Tomorrow (29 June) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is expected to convene its 1161^st Session that is dedicated to an annual consultative meeting of the PSC with the Pan-African Parliament (PAP).

The PSC Chair for the month and Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the AU, Sophia Nyamudeza will be delivering the opening remarks. The Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye, is also expected to make a statement. The President of the PAP, Fortune Charumbira is also expected to deliver a statement.

The convening of this session is grounded upon two legal bases. Firstly, the mandates of the PAP and the PSC are intertwined. One of the core objectives of the PAP, as stated in the 2001 Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to the PAP, is the promotion of peace, security and stability. Thus, PAP’s mandate has a component that overlaps with that of the PSC, although the PSC holds primacy on matters of peace and security.

Second and most importantly, tomorrow’s session is also convened within the framework of Article 18 of the PSC Protocol. This article provides for the establishment of a close working relationship between the PSC and the PAP, recognizing the complementary nature of their respective roles in the promotion of peace, security, and stability on the continent.

Despite this, the working relationship between the two in advancing peace and security has not been institutionalized. To-date, only two interactive sessions have taken place within the framework of Article 18 of the PSC Protocol. The first consultative meeting with the PAP was the 148^th session that was held in August 2008, and the second and the last meeting was the 344^th session held in November 2012. At the 344^th session, a delegation from PAP’s Committee on Cooperation, International Relations, and Conflict Resolution (CCIRCR) engaged with the PSC on the relations between the two organs. The outcomes of those two sessions in 2008 and 2012 were a press statement.

The PAP’s general mandate, which is to ensure the full participation of the African people in the economic development and integration of the continent is stipulated under the Abuja Treaty, the Constitutive Act of the AU, and the Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community Relating to the PAP. Additionally, the PAP is invested with the role of receiving report from the PSC. Article 18 (2) and (3) of the PSC Protocol, the PSC is required to submit reports to the PAP through the AU Commission Chairperson whenever requested. The Chairperson also has the responsibility to present an annual report on the state of peace and security in the continent.

Yet, these mechanisms are as yet to be fully institutionalized. The lack of interaction between the PSC and PAP has been observed in the previous years, with the exception of statements delivered by the PSC Chairs during the Parliament’s Ordinary Sessions. During a debate on the status of peace and security in Africa on the second day of the First Ordinary Session of the Sixth Parliament in Midrand last November, the Chairperson of PAP’s CCIRCR has expressed concern that the relationship between the PSC and PAP has not developed as it should.

The above concern is true. The last time the PSC held a consultative meeting with PAP through CCIRCR at its 344^th session, it commended the CCIRCR for the proposal it put forward at that session and ‘agreed to look in-depth into these proposals and other modalities for strengthening its relations with the PAP and to meet in due course to review the issue. Indeed, next steps towards addressing these concerns would require the elaboration of modalities for the operationalization of Article 18 of the PSC Protocol on close working relationship. The PSC may also invite PAP to update the proposal made during the last meeting in the light of developments since that meeting. Indeed, if the experience of the PSC with other AU bodies like the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights under Article 19 of the PSC Protocol is useful guide, it would become most useful if proposal on how to operationalize Article 18 comes from PAP having regard to its mandate and how best the mandate can be leveraged in the implementation of the objectives of the PSC Protocol.

There are also institutional challenges that affect the effective operationalization of the relationship. One such challenge relates to the management issues afflicting the PAP over the past years, which tarnished the image of the institution and led to loss of confidence in the execution of its mandate. There is also the issue of the lack of ratification of the 2014 Protocol to the Constitutive Act of the AU Relating to the Pan-African Parliament (the 2014 PAP Protocol), which designates the PAP as the legislative body of the AU. As of 28 June 2023, 22 Member States had signed and 14 had deposited the instrument of ratification for the 2014 PAP Protocol. It is worth noting that only four of the current rotating chairs of the PSC have ratified the Protocol. This leaves the Protocol with half of the required member states to ratify the instrument for it to enter into force and for the Parliament to start implementing its legislative role. This continues to limit the substantive role of PAP, which in its current mandate is largely advisory. These should not however impede enhancing close working relations for leveraging the role of PAP.

