African Union–civil society relations

This report examines the relationship between the African Union (AU) and civil society organisations (CSOs) over the last 20 years, focusing on governance, peace, and security. While the AU has established institutional frameworks to facilitate engagement, the report finds that CSO participation remains unpredictable and often restricted, particularly in political processes and high-level summits. It highlights the critical technical and research contributions of CSOs while identifying systemic barriers, including shrinking civic space in member states and bureaucratic hurdles within AU organs like ECOSOCC.

• Civil society organisations (CSOs) provide essential technical, research, and capacity support to the African Union (AU), including staff secondments to the Political Affairs, Peace and Security Department (PAPS), the design of the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS), and the development of the AU's Transitional Justice Policy.
• Despite existing frameworks, CSOs face significant barriers to accessing high-level political spaces. The AU has restricted CSO access to summits, and participation in the Peace and Security Council (PSC) remains limited, reflecting a broader resistance to CSO involvement in processes deemed political.
• The Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), intended as the primary entry point for CSOs, is hindered by bureaucratic membership criteria and a requirement for government endorsement, which can undermine CSO independence and exclude activist organisations.
• There is a marked disparity in access and influence between different types of CSOs; international NGOs (INGOs) and large umbrella organisations generally have better resources and access to AU structures than national-level organisations, which are often crowded out.
• The 'African solutions for African problems' mantra is sometimes misinterpreted by member states to equate 'African' only with central governments, leading to the shrinking of civic space and the marginalisation of citizen voices in AU processes.
• CSO engagement is often fragmented and lacks coordination across different AU locations and thematic areas. There are significant gaps in coordination between the AU's headquarters in Addis Ababa, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Banjul, and the African Peer Review Mechanism in Midrand.
• Certain critical thematic areas remain under-addressed in CSO advocacy and AU conflict resolution, specifically the impact of climate change on resource-based conflicts and the role of identity in driving intrastate tensions.
• The African Citizens and Diaspora Directorate (CIDO) has been described as ineffective in facilitating meaningful CSO access to the AU, particularly regarding the arduous process of securing accreditation for summits.
• Donor funding for CSOs is primarily project-based and short-term, which hinders the ability of organisations to sustain long-term relationship building and institutional networking necessary for effective AU advocacy.

APA

Mbaya, S. (2023). African Union–civil society relations. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/mono-208.pdf

Chicago

Mbaya, Sue. African Union–civil society relations. Institute for Security Studies, 2023. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/mono-208.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Mbaya |first1=Sue |title=African Union–civil society relations |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=June 2023 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/mono-208.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{mbaya2023african, author = {Mbaya, Sue}, title = {{African Union–civil society relations}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2023}, month = jun, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/mono-208.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }