Bridging the AU peace and human rights mandates
Peace and Security Council and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights collaboration is needed to advance human rights.
On 21 August, the Peace and Security Council (PSC)held a virtual consultation with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR). The annual exchange aims to integrate a human rights dimension into the Council’s work.
As respect for the rule of law erodes amid a faltering global order, and civilians bear the cost of increasingly authoritarian regimes, linkages among AU organs are critical for justice and peace. The session was an opportunity to assess how effectively the two bodies are delivering on their shared mandate to promote and protect human rights.
The PSC and ACHPR in recent times
Article 19 of the PSC Protocol provides the legal foundation for the relationship, requiring the Council to cooperate closely with the Commission. It envisages the ACHPR providing human rights expertise, information and analysis, while the PSC deploys the tools of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) to respond to situations the commission identifies. In effect, Article 19 links APSA to the African human rights system.
Yet this potentially powerful partnership remains only partially institutionalised. Despite recent progress, cooperation often hinges on crises, personalities and politics rather than predictable joint action.
As respect for rule of law diminishes, linkages among AU organs are critical for justice and peace on the continent
Long overlooked, the relationship has regained prominence because of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Sudan. In its 1 218th communiqué in June 2024, the Council asked the AU Commission (AUC) and the ACHPR to investigate and recommend practical measures to protect civilians.
This culminated in a joint fact-finding mission on the human rights situation in Sudan. Its 107-page report documents only a fraction of widespread abuses, including conflict-related sexual violence and violations of the rights to life, dignity, freedom of movement and other fundamental freedoms.
But implementation has stalled, as many of the recommended actions fall to AU structures – including the PSC and ACHPR – with limited follow-up and enforcement capacity. The AU must use the tools at its disposal, not only in Sudan but in every member state where recurrent human rights abuses undermine development, peace and security.
Coordination gaps
The PSC’s 866th communique in 2019 made consultations with the ACHPR statutory. It also set out measures to deepen the relationship, including regular human rights briefings, routine interaction between the two bodies’ chairs, and making human rights a standing item on the PSC agenda. Many of these are yet to be implemented.
The PSC’s ability to resolve issues is weakened as impunity often breeds cyclical conflicts
The June and August 2026 followed a prolonged hiatus. in formal exchanges, which drew criticism from key continental actors. Although both bodies continued to pursue their mandates, information sharing, early warning and responses to mass human rights violations remained limited. Sudan is the only current conflict in which a PSC mandate has prompted a joint ACHPR–AUC mission.
The coordination gap is substantive, not merely procedural. In April 2026, the PSC conducted a field mission to South Sudan to assess political tensions ahead of scheduled elections. Despite intercommunal violence, killings and arbitrary detentions, the mission had no human rights mandate and no ACHPR focal point.
Similarly, the ACHPR undertook promotional missions to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zimbabwe in 2026 without consultation or coordination with the AUC.
Such misalignment has consequences beyond the institutions themselves. Rights violations and impunity breed cyclical conflict and weaken the Council’s ability to resolve crises. Pursued in silos, the PSC and ACHPR mandates neglect the human rights dimension of peace and security, fragmenting rather than integrating the AU’s peace and security and human rights architectures.
Enhanced coordination and synergy
There is room for more institutionalised and enhanced collaboration between the PSC and ACHPR. Communique 866 regularised meetings and consultations, but technical joint assessments, country or crisis missions, early warning information exchange and establishment of a permanent PSC-ACHPR coordination and follow-up mechanism will prove invaluable.
The challenge is a lack of mechanisms to turn human rights analysis into timely political action
First, such measures will concretise a human-rights approach to conflict prevention and mitigation. Understanding how accountability can prevent or mitigate conflict and instability will enhance the work of the PSC and AUC. Secondly, these mechanisms will streamline and coalesce comprehensive, multipronged technical missions for the AU. This will enhance the way the AU functions by providing a better understanding of the entities’ functions, challenges, constraints and entry points for collaboration.
Thirdly, structural integration may help to overcome the PSC and ACHPR decision-making and implementation deficit. Both entities have sub-committees and working groups that could benefit from information exchange and -flow.
The joint fact-finding mission set a good precedent for the PSC/AUC and ACHPR to provide a comprehensive, systematic and integrated AU approach to the Sudan conflict. However, this mission could be replicated and extended to the DRC and South Sudan. There is ample opportunity to structure this collaboration to guarantee that human rights and security are not separate institutional domains. This would be contrary to the trend of current conflicts driven by identity- or ethnic-based exclusion, repression and impunity.
The PSC and ACHPR complementary mandates should make them natural partners. Article 19 of the PSC protocol provides for a relationship in which human rights information informs conflict prevention and peacebuilding, while the PSC’s political authority strengthens the practical impact of human rights protection.
Current collaboration in consultations, fact-finding, conflict prevention and responses to governance crises demonstrates meaningful progress. However, the relationship remains fragmented. The challenge is not the absence of legal authority but a failure to create consistent operational mechanisms to transform human rights analysis into timely political action.
Strengthening this relationship is a legal necessity and a policy imperative. The long-term credibility of the AU’s peace and security architecture depends on its ability to demonstrate that sustainable peace cannot be achieved without human rights, accountability, justice and inclusive governance.