For purposes of the peace and security component of its mandate, PAP has the CCIRCR, which is one of the ten (10) Permanent Committees of the PAP. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 26(d) of the Rules of Procedure of PAP, the CCIRCR has the specific responsibility of introducing issues of peace and security in Africa for consideration of the Chamber.

In its consultative\advisory role, the PAP has since its earlier years sent various fact-finding missions to different conflict areas across the continent, including Cote d’Ivoire, Darfur/Sudan, Libya, Rwanda, Mauritania and Chad. These missions have produced reports, which are used to provide recommendations. It has also adopted resolutions for conflict resolution. Despite its mandate to forward these recommendations to all relevant bodies, including the PSC, there is no established means of communication for the PAP to transmit its recommendations. As a result, there is no record of the interaction between the PAP and the PSC regarding its recommendations on peace and security issues. Therefore, it is difficult to assert that the recommendations of the Parliament have been reflected in the decisions of the PSC.

In the earlier years of its establishment, the PAP also conducted election observation missions in various countries such as Kenya, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Zimbabwe for election observation. However, these election observation missions of the PAP have been discontinued since 2008. In a recent visit to the Parliament’s Headquarters in Midrand, South Africa, Commissioner Bankole Adeoye reaffirmed the decision taken by the Executive Council in February 2010. The decision stipulates that both the PAP and the AU Commission, through the Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security, should collaborate in a joint AU Election Observation Mission (AUEOM). Furthermore, it allowed the PAP to contribute 40% of the observers to the mission. Tomorrow’s session may reflect on the follow up on this plan and whether PAP can best contribute to promoting free and fair elections other than through being part of AU election monitoring. This latter part is particularly important as PAP could deploy ahead of the convening of elections and share its observations on measures that need to be taken for enhancing credibility of elections in countries planning to have elections.

Although the outcome of the session is uncertain, the expressed need for collaboration between the two organs by Ambassador Emilia Ndinelao Mkusa, the PSC Chair for the month of November 2022, and the readiness to work together by Commissioner Adeoye, creates an expectation that the PSC adopts modalities for enhancing close working relationship with the PAP.

Irrespective of the format of the outcome of the consultative meeting, the PSC is expected to welcome updates from the PAP on the activities undertaken in relation to peace and security and to continue cooperation through the annual consultative meeting within the framework of Article 18. In addition, the PSC may call for modalities to operationalize Article 18 and in this respect invite PAP to update and present for PSC’s consideration the proposal it made at the 344^th session of the PSC. The PSC may indicate that such proposal consider establishing a mechanism for the communication of decisions and recommendations of PAP on peace and security in order to ensure coherence and complementarity in decision-making processes. Furthermore, the PSC may decide to hold regular interactions between the PSC Chairperson and the Chairperson of the PAP. The PSC may also welcome the engagement of PAP in peace and security issues including through the issuance of statements on peace and security developments and indicate the importance of coordination to enhance effectiveness and coherence. Lastly, the PSC may urge Member States to ratify the 2014 PAP Protocol to fully operationalize the Parliament.

Tomorrow (9 November), the African Union Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1120^th session to engage with the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL) and discuss the issue of international law and cyberspace.

Permanent Representative of Namibia to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for the month of November, Emilia Ndinealo Mkusa, is expected to make opening remarks, followed by a statement from AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye. Guy Fleury Ntwari, the AU Legal Counsel, will make a presentation touching on the role of international law in the advancement of peace and security and the importance of the role of the AU in shaping international law rules governing peace and security in cyberspace. The PSC also expects presentations on the thematic focus of the session from Hajer Gueldich, Chairperson of AUCIL, and Mohamed Helal, Special Rapporteur on Cyberspace and International Law and a member of the AUCIL.

Tomorrow’s session, during which the PSC will interact for the first time with the AUCIL in relation to its mandate, is expected to provide an opportunity for the PSC and the AUCIL to harness their respective mandate for the articulation of an African position on the formulation of international law rules governing cyberspace with a particular focus on the making of international law rules and peace and security in the cyberspace. The AUCIL is an 11 members independent advisory organ established in 2009 in line with article 5(2) of the AU Constitutive Act. As envisaged under article 4 of AUCIL Statute, the Commission is envisaged to undertake activities related to codification and progressive development of international law in Africa, with particular attention to the laws of the AU; propose draft framework agreements and model regulations; assist in the revision of existing treaties and identify areas in which new treaties are required; conduct studies on legal matters of interest to the AU and its Member States; encourage the teaching, study, publication and dissemination of literature on international law, specifically the laws of the AU.

