The 39th African Union summit: what were the results?

Africa asserts itself at the 39th AU summit: between claimed sovereignty, colossal challenges, and political paradoxes.

Furthermore, the 39th summit did not only address water security. It articulated three themes that, combined, constitute a systemic challenge to the international architecture established in 1945.

First, internal institutional reform. The Assembly reviewed the report on AU reforms and reaffirmed the objective of a “people-centered, effective, accountable, and financially sustainable” Union. The adoption of the reports on the African Peace and Reconciliation Mechanism (APRM), the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), the Africa CDC, and the Peace Fund confirms a commitment to strengthening integration instruments. The reiteration of “zero tolerance” for unconstitutional changes of government, in the context of ongoing crises in the Sahel, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reflects a quest for independent normative credibility.

Secondly, the anchoring in global governance. The presentation on the outcomes of the Johannesburg G20 Summit (November 22-23, 2025) and the AU’s institutionalized participation in the G20 mark a turning point. By advocating coordinated African positions on debt restructuring, climate finance, and digital transformation, Africa is ceasing to be an aggregate of scattered national interests and becoming a collective actor. The reaffirmation of the common African position on UN Security Council reform – in the presence of António Guterres, among others – constitutes a direct reminder to the powers with veto power: global governance without equitable African representation is structurally illegitimate.

Third, historical justice. The examination of the study classifying certain acts committed during slavery, deportation, and colonization as genocide introduces a highly political dimension of memory. By placing truth, restorative justice, and dignity at the heart of the agenda, the AU is addressing the symbolic foundation of the former European colonial powers, as evidenced by the adoption of the Algiers Declaration on the criminalization of colonialism. Reiterated solidarity with Palestine, in accordance with international law, extends this stance to a universal ethic of the rights of peoples.

What lessons can be drawn from these two sessions that are redefining African power, legitimacy, and sovereignty? This article aims to analyze the tangible strategic gains on the one hand, and on the other, the political contradictions that revealed the summit.

From water security to institutional reform

The 2026 summit placed water security at the heart of African priorities, under the theme “Ensuring sustainable water availability and safe sanitation to achieve the goals of Agenda 2063.” With 400 million people lacking access to safe drinking water and more than 800 million without access to sanitation, according to Mahmoud Ali Youssouf and Commissioner Moses Vilakati, this issue transcends humanitarian concerns. It is a prerequisite for economic stability, food security, and climate resilience. While the explicit link between water, peace, and climate represents a doctrinal innovation, the Assembly has, to this end, integrated water security into the triad of security, development, and stability.

On February 14, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, Chairperson of the AU Commission, emphasized the role of water as a strategic public good and presented an operational roadmap encompassing governance, financing, innovation, and the mobilization of domestic resources. This approach represents a break with historical dependence on external aid and reflects Africa’s ambition for self-sufficiency.

On the institutional and diplomatic front, the summit consolidated tangible gains with the election of Évariste Ndayishimiye, President of Burundi, as Chairperson of the AU for the 2026 term, strengthening regional rotation; the adoption of the memorandum of understanding on the African Standby Force, ensuring coordination between the AU, the Regional Economic Communities and regional mechanisms; progress in reforming the UN Security Council and in promoting coordinated African positions at the G20, particularly on debt, financing for sustainable development, food security and digital transformation.

These decisions structure a strategic framework where economic integration, peace, and continental sovereignty become interdependent. The AfCFTA, the agricultural transformation (CAADP), and climate adaptation programs now benefit from firm political support, with a time horizon aligned with Agenda 2063.

Political contradictions and paradoxes

Despite these advances, the summit revealed the moral and political fragility of African institutions. The participation of some leaders who came to power through military and institutional coups was accepted, while others were excluded, illustrating a diplomatic double standard that undermines the consistency of Africa’s zero-tolerance policy towards unconstitutional changes of government.

This ambivalence is symptomatic of a continent facing internal and external forces: indirect Western interventions and influence games of traditional powers, notably France, which seek to legitimize certain regimes while marginalizing others; internal pressures from member countries, oscillating between political realism and respect for constitutional principles, particularly to avoid isolation or the escalation of crises.

The undeniable truth is that Africa is at a point where international legitimacy, local stability, and continental effectiveness are all under strain. Tolerance of certain coup plotters (military and institutional) is not justified by international law but by geopolitical, financial, and security considerations, leaving a continent still trapped by its institutional contradictions.

A strategic turning point under pressure

The February summit marks a historic turning point. On the one hand, Africa is asserting itself as a strategic, autonomous, and visionary actor, capable of defining its priorities: water, sanitation, peace, institutional reform, and integrated development. On the other hand, it reveals that building continental sovereignty remains dependent on political compromises with serious consequences for its credibility. This is a truly strategic turning point, fraught with tension.

The paradox is striking: the AU is preparing for resilience and economic transformation, while simultaneously tolerating deviations in democratic legitimacy – not in the Western sense, but in the strictest sense. This duality could ultimately jeopardize the effective implementation of Agenda 2063 if it is not accompanied by a strict harmonization of the principles of governance and legitimacy.

In this sense, the 39th summit and the 48th session of the Executive Council are not just a political assessment; they are a laboratory of African sovereignty, where strategic power is built at the cost of difficult, sometimes contradictory choices, but always revealing of the maturity and limits of contemporary African diplomacy.

It is worth noting that February 14 and 15, 2026, will be remembered as days when Africa chose to exert its influence on the world stage, but through a lens of inevitable contradictions. Between tangible results – water security, institutional reform, and continental coordination – and political paradoxes, the continent demonstrates its capacity to define its own rules while simultaneously grappling with internal and external tensions that threaten its cohesion. The future of the African Union now hinges on its ability to translate these decisions into concrete actions and overcome the moral dichotomy that threatens the legitimacy of its institutions.

Mohamed Lamine KABA, Expert in the geopolitics of governance and regional integration, Institute of Governance, Human and Social Sciences, Pan-African University

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook