Tomorrow (16 May), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is expected to convene its Second Annual Joint Consultative Meeting with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Mediation and Security Council (MSC), at the AU Commission in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Following opening remarks by Harold Bundu Saffa, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the AU and PSC Chairperson for May, the Chair of ECOWAS Mediation and Security Council is expected to make a statement. Mahmoud Youssouf, Chairperson of the AU Commission, may also address the session.

The PSC held its inaugural meeting with Regional Economic Communities/Regional Mechanisms (RECs/RMs) policy organs on the promotion of peace and security, focusing on harmonisation and coordination of decision-making processes and division of labour in May 2019. The joint communiqué of that meeting agreed to hold ‘annual joint consultative meetings, between the PSC and the RECs/RMs policy organs on peace and security issues, alternately in Addis Ababa and in the headquarters of the RECs/RMs, in rotation’ and to be ‘convened ahead of the mid-year coordination summit between the AU and RECs/RMs’. It took some years before the PSC acted on the convening of a consultative meeting with individual REC/RM policy-making organs similar to the consultative meeting it holds annually with the United Nations (UN) Security Council and the European Union (EU) Peace and Security Committee. The first such consultative meeting was held with the ECOWAS MSC on 24 April 202, when, as part of its April 2024 Programme of Work, the PSC undertook a field mission to Abuja, Nigeria, for the High-level African Counter Terrorism Meeting.

The Inaugural Joint Consultative Meeting with ECOWAS MSC zeroed in on the dire situation in West Africa, the Sahel and the Lake Chad Basin, where terrorist activities have wreaked havoc on communities and derailed development. The Joint Communiqué voiced deep alarm over the surging insecurity fueled by terrorism and extremism. The two Councils called for robust counter-terrorism strategies, backed by substantial funding and resource mobilisation to bolster regional and continental peace operations. They emphasised the need for revitalisation of existing security frameworks, such as the Nouakchott and Djibouti Processes, the ECOWAS Plans of Action Against Terrorism, the Accra Initiative, and the Multinational Joint Task Force of the Lake Chad Basin. Beyond military measures, the meeting highlighted the necessity of tackling the root causes of terrorism – poverty, unemployment, political instability and social inequality.

Since then, a meeting of the Nouakchott process was held in November 2024 in Dakar, Senegal. Convened with the support of the Committee of Intelligence and Security Services of Africa (CISSA) and the Government of the Republic of Senegal, the meeting sought to ‘enhance coordination, information and intelligence sharing, and joint operations in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel-Sahara region.’ The meeting (which saw the participation of ECOWAS, MNJTF, Executive Secretariat of the Accra Initiative and the Fusion and Liaison Unit (UFL) of the Sahel countries) brought together the heads of intelligence services of the Sahel-Sahara countries, particularly member states of the Nouakchott Process and the Accra Initiative, namely Algeria, Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Libya, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, and Togo. It is of interest to both the PSC and the ECOWAS MSC to receive an update on the outcome of this meeting and how to build on the outcome for developing and implementing concrete policy action to stem the tide of conflicts involving terrorist groups in the Sahel and West Africa.

The other issue that the inaugural meeting focused on was the instability military coups induce and the governance deficits fueling unconstitutional changes of government (UCG), which has affected most prominently the ECOWAS region. They welcomed the creation of the PSC Sub-Committee on Sanctions to oversee UCG-related decisions. Against the background of the growing pressure for speeding up the process towards lifting suspension of countries in transition including the recent return of Gabon to the AU fold in full, tomorrow’s consultative meeting is also expected to discuss how the AU and ECOWAS develop a joint strategy and engage more actively to negotiate and agree on the parameters of the process for the restoration of constitutional order in Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali and Niger while having regard to the specificities of each situation.

While they stressed the importance of joint mediation without clarifying the modalities for translating that into action, this requires that they change their institutional culture and the conceptual parameters governing their role in peace and security. First, they need to recognise that many of the challenges facing the region cannot be addressed by any one institution and need the role of both the AU and ECOWAS, having regard to the terms of Article 16 of the PSC Protocol. Second, conceptually, instead of subsidiarity and the competition it induces, they should embrace complementarity. Instead of comparative advantage, they should work on the basis of cumulative advantage.