The nature of the mandate of the AUCIL is such that it can also advise the AU and contribute to the crafting of African positions on the development of international law rules for the governing of global matters that affect peace and security in Africa. Tomorrow’s session falls within this category of the mandate and work of the AUCIL.

The technological advance particularly in information and communication technologies (ICT) is a double-edged sword, offering both benefits and risks. Despite the enormous benefits that ICTs continue to produce in the social, economic, political spheres, State and non-state actors are increasingly using the cyberspace to carry out cyber-attacks on critical national infrastructure and democratic institutions, steal and launder money, illegally transfer funds, propagate hate speech, and incite violence. A worrying trend has been also emerging in the continent with the increasing use of the cyber space by terrorist groups who often exploit the platform for radicalization, lure recruits into their ranks, mobilize fundings and logistics, as well as train individuals, incite and stage violent attacks. Furthermore, it has been used to influence domestic political outcomes that would destabilize governments of another state.

The PSC has addressed itself to the issue of cyber security and the need for addressing the deficit in the rules regulating cyberspace in earlier sessions. In this context, PSC’s 627^th session of September 2016 noted that ‘cybersecurity concerns are broader than national security and that they can become a planetary emergency with the potential of amplifying the traditional security threats that include terrorism and violent extremism’. In the absence of regulation, the cyberspace therefore poses a serious risk to the national, regional, and international peace and stability. The 627^th session recognized ‘a safe and secure cyber space’ as a ‘necessary condition for reaping the benefits of the digital transformation of Africa and for ensuring the positive impact of ICTs on human and economic development throughout the continent’. Furthermore, Council, in the same session, stressed the importance of ‘regional and global frameworks for promoting security and stability in the cyberspace’.

The AU has taken steps in developing framework to govern the cyber space at a continental level with the adoption of the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention), but such kind of tailor-made frameworks for regulating cyberspace at a global level are still missing. Yet, efforts are underway to clarify and develop a normative architecture for cyberspace. Such effort of developing normative architecture is happening within the UN with the establishment of two working groups with the mandate to study how international law applies to states’ operations in cyberspace. The two groups are: UN Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) and an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG). While the GGE is comprised of approximately 25 states, the OEWG is envisaged to be more inclusive, accepting participation of any interested state. Round of talks under these separate and independent processes indeed reveal consensus on variety of norms of general behavior in cyberspace including the applicability of international law in cyberspace, but the issue of how international law applies in this space remains contested. Some countries are of the view that there is no need for new rules regulating cyber activities. Others favor agreed non-binding norms that complement existing international law, while others have questioned whether existing international law as it stands is capable of regulating states’ cyber interactions hence call for the development of new rules.

There is also contention over the application of some of the core principles and rules of international law such as sovereignty, intervention, state responsibility, legal response options to malicious cyber activity, as well as the rules governing the use of force (jus ad bellum) and international humanitarian law (jus in bello) within the context of cyberspace. On sovereignty, one of the controversial issues remains the question of whether cyber operations affecting networks in another state’s territory would amount to a violation of state’s sovereignty. Regarding intervention, while there could be common understanding that the principle of non-intervention applies to state conduct in cyberspace within the context of the fulfillment of two conditions that the action constitutes coercive interference and falls into the domaine réservé of a state. Yet, there is no clarity on the threshold of the coercion element as well as which specific acts falls within the domaine réservé of a State. For instance, it is not clear whether cyber operations to manipulate electoral results of another state could constitute as a breach to the international obligation of non-intervention. Again, on the prohibition of use of force, there is unclarity on which specific cyber operations could constitute the use of force (armed attack) against another state and therefore trigger the right to self-defence. On due diligence, while states are under obligation not to allow knowingly their territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states under international law, there is a need for clarifying how far this obligation applies in the cyberspace. With respect to state responsibility, the main confusion concerns the technical aspect of the application of the attribution standard to cyberspace given the anonymity, interconnectedness, transboundary nature, and the use of proxies in cyberattacks. On legitimate response to cyber attacks, while there seems to be agreement among some states about the availability of at least three options (retorsion, countermeasures, and the plea of necessity), there is unclarity on whether collective countermeasures are permitted, whether there is a duty of prior notification of the response options, and whether states are allowed to take non-cyber-based countermeasures for cyberattacks. The other uncertainty is on the extent of the application of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyberspace.

