Background of the African Union’s Decision on Macky Sall’s UN Secretary-General Candidacy
On March 27, the African Union Commission (AUC) announced that the draft decision, which was tabled on the initiative of the AU Chair, Burundi, for approval by member states regarding the candidacy of former Senegalese president Macky Sall for the post of United Nations Secretary-General through a silence procedure, “has not been adopted.” This decision came after Burundi, which assumed the role of Chairperson of the Assembly of the AU in February 2026, presented Sall’s candidacy to the UN through a letter dated March 2, 2026.
Despite the fact that Burundi did not present Sall’s candidacy in its capacity as Chairperson of the Union, the fact that it is the Chair of the AU was used to portray Sall as the AU-endorsed candidate, presumably with at least the acquiescence of the candidate. This has been deemed deceitful by several stakeholders.
At the initiative of Burundi, which sponsored Sall’s candidacy, the Bureau of the AU Assembly (made up of Burundi, Ghana, Tanzania and Angola minus a North African representative yet to be agreed by the region) convened to consider the endorsement of the candidacy of Sall by the AU on March 26, 2026.
While two members of the Bureau, including Burundi, reportedly supported the motion and one member reportedly did not participate, the lack of objection meant that the motion passed. As a follow-up to the Bureau meeting, the AU Commission sent out a letter on the same day addressed to AU member states carrying a draft decision for endorsing Sall’s candidacy.
The letter referenced Rule 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly on decision-making by consensus or by two-thirds majority, presenting the draft decision for adoption. Two aspects of the proposed procedure stand out:
- First, in an unprecedented departure from established practice, the letter gave AU member states only 24 hours for communicating their views.
- Second, it set a threshold of one-third of member states for breaking the silence procedure in order to consider the draft decision as not adopted.
By the close of business on March 27, 20 AU member states, including Senegal, from all regions except the Central Africa, broke the silence. The total number of countries that broke the silence increased to 21 after receipt of a communication from one AU member state after close of business on the same day.
In a letter dated March 27, the AU Commission stated that the draft decision “on UN Secretary-General candidacy of H. E. Macky Sall…has not been adopted.” At the core of this outcome are various procedural and substantive anomalies that fly in the face of AU rules and processes.
Substantive and Procedural Anomalies
First and substantively, the draft decision would have led to the circumvention and flouting of the AU’s role and processes on the endorsement of African candidatures in the international system. Not surprisingly, member states that broke the silence, including South Africa, observed that “the established rules…for submission of States Candidacies appear to have been bypassed.”
Read: What the African Union Summit really delivered and what needs to be achieved
No compelling reason was presented as to why Sall cannot and should not subject himself to the AU Ministerial Committee on African Candidatures within the international system that is put in place as critical mechanism for advancing transparency, due process and ensuring common position on candidatures.
Thus, Nigeria considered the proposal to present Sall as AU consensus candidate came “as a surprise as the candidate is being fielded for such a coveted position…without subjecting it to the scrutiny of the Ministerial Committee of the AU.” Some such as Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Olivier Nduhungirehe went further and stated that “a direct rush to a 24-hour ‘silence procedure,’ through which the AU Chairperson would wish to force a two-third ‘silent’ majority endorsing his solo and irregular decision, without any attempt to seek an open discussion and a consensus on the African candidate for the position of UNSG, is also a gross breach of AU rules and regulations.”
Second and procedure-wise, unless the plan was not to constrain member states, there was no justification for limiting the timeline for the silence procedure to 24 hours rather than the established standard of at least 48 hours.
Burundi’s Permanent Representative Willy Nyamitwe publicly acknowledged that the AU Legal Counsel and the Secretariat objected to the 24-hour timeline. Yet their objection was apparently overruled despite there being no compelling reason for not heeding the opinion of the Legal Counsel and the AU Commission, who are duty-bound to defend, and ensure respect for, established AU rules and processes.
Regional Rotation and Broader Implications
Second, as pointed out in the letter by South Africa, “the standard practice is that silence procedure is broken if one or more members raise an objection within the designated timeline. In this case, silence can only be broken by one third of the majority. This approach is not standard practice within the international system.”
Third, there is an established, albeit legally non-binding, informal rule and practice of regional rotation that allows alteration of the position of the Secretary-General among regional groups. According to this rule and practice, the turn for taking the position of the secretary-general is for a candidate from the Latin America and Caribbean group. The proposal for AU endorsement of Sall’s candidacy was an invitation for the AU to breach this rule and practice.
As pointed out in Nigeria’s response to the proposed decision, “Africa considers the Caribbean as the sixth region of the continent. By jettisoning this established practice, the Federal Republic of Nigeria believes the AU is putting its position and interest in jeopardy now and in the future.” Indeed, its breach of regional rotation will not be in the interest of Africa, as it will be the turn of the Africa group for the next round of the election of the secretary-general.
Continued Misinformation and Ethical Concerns
Despite the collapse of the proposal for AU endorsement and Africa’s interest at stake, Sall’s candidacy and campaign continue to be imbued with misinformation and deceitful propaganda.
First, by getting his candidacy presented by Burundi, Sall’s team sought to leverage Burundi’s position as Chair of the AU and project AU support. Second, after this scheme was exposed and the attempt to secure AU endorsement failed, Sall’s campaign shifted to claiming that he has “support” from the “silent two-thirds majority” of AU states.
These dynamics, together with the lack of support from Senegal itself, are making Sall’s candidacy saddled with ethically questionable practices involving both the bending or circumventing of AU rules and established multilateral practice at the expense of Africa’s interests and misinformation.
As chairperson of the AU, Burundi has responsibility to advance the interest of Africa. In view of the foregoing and the fact that the next round for position of the secretary-general is for Africa, the most honourable thing is to withdraw his candidacy.
