A procedural dispute at the African Union has escalated into a diplomatic controversy, exposing divisions among member states over how the continent selects candidates for top international positions.
At the center of the dispute is President Évariste Ndayishimiye of Burundi, current Chairperson of the African Union, who is accused by several member states of attempting to unilaterally advance the candidacy of former Senegalese president Macky Sall for the position of United Nations Secretary-General.
The controversy intensified after formal objections from Nigeria, alongside a broad coalition of African Union member states, rejected the process used to nominate Sall. Countries that broke the silence included Saharawi, Eritrea, Seychelles, Lesotho, Botswana, Mozambique, Senegal, Namibia, Algeria, Rwanda, Libya, Nigeria, South Africa, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Egypt, Uganda, Liberia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Tunisia and Angola, reflecting an unusually wide geographic spread of dissent across the continent.
In its diplomatic note, Nigeria described the move as “procedurally incorrect” and stressed that the objection was “a matter of procedure and principle, not an opposition to the individual candidate,” warning that “established procedures and principles were not followed in taking this decision.” It further cautioned that there was “no rationale in violating” the principle of regional rotation and that doing so could place “the African Union’s position and interest in jeopardy now and in the future.”
According to accounts from Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, the crisis began on March 2, when Burundi’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations submitted a letter stating that “my government, current Chair of the African Union, nominates His Excellency Macky Sall,” a move that reportedly took other African leaders by surprise.
Nduhungirehe sharply criticized the process, saying “everything was wrong from day one,” and describing it as “a flawed procedure… in total violation of all rules and regulations.” He added that member states were effectively given an ultimatum under a 24-hour silence procedure, calling it “such a diktat and such disrespect.”
That move triggered the coordinated response, with the 23 countries breaking the silence to block the decision, underscoring what critics described as a refusal to “endorse… an AU decision” imposed without proper consultation.
Burundi has rejected the criticism. In a response articulated by diplomat Willy Nyamitwe, officials argued that “the use of the silence procedure is neither new nor irregular” and insisted that the Chairperson acted “in line with his mandate and in respect of established procedures.” He further emphasized that “the fact that some Member States chose to break the silence does not constitute a crisis,” but rather demonstrates that the system is functioning.
Nyamitwe also warned that claims of a rules violation were “exaggerated” and risk undermining the Union, adding that “differences in procedural appreciation should be addressed… in a spirit of collegiality and mutual respect.”
Critics, however, remain unconvinced. They argue that “a procedural tool cannot launder an illegitimate process,” insisting that “you cannot skip all the required prior steps… and then invoke the silence procedure to retroactively validate the act.”
The episode has raised broader concerns about governance within the African Union and the balance between the authority of its Chairperson and the collective decision-making of member states, highlighting tensions at a sensitive moment for Africa’s coordination on the global stage.