Despite the growing importance of the cyberspace to the life of individuals, communities and societies on the continent and the grave threat that cyber attacks pose to the peace and stability of Africa, the discourse on the making of the international law rules for governing peace and security in the cyberspace is dominated by the global north. In this respect, countries such as Germany, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Estonia, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States have released their comprehensive positions on the application of international law in cyberspace. There should be similar efforts from the continent of Africa in developing and publishing its views and perspectives on how international law applies to cyberspace so that African voices are taken onboard in the ongoing effort towards developing rules of international law governing cyberspace in general and peace and security in cyberspace in particular. Tomorrow’s PSC engagement with the AUCIL therefore comes within this framework of developing African common position on the issue.

The expected outcome from tomorrow’s engagement is a communique.  Among others, Council may express its concern over acts of violence in the cyber security, which constitute serious threats to national, regional, and international peace and security. While highlighting the need to harness the potentially of information and communication technologies for enhancing democratic governance and socio-economic advancement, Council may also reiterate its concern over their increasing use by state and non-state actors of cyberspace for malicious activities, including the spread of misinformation and disinformation, propagation of hate, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, manipulation of elections, and incite violence. It may encourage all Member States, which have not yet done so, to expedite the signature and ratification of the Malabo Convention. The PSC may welcome the engagement with the AUCIL on the issue of international law and peace and security in the cyberspace. Cognizant of the role that Africa should play in the development of rules of international law in the area of cyberspace, Council may emphasize the importance of having Africa’s common position on the application of international law to cyberspace. In this respect, it may request the Commission, together with the AUCIL, to prepare the common position and submit for its consideration within a specified timeframe. While preparing the common position, Council may direct the Commission to engage Member States with the view to getting their respective national perspectives on the issue of the application of international law in cyberspace and their positions on contested issues.

Tomorrow (11 August), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1098^th session to hold an experience sharing session with the members of the African Governance Architecture (AGA) Platform.

The session will start with the opening remarks of the PSC Chairperson for August, Permanent Representative of the Gambia Jainaba Jagne, followed by remarks of the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye. The Chairperson for the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Rémy Ngoy Lumbu will then deliver a statement as the Chairperson of the African Governance Platform (AGP). Other AGP members and representatives of UN Human Rights Council are also expected participate in the session.

This will be the first session between the PSC and the AGP. Hence the deliberations will aim at creating a deeper understanding of the Platform, the AGA and its synergy with the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). The AGP which consists of about 19 human rights organs, bodies that have mandate of promoting and advancing governance, democratization and constitutionalism as well Regional Economic Communities (RECs), serves a coordination framework of various AGA initiatives. In 2021 the ACHPR was elected as a chairperson and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) as the vice chairperson of the AGP for a two-year term.

The AGA Platform, as an amalgam of various bodies including even the PSC itself, is a vague construct, with no specific legal raison d’etre. Its value lies in promoting synergy and coordination but as far as delivering substantive mandate is concerned it is a matter that lies in the mandate of each AGA Platform member. In terms of engagement with the PSC, it is worth mentioning that within the framework of Article 19 of the PSC Protocol and taking into account the mandate of the ACHPR in responding to human rights issues in conflict and crisis situations, the PSC and the ACHPR have institutionalized annual consultative meeting. This has been held annually since 2018 culminating in communiques that outlined rich modalities for close working relationship and addressing human rights issues in conflict and crisis situations. Similarly, the PSC has also received briefings from the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC). These engagements have proved particularly useful both in terms of implementing specific provisions of the PSC and advancing implementation of the PSC mandate.

Tomorrow’s session is expected to build on, rather than dilute and displace, such existing engagements with individual members with a focus on the AGA Platform as a whole. The statement of the AGA Platform chair may include various elements. First it may provide an overview of the platform and its objectives. Second it is expected that the Chair of the AGP will brief the PSC on progress made on the implementation of joint flagship projects and programs within the AGA including the Youth Engagement Strategy (YES), Women Engagement Strategy (WES) and the annual High-Level Dialogue on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance which is convened under the auspices of the AGP.

