Informal consultation with countries in transition
Informal consultation with countries in transition
Date | 16 December 2025
Tomorrow (17 December), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will hold an informal consultation with countries in transition—namely Burkina Faso, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, and Sudan.
This will be the fourth such informal consultation since the PSC introduced this format into its working methods in April 2023, following its 14th Retreat on Working Methods in November 2022. The informal consultation was established to enable direct engagement with representatives of countries suspended from AU activities due to unconstitutional changes of government. It drew on Article 8(11) of the PSC Protocol. Tomorrow’s consultation is expected to examine progress made and challenges encountered in ongoing transitions since the last consultation in March 2025.
Two notable developments have occurred since the previous consultation. First, military coups in Guinea-Bissau and Madagascar have expanded the list of countries undergoing political transitions to seven. Second, the lifting of Gabon’s suspension from the AU despite the fact that the elections did not comply with Article 25(4) of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) on the ineligibility of perpetrators of unconstitutional changes of government in elections organised to restore constitutional order. As noted in our April 2025 Monthly Digest, Nguema’s participation and victory, in clear violation of ACDEG, and the subsequent lifting of Gabon’s suspension without the PSC affirming its full commitment to Article 25(4), is not without consequences for AU’s purported policy of zero tolerance to coups. It signalled to coup makers and members of the military in other African countries that the PSC may be ‘willing not to insist on full compliance with AU norms if they opt for speeding up the ‘restoration’ of constitutional order as long as they hold elections.’
Not surprisingly, Guinea’s coup leader and interim president, Mamady Doumbouya, is poised to follow Gabon’s path as the country prepares for elections. The PSC is likely to discuss technical and financial support for credible elections and, echoing its 1284th session, emphasise the importance of inclusivity in Guinea’s political process. In this respect, Guinea’s representative is expected to highlight progress toward the ‘restoration’ of constitutional order, particularly the September 2025 constitutional referendum and the general elections scheduled for 28 December 2025 and the electoral support the country needs. These elections are meant to conclude Guinea’s transition period. However, Doumbouya formally entered the presidential race in early November—reneging on his earlier pledge not to run. The PSC, during its field mission to Conakry in May and its 1284th session, urged the transition authorities to honour their commitment to complete the transition by December 2025, but stopped short of reminding them of the prohibition under Article 25(4) of ACDEG against coup leaders contesting elections. With Doumbouya now a candidate—and his victory highly probable—the PSC may follow the exact approach it applied to Gabon, unless the regional body, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), raises concern. Under the circumstances, whether or not the coup leaders in other countries will run for elections is now a matter of their choice and is not expected to face any opposition from the AU for non-compliance with Article 24(5) of ACDEG.
Similarly, Sudan’s representative may raise the issue of lifting the country’s suspension, citing the May 2025 appointment of Kamil al-Tayeb Idris as civilian Prime Minister by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Chair of the Transitional Sovereign Council and head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). Following the appointment, it is to be recalled that the Chairperson of the AU Commission welcomed it as ‘a step towards inclusive governance.’ However, the appointment of the Prime Minister was not a result of national dialogue, nor did it involve the participation of Sudanese political and social forces. Indeed, discussions around the lifting of Sudan’s suspension remain premature under the prevailing circumstances, where the deteriorating security situation does not allow for an inclusive political process, there is no national dialogue and a clear pathway for the eventual convening of elections. These steps have ‘supposedly’ become the basic requirements the AU expects before lifting sanctions. Recent precedents of the Council suggest that sanctions can be lifted as long as a country organises a national dialogue and elections, even when the very actors who carried out a coup freely participate in those elections. It has become an acceptable shortcut around ACDEG. Additionally, the representative of Sudan may encourage the PSC to have a field mission to Port Sudan. In the light of recent developments including the fall of El Fasher, the last remaining major city in Darfur and the Heglig oilfield, into the hands of the para militaryRapid Support Forces, marking the de facto partition of Sudan and killing of civilians and the attack and the recent killing of UN Peacekeepers, the discussion may centre on deploying a mechanism for humanitarian and civilian protection in El Fasher and identifying credible pathways for accelerating efforts for peace as well as implementing the previous decisions of the PSC on the situation in Sudan.
Similarly, the situation in Madagascar is expected to feature in the consultation, given the military takeover that unfolded. In October 2025, a faction of the Madagascar Armed Forces led by Colonel Michael Randrianirina seized power amid mass protests in the capital Antananarivo, ousting President Andry Rajoelina and prompting the AU to suspend Madagascar’s membership for violating the Union’s zero-tolerance policy on unconstitutional changes of government. The PSC, at its 1305th and subsequent emergency sessions, condemned the coup, reaffirmed its rejection of any unconstitutional seizure of power, and called on all Malagasy actors, civilian and military, to exercise restraint, engage in inclusive dialogue, and work towards a peaceful and lawful resolution within constitutional frameworks. In its recent session held on 20 November, the Council emphasised the need for coordinated AU-SADC efforts, including high-level missions and strengthening the AU Liaison Office on the ground to support mediation, reconciliation, and stabilisation. The PSC also placed strong emphasis on the need for enhanced coordination and division of labour among the AU, SADC, and the Indian Ocean Commission, while calling on the AU Commission and partners to provide financial and technical support for the electoral management body and the drafting of a new constitution, and to extend support through the Africa Facility to Support Inclusive Transitions (AFSIT), conditional on the implementation of the Transition Road Map. These issues are likely to feature in tomorrow’s consultation with countries in transition, particularly the extent to which regional and continental coordination mechanisms are effectively aligned in supporting the country’s transition to a democratic order. Meanwhile, in the remaining countries—Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger—relations with the regional bloc ECOWAS remain strained, as the three states continue consolidating their alliance through the confederation established in 2024. It is becoming increasingly clear that the security situation gets in the way of and provides a pretext for the lack of focused progress in the transition process. In Mali, the National Transitional Council adopted a bill on 3 July 2025 revising the Transitional Charter, granting General Assimi Goïta a renewable five-year term as President of the Transition ‘until peace is restored.’ Similarly, in Burkina Faso, the transition period was extended for another five years, starting in July 2024—the year initially planned for its conclusion. The new charter, signed by Captain Ibrahim Traoré, also allows him to contest in the elections. Niger has taken a similar path. A national conference on rebuilding the country in February 2025 decided that the National Council for the Safeguarding of the Homeland (CNSP), which seized power in July 2023, would remain in power for five years without any clear timeline for elections.
