sea access.
3. Regional unity—not rivalry—is the only path to secure prosperity for all.

Kenya’s calm and assured response shows that this understanding is already taking root.

The task now is to translate this principle and goodwill into tangible systems—predictable, permanent, and protected—so that access to the ocean is never again a subject of debate, but a guaranteed foundation of our shared economic destiny.

Because in the end, the Indian Ocean does not belong to one nation. It belongs to the future we choose to build together.