In terms of modalities, the meeting agreed on mechanisms to ensure coherence and complementarity, including annual joint consultative meetings, frequent interactions between chairpersons and swift communication of decisions. They also proposed joint field missions, retreats, staff exchanges and the establishment of focal point teams. There is no indication that they have started to operationalise these proposed areas of action for deepening their close working relationship.

Given that this second consultative meeting coincides with the 50^th anniversary of ECOWAS, it is expected that the 50-year journey of ECOWAS, particularly in the realm of peace and security, democratic governance and constitutional rule, as well as regional integration and the challenges facing them, are expected to feature during the session. Of immediate concern will be the withdrawal of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) from ECOWAS. Indeed, during the inaugural session, a particularly pressing issue was the announcement of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger for withdrawal from ECOWAS. The two Councils urged continued engagement with these states to preserve regional stability, referencing the ECOWAS Extraordinary Summit communiqué of 24 February 2024, and Article 91 of the 1993 ECOWAS Revised Treaty, which outlines withdrawal procedures. On 29 January 2025, the withdrawal of these countries from ECOWAS took effect. This notwithstanding and in a commendable step, ECOWAS expressed commitment to preserving crucial privileges for citizens of these countries, including recognition of ECOWAS-branded documents, trade benefits under ETLS, visa-free movement rights, and support for ECOWAS officials from these nations.

Building on the maintenance of the relations, apart from commending ECOWAS on avoiding complete severance of the relationship, the consultative meeting may consider how best to support AES states in their quest for containing terrorism and restoring stability. Relatedly, of interest for both the AU and ECOWAS is also how to reverse the instrumentalisation of tensions and instability for settling geopolitical scores by external powers attempting to reduce the region into a theatre of geopolitical rivalry.

As with the first consultative meeting, the expected outcome is a Joint Communiqué. The meeting is expected to welcome the institutionalisation of the consultative meeting by implementing the joint communique of the inaugural meeting that decided the convening of the meeting on an annual basis. The PSC and the MSC are also expected to reiterate their commitment to deepen closer working relationship by implementing the conclusions of the inaugural consultative meeting. They may also welcome the steps taken in implementing the joint communique, particularly the convening of the Nouakchott process with the participation of ECOWAS and its member states. They may ask AU and ECOWAS Commissions to develop workstreams and focal points for operationalising the parts of the joint communique that are yet to be implemented. The PSC and the MSC may also underscore that most of the challenges in the region demand joint action and the collective weight of the AU and ECOWAS. The two sides may underscore the importance of ECOWAS as a key pillar of regional integration in the ECOWAS region and the need for revitalising ECOWAS and safeguarding the progress it registered during its 50-year journey. PSC and the MSC may also commend the measures ECOWAS adopted for keeping its door open for Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, including by sustaining the benefits of ECOWAS membership to the citizens of the three countries.

On 28-29 August, the third Annual Consultative Meeting between the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) and the Regional Economic Communities and Regional Mechanisms (RECs/RMs) Policy Organs will take place in Bujumbura, Burundi.

The opening segment of the session is expected to feature the opening remarks by the PSC Chairperson for August, Burundi’s Permanent Representative to the AU, Willy Nyamitwe. In addition to statement by the AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye, a keynote address by a representative of Burundi as host of the meeting is expected. The representatives of the RECs/RMs and their Policy Organs are also expected to deliver their respective statements and reflect on the current state of the relationship between the PSC and RECs/RMs and the way forward.

The consultative meeting is convened within the framework of Article 16 of the Protocol relating to the establishment of the PSC (PSC Protocol) and the various PSC retreats that highlighted the need for closer working engagement between the PSC and RECs/RMs. The meeting is also taking place in line with the decision of the PSC and RECs/RMs, during their inaugural joint consultative meeting held on 24 May 2019, to convene the consultative meeting on annual basis. As part of the effort to regularize the engagement, it is to be recalled that the second consultative meeting, which took place on 26 August 2021, further decided to ‘convene consultative meetings at least twice a year at a strategic and political level, and quarterly at a technical level, as well as to remain open to convene ad-hoc consultations to deepen collaboration and respond to emerging conflict’. However, the practice over the last four years indicates that the consultative meeting is happening only once in two years.

The close segment of the session starts with an informal meeting between the PSC/RECs/RMs and the Chairperson of the Africa First Ladies Peace Mission (AFLPM). It is to be recalled that the PSC held for the first time a session on the AFLPM at its 1154^th session. Apart from building on this first meeting of the PSC, this informal exchange also provides an opportunity for reflecting on how the AFLPM can contribute to the role of PSC/RECs/RMs including with respect to the impact of conflicts and terrorism on women and the impact of unconstitutional changes of government (UCG) on youth.

The next segment of the consultative meeting is dedicated to the most pressing current peace and security challenges focusing on the resurgence of UCG and the growing threat of terrorism in Africa. This meeting comes at a time when the PSC and RECs/RMs are facing challenges of policy coordination both in respect to UCGs and conflicts. Most recently, this challenge has been experienced vividly in the context of the 26 July 2023 military coup in Niger which became a major flashpoint on policy coordination between the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the PSC. While the two agreed on the condemnation of the ousting of the deposed President and on the restoration of constitutional order, the different legal and institutional foundations as well as policy considerations vis-à-vis the range of measures to be taken against the coup led to difference in the policy approach to be taken for restoring constitutional order and the methods and means of achieving this objective. Similarly, gaps in coordination and lack of joint action in the context of the fighting that erupted in April 2023 in Sudan led to the emergence of separate diplomatic initiatives by the AU and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), leading to forum shopping.

With respect to the resurgence of UCGs in Africa, one of the immediate issues of concern for AU and RECs/RMs relate to at least two issues. The first is what more and how best the AU and RECs/RMs can do to stop the spread of the occurrence of coups. The second is how to mobilize complementary and coherent policy responses by the AU and RECs/RMs. For this, it is necessary that the RECs/RMs either develop their own policy sanctioning UCGs including coups or implement the common AU norm against UCGs under the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG) to ensure that they have the same legal and policy basis for responding to coups. Some RECs/RMs don’t have legal instruments prohibiting and sanctioning coups. Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult for the AU and such RECs/RMs to coordinate policy responses when coups happen. Thus, in relation to the coup in Sudan, while the AU rightly upheld the applicable principle against coups and invoked Article 7(1)(g) and Article 30 of the Constitutive Act of the AU to suspend Sudan, IGAD, which does not have a norm banning coups, adopted a position calling for the lifting of the suspension of Sudan before the restoration of constitutional order in Sudan.

With respect to the mobilization of coherent and complementary response to coups, the principle of subsidiarity cannot provide the framework for facilitating such coherence and complementarity. As elaborated in Amani Africa’s special research, what is needed for the AU and RECs/RMs to achieve coherence and complementarity in their response to coups is for them to have shared analysis and understanding of the situation and develop framework for consultative decision-making. Understandably, in the absence of such processes, the PSC is required by its Protocol to adopt a policy position on the basis of its own understanding of the situation vis-à-vis the applicable AU norms and policies rather than automatically follow the decision of the REC/RM.

The other agenda item relates to the application of the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity. While the only principles enshrined in the PSC Protocol on the relationship between the AU and sub-regional bodies on peace and security under Article 16 are complementarity and comparative advantage, the principle that dominates the policy discourse and practice is subsidiarity. This focus on subsidiarity and widely held misconception that subsidiarity entails exclusive leadership by RECs/RMs on peace and security or the failure of the AU to assume its role when crisis situations arise, have resulted in the emergence of skewed practices. These are practices that tend to defer to RECs/RMs full lead on responding to crisis and for PSC to play the role of accompanying RECs/RMs lead. These practices, while in part result from the failure of the AU and the PSC to timely engage and respond to emerging crises or conflicts, have the effect of stripping the PSC of the autonomous exercise of the responsibility entrusted to it and hence are not consistent with the framework set in the PSC Protocol, as the founding document of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). In cases where crises or conflicts affect and are of interest for more than one REC/RM such as the terrorist attacks by Boko Haram and the conflict in Eastern DRC, the principle of subsidiarity does not provide guidance on which of the RECs/RMs can take lead and indeed how they can mobilize joint policy responses. (see Amani Africa’s special research for more analysis on the implications of misconceptions relating to the principle of subsidiarity)

Against the background of the foregoing and some of the challenges that this unsound and singular application of subsidiarity have led to over the years with deleterious consequences for cohesion between the AU and RECs/RMs, this 3^rd consultative meeting is expected to provide an opportunity for the PSC and the RECs/RMs policy organs to deliberate how to ensure that their engagement on peace and security is guided by the principles of both subsidiarity and complementarity and achieve consensus on course correction on the skewed understanding and use of subsidiarity. For this, it is to be recalled that PSC and policy organs of RECs/RMs, during the second consultative meeting, agreed to ‘commence a transparent, in-depth and dynamic dialogue with the participation of the Member States, the Commission, RECs and RMs concerning the scope, dimensions, variables and criteria of the applicability of the principle of subsidiarity’. One of the workable approaches to subsidiarity is to consider requiring the effective engagement of RECs/RMs that could avoid the policy gaps, divergences and inconsistencies that resulted from its skewed conception and understanding.

Additionally, building on the decisions that the PSC and policy organs of the RECs/RMs adopted during the first and second consultative meetings, as well as PSC’s 870^th session, PSC and RECs/RMs can during this 3^rd consultative session agree to implement the following measures.

First, the PSC and RECs/RMs Policy organs can decide to implement and operationalize the various modalities for policy coordination and consultative decision making. For instance, during the second consultative meeting, PSC and RECs/RMs agreed to meet at least twice a year at a strategic and political level, and quarterly at a technical level.

Second, there is a need for both the PSC and RECs/RMs to consult and exchange between each other more frequently on specific conflict or crisis situations than before given the challenging political and security landscape of the continent, which is characterized by resurgence of military coups and rising trends of terrorism and violent conflicts. In that regard, the two sides should consider taking practical steps, including the establishment of a team of focal points from all RECs/RMs and the PSC Secretariat that would facilitate a well-coordinated network for regular engagements as envisaged under the previous consultative meeting.

Third, the trans-regional nature of some of the peace and security threats such as terrorism and overlapping membership of some countries in the RECs/RMs raises the issue of horizontal coordination among these organizations. A case in point is Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where its overlapping membership to Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), Southern African Development Community (SADC), International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), and East African Community (EAC) and the multiple but uncoordinated diplomatic and security initiatives necessitated a convening of the quadripartite summit under the auspices of the AU at the end of June in Luanda, Angola. It is incumbent on the AU to facilitate such coordination in the absence of which, there is risk of paralysis and political vacuum.

The expected outcome of the consultative meeting is a joint communique. While commending the operationalization of some of the agreed initiatives such as the Inter-Regional Knowledge Exchange (I-RECKE) on early warning and conflict prevention, PSC and RECs/RMs may recognize the follow-up challenges to the implementation of most of the previous decisions adopted with the aim to strengthen cooperation and coordination between them. In that regard, both may request the AU Commission, in consultation with the RECs/RMs, to prepare and submit within a specific timeframe, an implementation matrix that clearly highlight the necessary measures along with timelines for the implementation of each decision. The two sides may further agree to convene a high-level meeting (summit level) as part of the AU Mid-year coordination meeting, which could serve as a platform to discuss strategic issues. Given the lack of clarity on the principle of subsidiarity and its implication over the smooth working relationship between the PSC and RECs/RMs, they may decide to take steps to implement their previous decision of commencing a study on the ‘scope, dimensions, variables and criteria of the applicability of the principle of subsidiarity’. This can be done for instance by mandating the AU Commission and the representatives of RECs/RMs to undertake the study within a specific timeframe and submit the same to their joint meeting for consideration.

Tomorrow (24 May) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security council (PSC) will convene its 852 session on the inaugural consultative meeting of the PSC and the peace and security decision-making organs of Regional Economic Communities/Regional Mechanisms (RECs/RMs).

The session convened in line with Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC convened over many years on its working methods. As the first consultative meeting being convened 15 years after the coming into effect of the PSC, this session is also a reflection of the institutional reform of the AU, which puts emphasis on enhancing close working relationship and coordination with the policy organs of the RECs/RMs.

The AU Commission is expected to present by way of a report a background document on the Inaugural Meeting of the AU PSC and the Policy Organs of the RECs/RMs for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution on Promotion of Peace, Security and Stability in Africa. Accordingly, the focus is not on the interface between the AU Commission and the secretariats of the RECs/RMs but on the PSC and the policy decision-making organs of the RECs/RMs.

The chairpersons of nine RECs/RMs peace and security policy decision-making organs are expected to participate. These are Chad as Chair of CEN-SAD, Ethiopia as Chair of IGAD, Gabon as Chair of ECCAS and the Peace and Security Council of ECCAS, Madagascar as Chair of COMESA, Namibia as Chair of SADC and SADC Political and Defense Organ, Nigeria as Chair of ECOWAS and the Mediation and Security Community of ECOWAS, Rwanda as Chair of EAC and Tunisia as Chair of UMA. Additionally, invitation has also been extended for all Executive Secretaries of the RECs/RMs to participate in this inaugural consultative meeting.

In terms of defining the outline for coordination between the two levels, there is no lack of adequate legal rules. Article 7(1) (e) of the Protocol enjoins the PSC ‘promote close harmonization, co-ordination and co-operation between Regional Mechanisms and the Union in the promotion and maintenance of peace, security and stability in Africa’. Most importantly, Article 16 of the Protocol articulates the place of RECs/RMs in the Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and outlines at some length the details of how the PSC together with the Chairperson of the AU Commission shall go about developing policy coordination and close working relationship with RECs/RMs. With nine sub-articles, Article 16 is the longest and most detail of the PSC Protocol articles that define relationships between the PSC and other actors.

While acknowledging the primary role of the PSC, Article 16 affirms that RECs/RMs ‘are part of the overall Security Architecture of the Union’. Its sub-article 1 emphasizes the need for aligning the role of RECs/RMs with the objectives and principles of the AU. It further underscores the need for enduring ‘effective partnership between them and the PSC in the maintenance of peace and security’. Eschewing a one size fits all approach, it envisions that such effective partnership is to be pursued on the basis of ‘the comparative advantage of each and the prevailing circumstances’. Other than requiring alignment of normative objectives and principles, this approach does not consider a rigid and hierarchical relationship between the two levels. Instead it opts for a flexible approach leveraging the comparative advantage of both the PSC and RECs/RMs. Thus, sub-article 2 of Article 16 envisions a consultative decision- making process.

In terms of how the close working relationship and the coordination of policy is to be operationalized, sub-article 6 of Article 16 provides that RECs/RMs ‘shall be invited to participate in the discussion of any question brought before the Peace and Security Council whenever that question is being addressed by a regional mechanism is of special interest to that organization.’ In undertaking conflict prevention, peacemaking and peace building functions, the PSC and RECs/RMs are required under sub-article 3 of Article 16 to fully and continuously inform each other of their activities.

As highlighted in the background document for the meeting, these detailed provisions have been complemented with further provisions elaborated in the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC on its working methods. Most notable in this regard are the May 2015 Swakopmund and the September 2015 Abuja retreats of the PSC.

There have been two major gaps that have led to the lack of effective coordination between the PSC and RECs/RMs. The first of this was the non-implementation of both the provisions of Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the relevant conclusions of the PSC Retreats on its Working Methods. This was despite the fact that for at least the past few years the indicative annual program of work of the PSC envisaged the convening of the annual consultative meeting envisaged in Article 16 of the Protocol. The other was the lack of initiative for developing the kind of arrangements and mechanisms established for the PSC – UN Security Council relationship for the operationalization of the provisions Article 16 on policy coordination and close working relationship.

Experience from various conflict situations show that the resultant lack of effective and institutionalized policy coordination between the two levels has produced increasing disaffection on both sides. While tomorrow’s consultative meeting is long overdue, it is key for addressing the growing challenges of policy coherence and coordinated action in responding to conflicts. As the PSC’s role in conflict prevention, management and resolution has become institutionalized and the role of RECs/RMs in this area shows expansion, the instances for policy divergence and dissonance has also increased over the years. Such differences and uncoordinated interventions have been observed in a number of conflict situations. In the past this has been the case with respect to the situations in Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Guinea Bissau, Mali and Central African Republic (CAR). In recent years, this has been evident in the situations in Burundi and South Sudan. In some of these cases, there has been normative disconnect between the two levels. This is particularly notable with respect to situations involving electoral disputes and unconstitutional changes of government.

Apart from the impact of such divergent policy approaches and uncoordinated interventions in fragmenting peace and security decision- making on the continent, they have importantly undermined the effort for the resolution of conflicts, thereby allowing the conflicts to rage on perpetuating the suffering of the affected populations.

It is expected that apart from the foregoing, the background document for the meeting will outline other gaps observed in PSC – RECs/RMs peace and security decision-making processes. These notably include lack of clear criteria for determining the application of the principle of subsidiarity, lack of clarity on the format and mechanics of organization of the consultative meetings, lack of clarity on horizontal coordination among RECs and the role of the PSC in facilitating such horizontal coordination, the challenges arising from trans-regional security threats that don’t fall within the jurisdiction of no one REC/RM, and lack of clarity on decision-making role between the PSC and RECs/RMs on the mandating and deployment of the African Standby Forces.

Another area worth looking into in this context is the need for reviewing whether and how the legal instruments or decisions of policy-making organs of RECs/RMs established provisions recognizing the role of the PSC similar to those found in Article 16 of the PSC Protocol. Such provisions will prove critical not only to give legal basis in RECs/RMs instruments but also to institutionalize mutual recognition and close working relationship between the two levels. Such provisions are also key for institutionalized operationalization of one of the conclusions of the September 2015 Abuja PSC Retreat, which stipulates that ‘RECs/RMs shall extend invitations to the AUC Chairperson and the Chairperson of the PSC in their statutory and other decision-making meetings on peace and security.’

In terms of the operationalization of the principles of subsidiary, complementarity and comparative advantage, the annual consultative meeting may take lessons and best practices from AU-UN partnership on peace and security. This entails that instead of rigid application of principles, they should recognize that both levels have a role to play and engage in joint analysis of the situation and joint formulation of policy options which ensure policy coherence and joint collective action that leverages the role and contribution of each. Other best practice include the joint field visits to conflict situations, thus the PSC and the concerned REC/RM can plan and undertake joint field visits as a means of enhancing collective action and policy coherence.

Taking stock of the forgoing and the experience in PSC and RECs/RMs relationship, the annual consultative meeting can identify the best practices thus far and the remaining challenges. In this regard, one measure that the annual consultative meeting can establish is to consolidate into one coherent and authoritative document the various modalities and frameworks for cooperation articulated in diverse documents. On the basis of such single document that consolidates best practices and articulated additional options for coordination, the PSC and the policy organs of RECs/RMs on peace and security can develop and sign a memorandum of understanding or framework agreement.

It is expected that the outcome of the consultative meeting would take the form of Proposals/Recommendations  on Harmonisation and Coordination of Decision Making Processes/Division of Labour between the AU and RECs in the area of peace and security. This is expected to be part of the working documents that will be considered during the inaugural AU-RECs/RMs summit to be held in Niamey, Niger on 4-5 July 2019. The Proposals/Recommendations are to outline agreed interpretation of the principles that govern relationships between the PSC and RECs/RMs peace and security policy organs and the modalities, format and timelines for coherent policy making and operational coordination of interventions.