The Council is therefore expected to reiterate the concerns expressed during its 1304th ministerial session on 30 September 2025, which noted with ‘deep concern’ the ‘slow pace of political transition processes’ and urged the transitional authorities to accelerate inclusive transitions, engage all stakeholders, and facilitate genuine political dialogue. It may also again call on these authorities to adhere to their respective transitional roadmaps and operationalise joint transition monitoring committees.
While the issue of progress in the transition process may be the focus of the session, this cannot be separated from and is deeply tied to the possibility of arresting the deepening and widening threat facing these countries. A major issue for tomorrow’s session is the question of how AU and ECOWAS overhaul their approach by integrating the quest for restoration of constitutional order into a wider stabilisation and state authority expansion strategy backed by a security mechanism they develop and deploy together with the Sahel countries to address the existential threat facing these countries.
As such, tomorrow’s consultation needs to both situate the discussion on transition in these countries within the insecurity facing them and consider the kind of role the AU and ECOWAS bring to the counterterrorism efforts of these countries. Similar to Sudan and unlike Gabon and Guinea, the push for progress in the transitional process cannot be abstracted out of the pressing issue facing these countries, which is the terrorism menace that has grown to become an existential threat to these countries. A clear illustration of this involves the recent developments in Mali, with the capital Bamako under imminent threat and cut off from supply routes. Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), affiliated with al-Qaeda, has expanded operations from the north and centre into the western and southern regions of Mali. Its fuel blockade since September has caused severe shortages, power cuts, and economic paralysis in Bamako and other cities, triggering public unrest and fears of broader instability. Weekly fuel deliveries have reportedly fallen from 1,000 to 200 tankers. Facing mounting pressure, General Goïta has replaced several senior military officials, including the deputy chief of staff of the armed forces, the head of military security and the ground forces’ chief of staff, highlighting internal strains within the regime.
The PSC is also expected to discuss the AU’s recent intensified diplomatic engagement with these Sahelian countries and explore ways to enhance coordination. In May, the AU Commission Chairperson met representatives of the three countries in Addis Ababa to explore renewed engagement. This was followed by a visit from Angola’s Minister of External Relations—delivering a message from President João Lourenço, the current AU Chairperson—reaffirming the AU’s commitment to Sahel stability and counterterrorism efforts. In July, the AU Chairperson appointed President Évariste Ndayishimiye of Burundi as Special Envoy for the Sahel. Angola also proposed hosting a summit on the Sahel in Luanda, welcomed by the PSC during its 1304th session. Additionally, former Gambian Foreign Minister Mamadou Tangara was appointed as Special Representative for Mali and the Sahel, and Head of the AU Mission in Mali and the Sahel (MISAHEL). The PSC also decided to establish a Task Force to support counterterrorism in the region and called for a field visit by Special Envoy Ndayishimiye to engage directly with the transitional authorities. In this context, the informal consultation could provide an opportunity to discuss how to advance these initiatives and follow up on the decision of PSC and ECOWAS during their annual consultative meeting last May ‘to develop a security cooperation framework involving the AU and ECOWAS engagement with Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, in order to more effectively address insecurity in the West Africa Region.’
In addition to the three Sahelian countries, a further concern is the widening pattern of governance instability across West Africa. This includes the recent coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau and the attempted coup in Benin, developments that underscored the growing threat of unconstitutional changes of government and prompted ECOWAS to declare a state of emergency. As such, the consultation is expected to consider the situation in Guinea-Bissau following the coup d’état of 26 November, which unfolded just before the release of the results of the presidential runoff between incumbent President Umaro Sissoco Embaló and his main challenger, Fernando Dias, on 26 November. In a statement issued during the crisis, prior to Senegal’s confirmation that it had granted Embaló asylum, the military announced that the President and several senior officials were “under the control” of the High Military Command. In response to the coup, the AU convened a PSC session on 28 November, during which it condemned and rejected the unconstitutional change of government and decided to immediately suspend Guinea-Bissau from participation in all AU activities, organs, and institutions until constitutional order is restored. The Council further requested the AU Post-Conflict, Reconstruction and Development (PCRD) Centre in Cairo, in collaboration with UN peacebuilding institutions, to engage relevant national stakeholders in Guinea-Bissau to support development activities aimed at preventing further relapses into political crisis. In addition, the PSC mandated the Chairperson of the Commission to establish an inclusive AU monitoring mechanism, in collaboration with ECOWAS and other relevant stakeholders, to closely follow developments on the ground, particularly the implementation of ECOWAS and PSC decisions. At the sub-regional level, the 68th Ordinary Session of the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of State and Government, held in Abuja on 14 December, rejected the transition programme announced by Guinea-Bissau’s military authorities and called for a swift return to constitutional order. The Authority warned of targeted sanctions against individuals obstructing the process and mandated the ECOWAS Chair to lead a high-level delegation to Guinea-Bissau to engage the junta.
On the other hand, the representative of Sudan is expected to update the PSC on the recent developments in the conflict in Sudan, including the fall of El-Fasher—the last major SAF stronghold— to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on 26 October, and on reports of attacks on civilians and mass killings committed during and after the takeover. During the emergency meeting held in Sudan on 28 October, the PSC ‘strongly’ condemned the ‘criminal activities against Sudanese civilians and the grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, perpetrated by the paramilitary RSF’. The emergency session further requested the AU Commission to regularly monitor and report heinous crimes committed in Sudan, develop proposals on how to address them to prevent their further escalation, develop a plan for the protection of civilians, and make recommendations to the PSC within three weeks. It also requested the Special Envoy on the Prevention of Genocide and Other Mass Atrocities to urgently undertake a fact-finding mission to Sudan and report back to the Council with recommendations within three weeks. While meeting these deadlines may prove challenging, tomorrow’s consultation could consider ways Sudan might facilitate the implementation of these tasks.
As with previous consultations, tomorrow’s engagement is not expected to result in an outcome document.
The Review of the APSA as opportunity for reaffirming African leadership in peace, security and governance
Ambassador Said Djinnit
Building on the legacy of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the African Union has, over the years, made sustained efforts to address conflict situations across the continent through its peace, security, and governance architecture, centered on the Peace and Security Council. While important achievements have been recorded, the reality is that peace in many parts of Africa remains elusive. I therefore welcome the initiative to review the African peace, security, and governance architecture currently underway, with a view to re-energizing the AU’s role in conflict prevention and resolution.
