Tomorrow (18 September), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1232^nd session to discuss civil-military relations in Africa as an important factor for enhancing conflict management in the continent.

Following opening remarks by Churchill Ewumbue-Monono, Permanent Representative of Cameroon to the AU and the Chairperson of the PSC for the month of September, Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), is expected to make a statement. Parfait Onanga Anyanga, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to the AU and Anselme Nahmtante Yabouri, Director of the United Nations Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament (UNREC), are also expected to deliver statements.

Although the PSC planned to discuss this topic in 2022 and 2023 during Cameroon’s chairship, the session could not be held as scheduled. Hence, tomorrow’s meeting presents the PSC with the opportunity to have a dedicated deliberation on this theme.

While this is the first time that the PSC has dedicated a session on civil-military relations as a standalone thematic agenda, it would not be the first time for the PSC to address some aspects of the theme of tomorrow’s session. Some of these issues received PSC’s engagement, particularly in the context of the recent resurgence of military coups in the continent. For example, at its sessions on unconstitutional changes of government (UCG) such as the 1000^th session convened following the 24 May 2021 coup in Mali and the 1030^th session addressing the 5 September 2021 coup in Guinea, PSC has urged the militaries of each of these concerned member States to refrain from interfering in political processes, suggesting that political affairs fall outside of the scope of military powers. PSC’s request at its 1041^st session for the Sudanese military to respect their constitutional mandate following the military takeover of power on 25 October 2021, as well as the requests at its 1016^thsession on the situation in Chad and 1064^th session on the situation in Guinea for the members of the militaries of these Member States to abstain from taking part in elections at the end of the transition periods are illustrative of PSC’s appreciation of the boundaries on the role of the military.

Civil-military relationship touches on a wide range of issues pertaining to the governance of the security sector and the role of the military in a state. While it was a subject of major policy and scholarly attention in the 1970s and 1980s, it has acquired particular policy significance in recent years on account of a range of developments. These include the increasing reliance of governments on military and other security forces for repressing dissent, political opposition and protests, the eruption of conflict pitting various elements of the security forces or various parts of the armed forces of a country (Ethiopia, Lesotho, South Sudan and Sudan, among others), the entanglement of the military in the political and economic processes of the state. During the past three years, the spate of military coups has put civil-military relations in the spotlight.

Tomorrow’s session offers an opportunity to debate such wider issues and challenges in the governance of the security sector as well as the resultant poor state of professionalism of the military including in terms of weak adherence to the military code of conduct and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law as well as its constitutional obligations. On the other hand, weak civilian institutions, the absence of democratic governance and constitutional checks and balances, result in the weakness of the accountability structures that can effectively manage and mediate civil and military relations. Such deeper reflection is critical to address the kind of politico-constitutional and security ills arising from the types of problematic relationships that compromise the professionalism and impartiality of the security sector and entangle it into the contested terrain of political power struggle.

As such, one of the features of civil-military relations in Africa which may draw PSC’s interest is the prevalent politicisation of the military. Such politicisation entrenches the army deep into politics, thereby depriving it of its independence from and impartiality to political power struggles between rival political and social forces in society. This also creates the interests of members of the army in being involved in politics as a means of advancing particular political ambitions. Similarly, the engagement of the army in economic activities also leads to its embeddedness in pursuing economic gains and exposure to corruption and unprofessional conduct.

Indeed, the heavy reliance of civilian political leaders on coercion and the use of security institutions including the army for purposes of guaranteeing regime security and survival presents a major challenge to civil-military relationships. Not only do such practices blur the lines of military mandates and lay a fertile ground for the oppression of citizens and violation of basic human rights and freedoms, they also can lead to the fragmentation of the army by giving rise to different factions. This underscores the importance of clarifying the boundaries and limits of the control of the civilian authority over the military. Of significance in this respect is respect of constitutionally established rules that are key to guarantee both the constitutionality of the orders that the army is expected to follow from civilian leadership and maintain the army’s integrity and impartiality. As important is the adoption of minimum legal standards properly outlining the type and scope of law enforcement activities which fall within the mandates of the military and identifying the circumstances upon which armies may be deployed for managing internal security challenges.

The importance that is attached to this subject can also be gleaned from the AU’s Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development (PCRD) Policy and AU’s Security Sector Reform Policy. Of particular note in this respect is the PCRD policy’s stipulation calling for the establishment of ‘mechanisms for the democratic governance and accountability of the security sector’ and the creation of ‘appropriate and effective oversight bodies for the security sector, including parliamentary committees, national ombudsperson, etc’.

In some cases, as demonstrated in the recent coups in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Niger, there is also the issue of the loss of confidence of their militaries in civilian leaders when they fail to provide them with the necessary material and moral support. Such leadership failures, in the context of heavy casualties suffered by members of the army due to terrorist attacks, lead to deepening frustrations and resentment against the civilian leadership. This can easily boil over when the civilian leadership is also perceived to be engaging in or tolerating corruption that diverts resources away from supporting the work of the army. For example, in the case of Burkina Faso, the lack of effective leadership by the democratically elected leaders in addressing terrorism, insurgency and instability that has gripped the country and reports of corruption were presented as justification for the military’s intervention through overthrowing the elected civilian leaders.

Management of security sector reform (SSR) processes in member States undergoing transitions is also an essential part of averting potential relapse as experienced in member States such as Mali and Sudan. While the speedy restoration of constitutional order in member States undergoing transitions is well within the spirit of AU norms banning UCG, restoration of constitutional order without the necessary SSR that tackles the security sector governance issues that precipitated the coup would lead to a repeat of the coup, as the experience in Mali after the 2012 coup aptly illustrates. The importance therefore of implementing and making use of the AU SSR Policy as a critical instrument for achieving constitutionally sound civil-military relationship cannot be overemphasised.

The AU SSR Policy recognises ‘the linkages between an effective and democratically governed security sector and peace and security.’ With respect to professionalism, it envisages the importance of ‘the provision of transparent, accountable and equitable recruitment mechanisms, appropriate training, equipment and gender compliance.’ The provision in the policy for ‘strengthening of (transparent) procurement policy and procedures for the purchase, supply and disposal of all security equipment’ is also critical for addressing issues of corruption. One recent analysis echoed Transparency International’s rating that roughly half of all security sectors that face critical or very high level of risk of corruption are in Africa.

The management of civil-military relations is of importance not only in the context of UCG and to member States in transition, but also with respect to broader governance issues. The implementation of codes of conduct that are in line with the constitutional obligations and the international human rights and international humanitarian law standards is key. Also of significance is the need for regularly updating the professional standards, the provision of the requisite supplies and benefits and the technical competence of the military. It is therefore critical to consider the crisis in civil-military relations as part of AU’s framework for early warning and conflict prevention.

The outcome of tomorrow’s session is expected to be a Communiqué. The PSC may emphasise the need for paying particular attention to civil-military relations as a critical component of advancing institutional stability, constitutional rule and peace and security. It may also underscore the need for careful design of the civil-military relations dimension of peace agreements and due attention to the implementation of this aspect of peace agreements as a critical element of preventing the relapse of countries in transition back to instability and conflict. The PSC may also call for the updating by member States of existing military codes of conduct to make them up to date and compliant with standards of impartiality and independence from politics, and basic human rights and international humanitarian law standards. It may underscore the imperative of protecting the military from being dragged into political contestation between various political forces and preventing its politicisation by those in power. It may also underscore the need for integrating issues in civil-military relations as part of AU’s framework for early warning and conflict prevention. The PSC may call for the use of the AU SSR Policy formwork in countries that experienced military coups as a basis for ensuring successful SSR to prevent the recurrence of coups. PSC may also seek advice from the Military Staff Committee (MSC) on how AU norms and policy instruments can be utilised to provide guidance in addressing issues relating to civil-military relations in the continent.