For members of the PSC of particular significance is how the AGA Platform contributes to  strengthening of its engagement with those that the PSC has established institutionalized working relationship and to facilitate implementation of the outcomes of those engagements for addressing the governance and human rights dimensions of its mandate in conflict prevention, management, resolution, post-conflict reconstruction and in dealing with unconstitutional changes of government.

In this regard the engagement is also very timely to discuss AU norms relating to countering unconstitutional changes of government, their application and their effectiveness in responding to the rising governance challenges. The PSC may recall its recommendations made during the Eight High-Level Seminar on Peace and Security in Africa, held in Oran, Algeria in December 2021, particularly with regards to the need to review the AGA and the 2000 Lomé Declaration on unconstitutional changes of government. The high-level seminar also tasked the AUC to undertake in-depth analysis of the 2000 Lomé Declaration on unconstitutional change of government and the AGA, to assess whether these frameworks and instruments respond appropriately to the challenges that Africa is currently confronted with. The AUC is also expected to submit the reviews to the PSC for consideration. This session may thus serve as an occasion for following up on these pending requests.

To enrich the experience sharing exercise, the PSC may recall the consultation it held with the Permanent Representative Committee (PRC) subcommittee on human rights, democracy and governance (HRDG) at its 1095^th session on 1 August 2022. It can further reiterate the points highlighted during the session around enhancing partnership on election observation missions, the promotion of democracy on the continent and the provision of technical support to countries emerging from violent conflicts. In this regard, it is also expected that the AGP Chairperson will highlight ways of enhancing synergy with the PSC around conflict prevention through the promotion and sustenance of democracy, governance, and human rights in the continent.

Another key area that is expected to receive attention in tomorrow’s meeting is on exploring ways and means on how the PSC can support the implementation of recommendations made by members of the AGP at the national level and how the PSC can support the efforts of ratification and operationalization of AU Shared Values instruments. A number of decisions are formulated by the various members of the AGP. The session can further reflect on ways to further advance the development of a joint mechanism to follow on implementation of recommendations made by members of the AGP. Particularly, in support of the Platform members with human rights mandate, it would be of interest for tomorrow’s session to reflect on concrete steps towards strengthening human rights compliance framework to also ensure member states fulfill their responsibilities in implementing decisions of the various human rights treaty bodies.

As indicated in the concept note the experience sharing session will also take place in the presence of the two African vice chairpersons of the UN Human Rights Council. It is expected that their contribution will highlight areas of synergy with AGP including the PSC. Their intervention may afford participants to reflect on ways of engaging institutions and actors beyond the ones in the AU policy space and to have a deeper understanding of the experiences of other institutions that operate in a global policy environment.

The outcome of the session remains unknown. It is however expected that the PSC would welcome the work undertaken by the AGP. It may commend the work of the AGP and its members. It may highlight the importance of using the AGP as a useful forum for engaging in deeper reflections on selected issues, such as the dedicated reflection forum that the PSC held in March 2021 on unconstitutional changes of government. The PSC may express its commitment to support the growth of the partnership through joint programs and initiatives that aim at advancing democratic values and the respect and promotion of human rights. Council may further reiterate the importance of collective efforts in advancing these values to also strengthen early response and conflict prevention mechanisms. The PSC may underline the important role of AGP in enhancing synergy between AGA and APSA. It may also underscore the importance of the institutionalized engagement it has established with individual members of the AGP and call on the AGP to facilitate follow up of the outcome of those engagements.

Tomorrow (1 August) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1095^th session to hold a joint engagement session with the Permanent Representative Committee (PRC) subcommittee on human rights, democracy and governance (HRDG).

During the opening segment of the session Jainaba Jagne, Permanent Representative of The Gambia and PSC Chair for the month of August, the PRC subcommittee on HRDG and Bankole Adeoye Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security are expected to deliver statements. Following the opening remarks, three presentations are expected to be delivered. The first is by the PRC subcommittee on HRDG which will introduce the mandate and work of the subcommittee. The second presentation will be delivered by the PSC Chair and will provide an overview of the monthly program of the PSC. The third presentation will look into the possible areas of cooperation and engagement between the PSC and the subcommittee.

The session is proposed by the chair of the PRC Sub-committee on HRDG, Taonga Mushayavanhu Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe. The relevant background information of the session was prepared by the secretariat of the subcommittee.