For the sake of time, I wish to focus on a few key points and allow me to speak frankly.
First, when the African peace, security, and governance agenda was conceived, it was based on a strong political commitment by Member States to shared values and norms, as well as on their readiness to cooperate in its implementation. This commitment was clearly demonstrated in the early years of the African Union. Unfortunately, we have seen that it has gradually faded and could not be sustained.
This declining commitment is reflected in the limited participation of leaders in AU meetings and, more importantly, in the insufficient cooperation of Member States in responding to early warning signals and engaging in preventive diplomacy. If the AU is to enhance its effectiveness, this issue must be addressed as a matter of priority.
Related to this is the way AU Summits are organized. Summit agendas often leave little space for frank and strategic exchanges among leaders on both progress achieved and shortcomings encountered. In my view, AU Summits should focus on a limited number of important and strategic issues, with other matters handled at ministerial level. We should also revive the practice introduced during the tenure of Salim Ahmed Salim of reducing lengthy opening ceremonies in order to create more time for substantive, closed-door, eye-to-eye discussions among Heads of State in smaller caucus rooms, rather than in large plenary halls where leaders are often solicited for bilateral meetings.
Second, the transformation of the Secretariat into a Commission was intended to strengthen its capacity to act as the guardian of agreed values and norms, ensure follow-up, and implement decisions through mobilizing and galvanizing member states. Over time, however, this expected role could not be sustained. Yet the PSC Protocol clearly provides that the powers of the PSC are exercised in conjunction with the Chairperson of the Commission. In this context, the role of the Chairperson—particularly the power of initiative and proposal—needs to be more clearly defined. Clarifying respective roles would help avoid misunderstandings and enhance accountability.
Third, the effectiveness of the Peace and Security Council itself has eroded over the years. This is due in part to the declining political commitment I have already mentioned, but also to changes in the way PSC membership is selected. The shift from elections based on clear criteria to a largely rotational approach has weakened the authority of the Council and, in many ways, returned us to the shortcomings that existed under the former Central Organ.
Fourth, let me say a word about the Panel of the Wise. When it was created—and I can say this with some authority, as I was closely involved in its establishment—the Panel was envisaged as a strong preventive mechanism, able to act independently and in support of the PSC. The Protocol clearly provided for such a role. It was expected to speak openly and forcefully on issues that many of us—including members of the PSC—often address only quietly. In reality, it was never able to fully take off from the beginning.
Fifth, on unconstitutional changes of government, both the AU and the Regional Economic Communities have lost credibility. This is due not only to inconsistent responses to coups, but also to the failure to address serious governance issues, notably constitutional 9manipulation to retain power and democratic backsliding. In this context, prospective coup makers increasingly act without fear, at a time when democratic commitment are weakening and authoritarian tendencies are growing across the continent.
Finally, while the Peace and Security Council is expected to remain the primary continental body responsible for peace and security, it necessarily relies on cooperation with the United Nations and other international partners. Such cooperation should support—and not compete with—African-led efforts. Competing initiatives and external interference, which have increased significantly in recent years as a result of geostrategic shifts and weakened African commitment, have often complicated conflicts and delayed their resolution.
Strengthening African leadership therefore requires a more assertive Peace and Security Council, but it also requires the cooperation of African parties to conflicts themselves, which too often engage in forum shopping.
In conclusion, this review offers us an opportunity not just to adjust structures, but to restore political commitment, clarify roles, and reaffirm African leadership in peace, security, and governance.
* Presentation delivered during the Amani Africa high-level policy dialogue on the review of the APSA held on 15 December 2025
Statement by H.E. Dr. Korir Singoei Principal Secretary State Department For Foreign Affairs, Ministry Of Foreign And Diaspora Affairs
STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE REVIEW OF THE APSA
STATEMENT BY H.E. DR. KORIR SINGOEI
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
STATE DEPARTMENT FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AND DIASPORA AFFAIRS
Date | 15 December 2025
Delivered at the Amani Africa high-level policy dialogue on the review of the APSA
HYATT REGENCY, ADDIS ABABA, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15TH, 2025
Let me start by expressing my sincere appreciations to Dr. Solomon and the Amani Africa think tank for the invitation to participate in this High-Level Policy Dialogue. These types are events are vital in maintaining strategic interests in matters that impact the African citizenry and I want to reiterate my gratitude to Dr. Solomon and the team at Amani Africa for your continued works in this respect.
The topic of debate this morning – Re-energizing Conflict Prevention and Resolution to the Review of the Africa Peace and Security Architecture, APSA – could not be timelier. Though APSA remains a vital framework for promoting peace, security and stability in the continent, the last ten years have seen a significant increase in conflicts in Africa, with the number of armed conflicts in the continent having grown by almost 45% since the year 2020. A grim illustration of this scenario is that out of the nine (9) conflict situations currently under consideration by the UN Security Council, five (5) – more than half – are on the African continent.
In addition, most of these conflicts are combining with other underlying threats to States like poverty, fragility of States, climate change, youth unemployment, gaps in governance, and social grievances, to cause grave and protracted humanitarian situations, including hunger and famine. Our women, children and the elderly are suffering the most from these obtaining situation.
Re-energizing conflict prevention and resolution, as well as Reviewing the APSA, therefore, is a necessity in light of the foregoing.
To be sure, APSA still remains one of the most comprehensive regional peace and security frameworks, globally. And despite some of its weaknesses, it represents the ambitions and the determination of AU Member States to achieve the goal of a conflict-free Africa and to ensure that we do not bequeath the burden of conflicts to the next generation of Africa’s sons and daughters.
This philosophy remains consistent with the vision and goal of His Excellency President William Samoei RUTO as the Champion on African Union Institutional Reforms. You will recall that His Excellency President RUTO, as the Champion of AU Reforms, has proposed a number of initiatives to not only aid in the effective workings of the Union, but to also ensure a fit-for-purpose Organization that is nimble and adaptable to a rapidly evolving continental security landscape and an unpredictable world order.
During His Excellency’s address to the Summit of Heads of State and Government on AU Institutional Reform last month in Angola, President RUTO highlighted the eight (8) priority areas of the Reform Agenda in line with Assembly Decision 920. These are: Revitalization of the Peace and Security Architecture; Financing the Union; Operationalizing the African Court of Justice; Streamlining of the AU Agenda Format; Revamping of the Pan-African Parliament; Categorization of Decisions; Division of Labour; as well as the Restructuring of the remaining AU Organs, Institutions and Offices.
