Prioritisation, higher-level engagement and stronger compliance measures can change the PSC
While not overwhelmed, the Peace and Security Council could be more effective in tackling Africa’s security challenges.
The PSC’s decisions are often flouted without consequences. Do you think the organisation adequately asserts its authority?
Even though the PSC has discussed the issue of the suspended countries multiple times, I believe it is not enough for it to simply convene in Addis Ababa, discuss situations and issue statements. A dedicated representative should actively engage with transitional authorities in these countries. That is why I propose that the AU Commission chairperson, supported by the political affairs commissioner, appoint a French-speaking former president to assist.
Of the currently suspended countries, Gabon appears to be the lowest-hanging fruit, assuming that its upcoming elections proceed smoothly and peacefully. For Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali and Niger, which are more complex, I believe a former head of state should visit periodically to gain greater understanding of leaders’ transitional needs. These countries have already outlined their transition plans and, while the PSC may not challenge the timelines, it must ensure that democratic processes are eventually restored.
It is not beneficial to the AU to have prolonged country suspensions
The Council’s ad hoc committee of heads of state of Africa’s five regions must intensify its activities in Sudan to fulfil its mandate of facilitating a ceasefire and political transition.
Some PSC decisions have been ignored by authorities of transitioning countries. How can compliance be ensured?
If an organisation’s decisions are repeatedly disregarded by its own members, when they are based on AU legal instruments, something is fundamentally wrong. Both the PSC and AU must reflect on this issue. Leaders cannot flout decisions without consequence. There must be a conversation on strengthening compliance mechanisms to avoid a dangerous precedent where any military leader can overthrow a democratic government, set up a transitional authority, then run for office without accountability. This engagement must involve the AU Commission chairperson and a high representative or special envoy to the country. This person must be chosen by the PSC or AU, but should certainly act under PSC leadership.
Non-implementation of PSC decisions is a major concern often raised by its members. How serious is this and how can it be resolved?
This longstanding issue for the AU was reviewed in 2022, during a meeting in Dakar of the Permanent Representatives Committee and senior AU leadership. The findings were alarming: neither the AU Commission nor its member states were effectively implementing decisions. There is an appreciation that this must be addressed, including the need for AU actors to research and prepare for meetings. For summits or executive council meetings, for example, decisions on issues discussed repeatedly in previous meetings need not be rehashed because, without research, we may either repeat decisions or contradict existing ones. The office of the legal counsel has a major role to play here.
In addition, the PSC holds an average of two meetings a week, leading to a flood of communiques and decisions without the capacity to follow through. A possible solution is a streamlined agenda of core issues rather than technical or thematic discussions that could be handled by other AU organs. The Council also does not need to issue communiques after every meeting. Some sessions could culminate in media statements that should still communicate essential points to AU stakeholders.
What structural or procedural improvements could strengthen the PSC’s effectiveness?
The PSC has 15 elected member states. Article 5(2) of its protocol outlines clear member selection criteria, but these are often ignored in favour of regional rotation. So not all members have the capacity at their embassies to sustain the massive workload. This is something we need to tackle creatively without permanently excluding countries without full capacity.
It was found that neither the AU Commission nor member states were effectively implementing decisions
Furthermore, the PSC secretariat is too small, with only a few officers managing a workload including about three weekly communiques. Consequently, these are drafted with the assumption that member states, through the silent procedure, will improve their quality and ensure consistency with meeting conclusions. A larger team and bigger budget are needed.
The Council could also establish regular informal consultations with African research institutions specialising in governance, peace and security, which could offer valuable insights to support its work.
How should the PSC increase visibility for its work as it strives to reach the African people?
Its work must be visible to heads of state, ministers and the population. Countries serving on the Council should involve themselves in the programmes. As certain matters demand visibility and publicity, a meeting of the minister of the country holding the chair and one chaired by the president should be held at least once a month.
When, for instance, a statement is issued in South Africa announcing that the president will participate in a PSC meeting to discuss an issue, the South African public becomes aware. When presidents are involved in PSC discussions, it signals to their countrymen and -women the seriousness of the matter. Sometimes it's simply about visibility, which makes citizens aware that important issues are being discussed at that level.
Regular consultation with governance and peace research bodies could offer the PSC valuable insights
When South Africa was chair, it ensured there was a ministerial meeting and a presidential engagement. Uganda does this consistently. Others may convene only ministerial meetings. But I believe that the head of state, whether president, prime minister or king, should personally engage on at least one issue during his or her PSC chairship.
What three steps would you suggest to enhance PSC effectiveness?
First, it should assist suspended states through high-level engagement and appoint envoys to work closely with transitional authorities. Secondly, the AU Commission should develop a comprehensive replenishment strategy for the AU Peace Fund, ensuring predictable and independent financing. The current practice of using just the interest does not provide enough resources for the many Council tasks. Additionally, engagement with the United Nations Security Council should be strengthened to secure predictable funding for peace operations in the context of resolution 2719.
PSC early warning mechanisms must be enhanced to ensure focus on conflict and crisis prevention rather than management, which is too expensive for the Council. The organisation could also advance its work by liaising with African research institutions to enrich its deliberations.