The joint engagement and interaction session between the two bodies will be taking place for the first time. Tomorrow’s session will present the PSC the opportunity to interact with the subcommittee that engages the wider organs working on human rights, governance and democracy. The PRC subcommittee, which was operationalized in October 2019 has been mandated to promote AU shared values on human rights, democracy and governance. The subcommittee has a wide range of functions including receiving briefings from the AGA Platform members comprising the PSC itself, AU Commission, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), African Court on Human and Peoples Rights, Pan African Parliament, African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), AU Advisory Board Against Corruption, Economic, Social and Cultural Council, African Committee of Experts on the Right and Welfare of the Child, AU Commission on International Law, AU Development Agency- New Partnership for Africa’s Development and all the Regional Economic Communities. The sub-committee also engages in the formulation of policies, drafting of decisions on all matters related to human rights, democracy and good governance.

An important aspect of tomorrow’s deliberation may also be on the synergy between APSA and AGA. The complementarity between the two structures may also be enhanced in relation to preventing conflicts through the promotion and consolidation of democracy, governance, and human rights in the continent. Through information sharing and joint analysis the organs can further strengthen not only early warning but also mobilizing political consensus around early action.  The PSC as a key pillar of the African Peace and Security Architecture and as a member of the African Governance Platform has a strategic role in strengthening this complementarity. The aim of synergy is to also avoid duplication of efforts while ensuring complementarity among the various actors.

One of the main objectives of the session, as highlighted in the concept note, is to identify joint programs and initiatives that can be conducted by the two bodies. This may take the form of strengthening joint areas of intervention through promotional visits to popularize the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) as a tool to advance good governance and prevent conflict. Indeed, there is a wide convergence between the PSC protocol and the ACDEG particularly around deterrence of unconstitutional changes of government. The concerted effort and collaboration between the two bodies is also important given the recent spike in military coups and erosion of democratic rule in the continent. The session is timely given the momentum generated towards strengthening response mechanism and application of norms vis a vis unconstitutional change of government. It is also important to note that military coups are increasingly occurring in certain security situations or in countries and regions that are already experiencing insecurities. Hence this reality and developments on the ground make the policy coherence and synergy between the two bodies particularly strategic and fundamental.

Another area of engagement that can further consolidate the close coordination between the two is in election processes. PSC has as its standing agenda the monitoring of elections in Africa through periodic reports. This converges with the mandate of the subcommittee in promoting the ACDEG. There is a great role that can be played in accompanying conflict affected countries and countries that are experiencing complex transitions which the PSC is currently seized with and are integrated in its agenda. Supporting electoral processes in such sensitive conditions would require the joint engagement of these bodies to ensure that conditions for the holding of credible elections are created and electoral violence and instability are prevented, managed and resolved.

The outcome of the session remains unknown. Yet, it is expected that the PSC would welcome the operationalization of the PRC subcommittee and may commend the work it has done over the years. It may highlight the importance of the engagement to consolidate efforts around early warning, preventive diplomacy, deepening democratic values and the respect and promotion of human rights. To this end the outcome document may also stipulate arrangements for sharing of information and for establishing a more robust and institutionalized engagement. The PSC may emphasize that democracy, human rights and governance constitute the foundation and are prerequisites for a peaceful continent. In this context, the PSC may call on the AUC to support the coordination between the two organs as well as their secretariats.

Tomorrow (10 August) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is scheduled to hold its annual consultative meeting with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (Banjul Commission). The session will be the third consultative meeting between the PSC and the ACHPR since the inaugural meeting convened in August 2019. The session is envisioned to be held via video teleconference.

Following the opening remark of the PSC Chairperson for August, Cameroon’s Permanent Representative to the AU, Churchill Ewumbue-Monono, the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye, is expected to deliver a remark. It is expected that the Chairperson of the ACHPR and the Focal Point of the ACHPR on Human Rights in Conflict Situations will deliver a presentation.

The consultative meeting is established within the framework of Article 19 of the PSC Protocol. The inaugural consultative meeting held during the 866th session of the PSC articulated the modalities and tools for the operationalization of Article 19 of the PSC Protocol. The second consultative meeting was held in October 2020 during PSC’s 953rd meeting taking the outcome of the first consultative meeting forward. The consultative meeting presents an opportunity for taking stock of the follow up to the outcomes of the two previous consultative meetings.