Allow me, Excellencies, to highlight just three (3) of these priorities, which I also consider vital to our deliberations this morning:
A. The revitalization of our Peace, Security and Governance frameworks. As per the report presented by H.E. the Champion, the recommendation is for the integration of the APSA and AGA into a single, coherent framework.
It is envisioned that this will eliminate institutional silos, strengthen coherence, and ensure that governance deficits and security challenges are addressed together. An independent panel and a Joint Task Force has also been proposed to develop the merged framework.
Likewise, a unified system will significantly improve our ability to prevent conflict, manage crises, and reinforce adherence to AU norms. This includes reaffirming the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) as our primary governance-monitoring instrument and ensuring stricter compliance with Peace and Security Council decisions and membership standards.
On his report on the African Standby Force, The Champion recommended the expediting of the ASF strategic review, establishing a Rapid Response Component, and creating a Counter-Terrorism Brigade. It is further proposed that an 11-member expert committee should develop a roadmap for the full commissioning of the ASF Headquarters. This will ensure more rapid and decisive continental responses to emerging security threats and terrorist violence.
The Champion’s report also calls for a stronger linkage between Early Warning and Early Response. This calls for the adoption of Early Action Protocols with defined triggers and timelines, and the institutionalization of monthly Continental Early Warning System briefings across the Peace and Security Council (PSC), the Permanent Representatives’ Committee (PRC), ministerial forums, and the Assembly. The objective here is to ensure that we transform early warning into predictable early action and reduce the escalation of preventable crises.
B. The Second Priority is the AU Peace Fund. The Champion’s report has proposed increasing the Fund from 400 million to 1 billion dollars, diversifying contributions, and engaging African financial institutions and private sector partners. It is further recommended that there is renewed engagement on implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2719 on financing AU-led peace operations.
The implication is a more predictable, credible and sustainably financed peace and security system.
C. The Third Priority that I wish to highlight in the Champion’s report is the proposed strengthening of AU norms against Unconstitutional Changes of Government (UCGs). This includes enforcing sanctions rigorously, enhancing the Chairperson’s Good Offices, and supporting expedited transitions. This will help restore constitutional order and deter future violations
As I conclude, I wish to make following observations and recommendations;
1. One is that the AU is still Work in Progress: Our Union – just like any Continental or Supranational Political and Economic Entity – is continuously evolving. Our messaging should, for the most part, emphasize the progress being made rather than focusing merely on the challenges. As is the ethos of His Excellency President William RUTO, highlighting and emphasizing the ongoing progresses strengthens the confidence in the AU’s future and encourages Member States to remain committed to the collective vision of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Africa.
2. Second is Recognizing Strengths in All. APSA’s strength lies in diplomacy rather than hard power deterrence. Diplomacy thrives when all parties feel valued. It is therefore essential to focus on the strengths and contributions of each Member State rather than on their shortcomings. By doing so, a sense of collective achievement is fostered, where all Member States feel like winners in the shared pursuit of continental goals. I believe that this would be a better way to generate some political goodwill, vital in giving the breath of life to APSA.
I thank you all for your kind attention.
H.E. Dr. Korir SINGOEI is the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Foreign Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign and Diaspora Affairs.
Briefing on the situation in Sudan
Briefing on the situation in Sudan
Date | 15 December 2025
Tomorrow (16 December), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will receive a briefing on the situation in Sudan.
The session is expected to begin with opening remarks by Ennio Maes, Permanent Representative of Côte d’Ivoire to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for December, followed by a statement from Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). Adama Dieng, the AU Special Envoy on the Prevention of Genocide and Other Mass Atrocities, may also brief the PSC. Representatives of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the United Nations (UN) are also expected to deliver statements.
In October 2025, following the fall of El Fasher, the PSC held an emergency session on the situation in Sudan, particularly on the atrocities that ensued following the city’s fall. As noted in our Monthly Digest, although the atrocities reportedly committed by the RSF during and after the fall of El Fasher are of a scale and nature that could trigger Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act—which confers upon the AU the power to intervene in a Member State in respect of grave circumstances—the emergency session missed an opportunity for the PSC to take bold decisions, including the invocation of Article 4(h). Instead, the PSC largely confined itself to reiterating decisions adopted more than a year ago.
From the communiqué it adopted after the session, the PSC tasked the AU Commission ‘to regularly monitor and report such heinous crimes committed throughout Sudan, in order to put in place preventive measures and reduce the risk of recurrence; develop proposals on how to address them to prevent their further escalation; [and] develop a plan for the protection of civilians, and make recommendations to the PSC within three weeks.’
PSC went further and directed the Chairperson of the AU Commission to engage with the Members of the PSC Presidential Ad-hoc Committee, under the leadership of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, President of Uganda, to urgently facilitate the negotiation process between the leaders of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), including the holding of an AU Special Summit on Sudan. It also reiterated its call for the Subcommittee on Sanctions, in collaboration with CISSA and AFRIPOL, to identify all external actors supporting the warring parties and recommend measures to be taken by the PSC within three weeks. Another assignment included tasking the Special Envoy on the Prevention of Genocide and Other Mass Atrocities to undertake a fact-finding mission to Sudan and report back to the Council with recommendations within three weeks. This, however, did not happen. Since then, the Special Envoy undertook a visit to Port Sudan on 16 November and engaged Sudanese authorities and civil society actors, as well as people affected by the fighting. At tomorrow’s session, the PSC is expected to follow up on progress in the implementation of these decisions, including an update on the Special Envoy’s visit to Port Sudan.
The RSF are now advancing aggressively into Kordofan, with major cities such as El-Obeid squarely in its sights. Having defeated the SAF in El Fasher in October– an assault that triggered widespread atrocities, including the reported killing of at least 1,500 civilians and the displacement of tens of thousands – the RSF currently holds the battlefield momentum in Sudan’s escalating war.
Early this month, RSF seized the 22nd SAF division headquarters in Babanusa, West Kordofan State. Going further, the RSF seized the strategic Heglig oilfield in South Kordofan, forcing the SAF to withdraw into neighbouring South Sudan. Reports indicate that the South Sudanese government, SAF and RSF have reached an agreement to allow South Sudanese troops to move into Heglig to secure the critical oil infrastructure in the region, which is vital for both Sudan and South Sudan. This oil-rich region was a flashpoint in 2012 when a brief war took place between Sudan and South Sudan over control of the area. The Heglig crisis was resolved following intense diplomatic efforts involving the AU and UN that eventually resulted in South Sudan forces withdrawing from the area.
Most recently, on 13 December, drone attacks targeted the logistics base of the United Nations Interim Force for Abyei (UNISFA) in Kadugli, Sudan, killing six peacekeepers and injuring eight others. UN Secretary-General António Guterres strongly condemned the ‘horrific’ attacks, warning that they may constitute war crimes.
On 21 October 2025, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) released its Fact-Finding Report that documented the atrocities committed by the warring parties since the outbreak of the war on 15 April 2023. The report observed that the conflict is ‘characterised by total lack of regard to the rules of war and the human rights standards under the African Charter.’ It further held that Sudanese civilians ‘endured all forms of atrocities and the worst humanitarian conditions.’ Recognising that the situation in Sudan warrants the application of Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of the AU, the report called on the AU ‘deploy an AU peacekeeping mission to Sudan consistent with article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act to assist in the process of stabilizing the situation in Sudan and offer necessary protection to civilians including the establishment of safe and demilitarized humanitarian corridors.’ However, the PSC did not consider the report when it held its 1308th emergency session following the fall of El Fasher. Since then, the ACHPR physically handed in the Fact-Finding Report to the Chairperson of the AU Commission during a meeting held on 19 November at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The fact that the report was not scheduled to be presented to the PSC is a major omission, given that the fact-finding mission was initiated following and within the framework of the decision of the PSC Communiqué, PSC/HoSG/COMM, adopted at its 1218th meeting of 21 June 2024.
On 4 December, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk rang the alarm bells on another wave of atrocities in Sudan amid an escalation of fighting in the Kordofan region. At least 269 civilian deaths from aerial strikes, artillery shelling, and summary executions since 25 October, when RSF captured Bara city in North Kordofan. The High Commissioner noted that the number could be much higher, given reports of retaliatory killings, arbitrary detention, abductions, sexual violence and forced recruitment, including of children, but telecommunications and internet outages hinder accurate reporting.
Additionally, his office reported that an RSF drone attack on 3 November killed 45 people in El Obeid, North Kordofan, while an aerial strike carried out by the SAF on 29 November in Kauda, South Kordofan, resulted in the deaths of at least 48 people, most of them civilians. His office also highlighted the dire humanitarian situation, particularly in Kadugli and Dilling in South Kordofan, which have been besieged by the RSF and SPLM-N, with famine confirmed in Kadugli and a high risk of famine in Dilling. El Obeid in North Kordofan is also partially surrounded by the RSF. His office made it clear that all parties continue to block humanitarian access and operations.
On 8 December, the United Nations Security Council held closed consultations on Sudan, focusing on the ongoing situation in Kordofan. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk briefed Council members on the appalling humanitarian and human rights conditions in the region. Türk apparently echoed the statements he released on 4 December, stating that ‘we cannot remain silent in the face of yet another man-made catastrophe.’ He also urged an immediate end to the fighting and called for life-saving aid to reach those facing starvation, appealing to all actors with influence over the parties to halt hostilities and stop the flow of arms fueling the conflict. On his part, Fletcher seems to have highlighted the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Sudan. With 20 million people in urgent need of assistance, Sudan is one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world. In November, he visited Darfur—the epicentre of the crisis. In the Council, he appears to have emphasised the need for renewed international attention to Sudan and the importance of advancing the political process to achieve a ceasefire.
Despite the involvement of multiple actors to advance the peace process in Sudan, progress has been elusive. The latest initiative is the US-led effort to revive the peace process through the convening of a Quad meeting, comprising Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The foreign ministers of the Quad countries issued a joint statement on 12 September calling for a humanitarian truce, for an initial three months, to enable the swift entry of humanitarian aid to all parts of Sudan, to lead immediately to a permanent ceasefire. Then, an inclusive and transparent transition process should be launched and concluded within nine months. The AU and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) issued a joint statement on 14 September, welcoming the Quad initiative and affirming its full alignment with the AU/IGAD roadmaps.
The initiative received mixed reactions from the belligerents and other Sudanese actors. The SAF rejected the initiative as biased and strongly opposed the UAE’s role in the Quad, denouncing it as an attempt to dismantle the SAF in favour of the RSF. The SAF reiterated its commitment to continue fighting until the RSF is expelled from all occupied areas. Other stakeholders also expressed mistrust, viewing the initiative as an externally driven solution and emphasising the need for Sudanese ownership of the peace process. In contrast, the RSF—widely condemned by the international community for committing mass atrocities and war crimes—appears to have made a tactical move to welcome the initiative in an effort to rehabilitate its image and expressed its readiness to engage in talks. Nonetheless, it does not appear to be committed to the talks and has reportedly violated the terms of the humanitarian truce.
In apparent elevation of US interest to engage in peace efforts at the highest levels, in November, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. would put greater focus on ending the war after being urged by the Saudi Crown Prince. In his November press briefing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recognised the involvement of external actors in the Sudan conflict and noted ongoing engagements at the highest level to exert pressure on these actors. Despite this high-level attention, the fighting has continued to escalate with the RSF capturing further territories. While the expression of interest at the highest levels is welcomed by some, it remains far from certain that it would substantially change the conditions for peacemaking, with some pointing to Washington’s inability to sustain engagement as its recent peace efforts in DRC show and its limited leverage, considering its strategic relationships with key external actors involved in the war.
As the PSC convenes its meeting tomorrow to discuss the situation in Sudan, the Security Council is scheduled to hold an informal interactive dialogue to discuss ways and means of reinvigorating the peace process. All those involved in the peace process, including the AU and IGAD, are expected to attend the meeting and address the Council.
Amid the escalating conflict in Sudan and the resulting humanitarian and human rights crises, discussions on punitive measures are gaining momentum. Apparently, there are behind-the-scenes discussions among like-minded Security Council members regarding the possible imposition of additional sanctions. It remains to be seen whether these efforts gain any traction over the coming days and months. Meanwhile, on 20 November, the European Union imposed sanctions on Abdelrahim Dagalo, the RSF’s second-in-command. On 9 December, the US sanctioned four individuals and four entities linked to a transnational network—composed primarily of Colombian nationals and companies—that recruits former Colombian military personnel to fight for the RSF and provides training to its fighters, including children.