Tomorrow’s session coming at the time of the merger of Political Affairs and Peace and Security under PAPS can serve as an occasion for achieving the ambition set in the 953rd session of the PSC, namely the mainstreaming of human rights into all aspects of the conflict prevention, management, resolutions and post-conflict reconstruction. More specifically the PSC may recall its previous request to the AUC and ACHPR secretariat to develop a ‘modality for the establishment of a coordinated early warning mechanism on human rights related issues’ in Africa between the two bodies.

The consultation is also expected to provide an update on human rights in conflict situations and the work undertaken by the ACHPR since the last consultative meeting in 2020. The presentation may highlight major trends in the protection of human rights in conflict situations. In this context, a resolution that may be of interest to the PSC is the Commission’s 467th resolution on the needs for ‘Silencing the Guns in Africa based on human and peoples’ rights’ adopted at its 67th session. With regards to the resolution the Commission may further highlight its request to the PSC on the development of ‘a comprehensive continental legal and institutional framework…to address the scourge of illicit arms and weapons in Africa’. The resolution further requested the ACHPR focal point on human rights in conflict situations to support relevant AU bodies in developing such instrument. Hence the ACHPR representative may provide an update on this activity. The session offers an opportunity for Council members to reflect on mechanisms to initiate the process and seek advice from the focal point as well.

With regards to illicit arms, the PSC may make reference to its 860th session and the study endorsed during the session, which presented a continental mapping on illicit arms flows. The study may be an input to the proposed legal and institutional instrument on curbing the flow of illicit arms and weapons. The legal instrument may complement existing policies and guidelines in providing effective measures to prevent illicit flow and the diversion of stockpile to unauthorized non-state actors.

The ACHPR representative may also highlight resolutions on human right violations in specific emerging conflict situations released by the Commission during its 67th and 68th ordinary sessions as well as 32nd extraordinary session, which may be of particular interest to the members of the Council.

The other aspect of the update may also include the impact of the COVID19 pandemic on the protection of human rights. Similarly, the adverse socio-economic impact of COVID19 has exacerbated vulnerabilities and widened disparities within societies as well as globally. Hence beyond managing the public health threat it will also be important to address such inequalities so as they do not pose threats to security and stability. Moreover, efforts should be accompanied by ensuring equitable access of vaccines by African countries with a particular focus on the inclusion and protection of vulnerable groups.

It would be of interest to members of the PSC to receive an update on the implementation of AU Transitional Justice Policy adopted in February 2019. The briefing from the department of PAPS may address this particular process. Given that the consultative meeting is the first one after the official launch of the PAPS department, it offers an opportunity to also highlight the synergy between APSA and AGA in protecting and promoting human rights in conflict situations. The institutional harmonization that brings more coordination between the two architectures will be an added value in providing a comprehensive briefing on transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict situations.

One major issue worth addressing during tomorrow’s session is the effective and practical operationalization of the modalities of close working relationship articulated in the communiqués of the 866th and 953rd sessions of the PSC. This requires engagements in between the annual consultative meetings including finding ways of using the input of the ACHPR for addressing the human rights dimensions of the situations on the agenda of the PSC and of integrating human rights in the peace and security work of the AU generally.

The expected outcome of the session is a communiqué. It is expected that the PSC would welcome the human rights update from the ACHPR and the continued cooperation with the Commission through the annual consultative meeting within the framework of Article 19. Beyond this the PSC may further call for the modalities to operationalize Article 19 to be put in place including more regular exchanges between the two organs around early warning, the establishment of a thematic agenda on human rights and peace and security as well as undertaking joint field visits. The PSC may also welcome resolution 467 and the Commission’s decision to develop a general comment on Article 23 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to advance the right to peace and security. The PSC may call on the focal point on human rights in conflict situations to brief the Council on the development of the general comment. The PSC may also welcome the Commission’s request for the development of a legal and institutional framework to illicit arms and weapons. It may reiterate its previous call to the AUC to include human rights standards and principles in its conflict prevention, management and post-conflict reconstruction programs. It may urge Member States to strengthen their support to the Commission in delivering on its mandate. It may also express its wish for the subsequent consultative meeting.