The expected outcome of the session is a communiqué. The PSC is expected to reiterate its grave concern over the escalating fighting in Sudan. It may condemn the atrocities being committed in the course of the escalating violence, including those perpetrated particularly by the RSF since the PSC’s last meeting. Welcoming the Fact-Finding report of the ACHPR and noting the mission undertaken by the AU Special Envoy on the Prevention of Genocide and other Mass Atrocities, the PSC may reaffirm the need for continuous documentation of the atrocities and violations being perpetrated in the course of the War in Sudan. In this respect, the PSC may request the AU Commission Chairperson to establish a standing mechanism for the monitoring, documentation and reporting of violations being perpetrated in Sudan, consisting of a team made up of the ACHPR and the Special Envoy. The PSC may also underscore that there is no military solution to the war in Sudan and urge the parties to collaborate with the initiatives for securing cessation of hostilities and the AU and IGAD-led political process for securing a political settlement in Sudan. The PSC may echo the statement of the AU Commission and IGAD on efforts by the Quad, emphasising the need for respecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Sudan and the cessation by external actors of supplying weapons and other resources that fuel the fire of war in Sudan. Considering its earlier decision assigning various AU entities to track and report on the source and means of supply of support exacerbating the war in Sudan and the lack of progress in this respect, the PSC may request that a former head of state of respectable standing is tasked with the role of overseeing the documentation and reporting to the PSC on the sources, actors and means of supply of support. The PSC may also urge the need for African and international actors supporting the efforts for the provision of humanitarian assistance to those in need, including by assisting Sudanese local humanitarian actors and ensuring the protection of humanitarian access and actors.
Briefing on Continental Early Warning and Security Outlook
Briefing on Continental Early Warning and Security Outlook
Date | 15 December 2025
Tomorrow (16 December), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is expected to convene a briefing on the continental early warning and security outlook in the afternoon.
Following opening remarks by Ennio Maes, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for December 2025, a representative of the Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), is expected to make a statement. It is also expected that the Executive Secretary of the Committee of Intelligence and Security Service of Africa (CISSA), Jackson V. Hamata, and a representative of the AU Mechanism for Police Cooperation (AFRIPOL) will make statements, followed by a briefing that the AU Counter-Terrorism Centre (AUCTC) will deliver on its analytical report on the security and terrorism landscape on the continent.
The last time the PSC met on this theme was in August 2025, at its 1298th meeting. From the communiqué it adopted after the session, among the decisions Council had was tasking the AU Commission, together with AUCTC, AFRIPOL, CISSA and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), ‘to establish and institutionalise, by December 2025, a dynamic and continuously updated risk mapping tool to allow the PSC to strengthen its ability to engage in early warning for early action, by providing a consolidated picture of threats, vulnerabilities and potential triggers, including colour-coded risk levels linked to a pre-authorised menu of diplomatic, security and stabilisation tools’ as well as ‘an annual review of acted/missed alerts with lessons-learned.’
Africa’s security landscape remains volatile, accentuated by the global surge in insecurity, with terrorism and armed conflict continuing to drive widespread and persistent political violence across the continent. The Sahel remains the structural epicentre of the terrorism threat on the continent, with the central Sahel – Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger – facing the most protracted and escalating terrorist violence. In this environment of institutional, socio-economic and climatic vulnerability, extremist groups exploit shared ethnic, commercial, and migratory networks, facilitating the seamless movement of fighters, weapons, and resources across porous borders. A recent UN Security Council Report highlighted that in Mali, Jama’at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM), an Al-Qaida affiliate, has attacked more than 100 fuel tankers and abducted fuel truck drivers near the capital, Bamako, and other parts of the country. The group’s months-long siege has disrupted access to essential supplies to Bamako. The prolonged fuel blockade had precipitated a severe nationwide fuel crisis, forcing the closure of schools and universities while triggering a sharp contraction in economic activity. Diplomatic missions significantly reduced their staffing, and several partner governments issued urgent travel advisories urging their citizens to depart the country. These developments represent a profound escalation in JNIM’s economic warfare strategy, seeking to undermine the military government’s legitimacy, exacerbating humanitarian vulnerabilities – including reduced lifesaving aid operations and risks to millions dependent on them – and raising fears of broader instability that could further erode state control and fuel regional spillover effects.
In Niger, the recent attack in Assamakka killed six Nigerien Soldiers. JNIM claimed it had taken control of the border post there. The Nigerian military confirmed that militants from the Mali-based JNIM killed one soldier during an ambush in western Kwara State, near the border with Benin. This marked JNIM’s first confirmed attack inside Nigeria, a move which underscored the expanding reach of Sahelian extremist groups deeper into West Africa, which signals a new multi-front threat in the region. A recent Amani Africa analysis on the situation in the Sahel also highlighted that the Tillabéri region – bordering Mali and Burkina Faso – has seen a sharp rise in terrorist attacks. In early September, an ambush in the region resulted in the deaths of 14 soldiers, according to the Nigerian Ministry of Defence.
Burkina Faso also remains one of the most severely affected countries. Extremist groups exert control or significant influence over vast rural areas – estimates ranging from 40% to as much as 60% of the national territory outside major urban centres. In these regions, groups such as the JNIM and the Islamic State Sahel Province (ISSP) function as the de facto authorities, operating checkpoints to regulate movement, imposing taxes on transport, commerce, and local economies (including ‘zakat’ funds and levies on smuggling routes), adjudicating disputes under their interpretation of sharia, and controlling access to land, water, and resources. While a full encirclement of Ouagadougou is not imminent, ongoing territorial gains, blockades of peripheral towns, and disruptions to supply routes have made isolation of the capital an increasingly plausible scenario should the collapse of outlying areas persist.
Somalia, on the other hand, remains mired in a deepening crisis, marked by a resurgent jihadist insurgency led by al-Shabaab. Without a fundamental shift in strategy and if the serious challenges facing the AU mission are not addressed, plausible near-term outcomes include the collapse of the federal government or an al-Shabaab seizure of the capital, with severe implications for regional stability. As the group launched a major offensive across central Somalia in early 2025 – intensifying from April onward – the group has since captured a series of strategic towns from Somali forces. By July, the militants had advanced to within roughly 50 kilometres of the capital, effectively encircling much of it, establishing checkpoints on approaches, and prompting many foreign embassies to evacuate non-essential staff to Kenya. The advance then inexplicably stalled, allowing the federal government to declare a tentative ‘victory.’ The group has since focused on building forces around Mogadishu while escalating attacks within the city. In October 2025, an al-Shabaab suicide squad stormed a high-security facility run by the National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA), destroying critical intelligence assets and freeing dozens of prisoners – just meters from the presidential palace at Villa Somalia.
Beyond the foregoing, it would be of major interest for the PSC to consider in its discussion the need to fully reinstitutionalise the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS) to effectively anticipate and address conflicts, as highlighted in its 1251st meeting held in December 2024. Measures also need to be stepped up to address structural drivers which fuel the geographic expansion of terrorism and violent extremist actors across Africa, including: weak governance and state fragility, pervasive poverty and youth marginalisation, socioeconomic inequalities, intercommunal tensions, and the proliferation of illicit economies linked to transnational organised crime. The effects of climate change cannot go unmentioned, as it exacerbates these underlying pressures by accelerating desertification, disrupting rainfall patterns, depleting scarce resources, and triggering widespread displacement. These environmental stresses erode livelihoods and heighten competition over dwindling land, water, and pasture, creating vulnerabilities that extremist groups skillfully exploit – positioning themselves as alternative providers of resource access, mediators in local disputes, or protectors of marginalised communities.
More so, illicit economies serve as vital revenue sources for extremist groups across Africa, embedding them deeply within complex transnational supply chains. Activities such as artisanal gold mining, fuel trafficking, narcotics transhipment, illegal logging, wildlife poaching, human smuggling, and maritime piracy not only generate substantial funds but also enable these actors to exert influence over local communities and cross-border networks. Kidnapping for ransom also remains a particularly pernicious financing mechanism, undermining continental counter-terrorism efforts.
In addition, Amani Africa’s Special Research Report, ‘Towards a New Agenda for Peace and Security in Africa: New Security Threats and the Future of the Peace and Security Council’ highlighted that one of the new security threats in Africa arises from the expansion of the use of emerging technologies. Technological advancements have revolutionised the operational landscape for extremist groups, enabling the use of drones for surveillance, targeted strikes, and intimidation; encrypted platforms for decentralised coordination and agile tactics, including mobilisation of resources; and sophisticated online ecosystems – including AI-generated propaganda – to manipulate narratives, undermine state legitimacy, sow communal divisions, and recruit transnationally. Crypto-based transactions and mobile money systems further evade oversight, with digital laundering techniques complicating tracing and accountability efforts.
The expected outcome of the session is a communiqué. The PSC is expected to note the briefing and updates from AUCTC, AFRIPOL, and CISSA, and may underscore the need for continued cooperation and collaboration in enhancing early warning, intelligence sharing, and coordinated responses to terrorism and transnational organised crime. The PSC is also likely to condemn all acts of terrorism and violent extremism, as well as the exploitation of communities and the use of illicit economies by armed groups. It may stress the imperative to bridge the early warning-early action gap, critical for the PSC, AU institutions, and Member States to take timely, evidence-informed preventive actions early enough against threats like conflict, terrorism, and organised crime. Council is also expected to emphasise the need for enhanced collaboration, including information sharing, between and among Member States, as well as with international partners, including technology firms, to more effectively counter the exploitation of digital platforms by terrorist and violent extremist groups. Council may also reiterate its 1298th meeting statement on the need for AU’s risk capacity to anticipate risks through the CEWS, and to ensure that its analysis directly informs the PSC’s agenda-setting and deliberations. It may also reiterate the need for restoring the institutional base of CEWS and for making CEWS the anchor of the early warning and early action initiatives of the AU, working in coordination with the APRM, AUCTC, AFRIPOL, CISSA and the early warning systems of the Regional Economic Communities/Mechanisms.
Consideration of the situation in Somalia and AUSSOM Operations
Consideration of the situation in Somalia and AUSSOM Operations
Date | 14 December 2025
Tomorrow (15 December), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1317th session to consider the situation in Somalia and the operations of the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM).
The session is expected to begin with opening remarks by Ennio Maes, Permanent Representative of Côte d’Ivoire to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for December, followed by a statement from Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). El Hadji Ibrahima Diene, the Special Representative of the Chairperson of the AU Commission and Head of AUSSOM, may also brief the PSC. The Permanent Representative of Somalia is expected to deliver a statement as the concerned state, and representatives of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU), and the United Nations (UN) may also deliver statements.
On the situation in Somalia, major current issues include the relationship between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States, implementation of the Somalia Stabilisation and Development Plan, consensus on power and resources sharing, including fiscal federalism, and the constitutional review process. In terms of the review of the Constitution, the progress made thus far remains limited to the first four chapters.
During the year, the question of the implementation of one man one vote in the organisation of the upcoming elections has emerged as a major point of contention. Opposition to President Mohamud comes from two main quarters: the Federal Member States—most notably Puntland and Jubaland—whose leaders remain at odds with Villa Somalia and have both suspended relations with Mogadishu; and political opposition groups, including former presidents and prime ministers. Critics accuse the government of contemplating an extension of the president’s term and of using the move toward direct voting as a means to entrench himself in power while disrupting the informal clan-based power-sharing arrangements that underpin the current electoral model. They also question the neutrality of the Independent National Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
On 25 August 2025, the president made a significant concession by signing a political agreement with elements of the Somali Salvation Forum, the main opposition alliance—a development welcomed by the Chairperson of the AU Commission. The agreement’s key provision is that members of Parliament will be elected through universal suffrage, while the president will continue to be elected by Parliament. This partially reverses the provisional constitutional amendment of March 2024 and the October 2024 electoral framework agreement, both of which envisaged a directly elected presidency.
Despite this step, political discord has persisted. In October, a new political alliance—the Somali Future Council—was formed by the leaders of Puntland and Jubaland together with figures from the Somali Salvation Forum, aiming to coordinate positions on political and security matters, including the 2026 elections. The alliance reportedly rejected proceeding with the election without first securing a broad national consensus. In November, another political party—the Union of National Pride—associated with influential political figure and former intelligence Chief Fahad Yasin, was launched, announcing former Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon as its presidential candidate. Meanwhile, the president’s efforts to mend relations with the Jubaland leadership appear to have made little headway, despite his October 2025 visit to Kismayo.
With only five months left before Mohamud’s term expires, moving ahead with elections without agreement on a workable electoral modality risks triggering heightened tensions with serious repercussions for the country’s fragile peace and stability. In the meantime, political infighting affects not only political and institutional stability but also continues to divert government attention from the fight against al-Shabaab, reversing earlier security gains over the terrorist group.
In relation to AUSSOM, this session takes place as the UN Security Council is expected to re-authorise the Mission’s mandate later this month, informed by the joint UN–AU–Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) technical assessment of progress. In a recent appearance on Amani Africa’s Pan-Africanist Podcast, the AU Special Representative, El Hadji Ibrahima Diene, confirmed that the Mission is undergoing an adjustment and that its exit strategy is being updated in consultation with the UN and the FGS. AUSSOM’s one-year mandate under Resolution 2767 (2024) is set to expire at the end of the month. According to the Mission’s Concept of Operations (CONOPs), the realignment of AU troops from ATMIS to AUSSOM was initially scheduled for completion by the end of June 2025. However, this timeline was suspended by the PSC at its 1287th meeting, which extended the realignment phase by an additional six months. Against this backdrop, PSC members may receive an update from the Special Representative on the current status of the realignment—particularly with respect to the repatriation of Burundian troops and the deployment of Egyptian forces. It would not be completely surprising if the timeline for the realignment and the repatriation of Burundian troops is extended for a further period of at least six months.
The PSC may also follow on its previous decisions, made at its 1287th session, requesting the AU Commission to update the CONOPs with regard to the increased number and location of Forward Operating Bases (FOBs), their logistical support and aviation requirements of the operation, and submit these new requirements to the PSC within six weeks. It is recalled that the PSC requested the Chiefs of Defence Forces of the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs) plus Somalia to work out a comprehensive plan to deter, degrade and eliminate Al Shabaab.
A major issue of concern for the PSC is the mission’s funding. During its 1287th session, the PSC not only decided to raise the ceiling of the Crisis Reserve Facility (CRF) by an additional USD 10 million—bringing the total for 2025 to USD 20 million to support AUSSOM—but also mandated the AU Commission to engage the UN, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Somalia, and other bilateral partners to convene a resource-mobilization conference for the mission. The long-delayed and repeatedly postponed pledging conference was finally held as a High-Level Financing Event for AUSSOM on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York on 25 September. The United Kingdom pledged GBP 16.5 million, while Italy and Spain each were reported to commit USD 1 million. Additional, albeit modest, pledges are also expected from Japan and the Republic of Korea. The total amount pledged stands at approximately USD 44 million—far below the USD 196 million required for the mission in 2025.
According to the co-chairs’ summary of the New York event, ‘AUSSOM’s sustainability depends on closing the current financing gap, which remains substantial.’ The largest anticipated contribution is expected from the EU, likely to be announced early next year. However, a key question remains: will the EU’s funding help close the severe 2025 budget gap and establish sustainable financing for 2026 and beyond, or will it focus primarily on future years while leaving the immediate shortfall unresolved?
The 2025 funding gap has already created an enormous strain on the mission. Troop-contributing countries have not received allowances for a year and a half. As the UN Secretary-General aptly noted during the High-Level Financing Event, this situation is ‘untenable,’ and ‘asking those who risk their lives against Al-Shabaab—and who have lost so many colleagues—to serve without pay is unacceptable.’ This level of financial pressure risks pushing TCCs to the breaking point and could ultimately threaten the mission’s viability. Currently, as the Secretary-General underscored, TCCs are ‘essentially subsidising the mission,’ an arrangement that is fundamentally unsustainable.
Looking ahead, and as rightly underscored by the Secretary-General, two urgent priorities should be addressed: closing the 2025 budget gap and securing predictable financing for the remainder of the mission. Without predictable funding, the AU may be compelled to reconsider its original exit timeline, currently envisaged for the end of 2029. During the high-level financing event, the Chairperson of the AU Commission stressed that AUSSOM is ‘not an open-ended mission.’ Yet, instead of exploring such other options as bilateral deployments, ad hoc coalition support and importantly, the development of an effective political strategy for the resolution of the conflict in Somalia, there seems to be a single-minded focus on finding a financing-only solution to the existential challenge facing AUSSOM.
Compounding the financial challenges, AUSSOM is expected to lose around USD 130 million from the UN logistics support package due to the liquidity crisis affecting UN peacekeeping operations. In a letter dated 10 October 2025, the UN Secretary-General instructed all peacekeeping missions funded through the peacekeeping budget to activate contingency plans reflecting a 15 per cent expenditure reduction. The UN Support Office for Somalia (UNSOS)—mandated for providing logistical and related support to AUSSOM—has been required to implement an even steeper 25 per cent reduction within the current fiscal year. While the AU and the UN are working on determining and mitigating the impact of this significant cut, there is little doubt that this would affect the kind of support AUSSOM receives and hence the operational efficacy of the mission. The Head of AUSSOM may also update the PSC on the implications of this reduced support and on efforts to mitigate its impact.
The expected outcome is a communiqué. On the political situation in Somalia, the PSC may welcome the signing on 25 August 2025 of the Agreement on the Revised Electoral Framework between President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud and one political wing of the Salvation Forum. At the same time, the PSC may urge all Somali political actors to pursue inclusive political dialogue and to reach a broad-based consensus on contentious issues related to electoral and constitutional reforms ahead of the 2026 elections. On AUSSOM, the PSC may express deep concern over the significant funding shortfall facing the mission. It may also express concern over the envisaged budget cuts to UNSOS and their implications in further exacerbating the Mission’s operational challenges. The PSC may welcome the convening of the recent high-level financing event and express appreciation to partners that have contributed to the Mission. The PSC may further appeal to both traditional and non-traditional partners to increase financial support in order to close the significant 2025 budget gap, and to commit to predictable and adequate multiyear financing to enable the Mission to effectively discharge its mandate. In this regard, the PSC may encourage the AU Commission and the UN to work out modalities that ensure the least minimum impact on the operational efficacy and safety of AUSSOM in their ongoing exploration of options for mitigating the impact of the reductions to the UNSOS budget and encourage close coordination between the two for ensuring that they mobilise timely response to challenges and risks that the financial shortfall may precipitate. Concerning the operationalisation of the Mission, the PSC may commend the Burundian troops for their flexibility and other troops for their continued commitment and reiterate the need for the AU Commission to expedite the finalisation of the realignment of AU troops from ATMIS to AUSSOM and implement the next phases of the Mission in line with the approved CONOPs. In the event of inability to find the funds to fill in the significant financial gaps of AUSSOM, the PSC may consider tasking the AU to work with the FGS and partners on developing options for alternative ways of protecting the gains made and develop a political strategy for enhanced effort on advancing national reconciliation and a sustainable path for political settlement in Somalia.
