The African Union Commission (AUC), is once again haunted by the very practices it was supposed to overcome. Barely months after the election of Mahmoud Ali Youssouf raised hopes of institutional renewal, unilateral decisions, opaque manoeuvres and the apparent intrusion of foreign agendas are threatening to drag the African Union back into a familiar crisis of credibility. The controversy over the appointment of a Moroccan official, backed by foreign agendas, to a powerful specifically tailored new position within the Commission is more than an administrative dispute, it is a warning that the struggle for Africa’s institutional independence is far from over.

The appointment of the recently retired AU official, Fathallah Sijilmassi, (from Morocco) as the Chairperson’s Special Envoy for the G20 and “Global Affairs” has become a striking illustration of this troubling trajectory. Far from being a routine administrative decision, it has exposed a growing confrontation between the Commission Chairperson and Member States over institutional authority, accountability and the influence of external powers in African affairs.

A unilateral decision against the will of Member States

On 18 September 2026, Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf announced Sijilmassi’s appointment, entrusting him with a remarkably broad mandate covering the G20, global governance, international financial architecture, sustainable development, trade, climate action, technology and other international issues affecting Africa.

These responsibilities overlap with mandates already assigned to elected Deputy Chairperson and Commissioners, various AUC Directorates, the African Union’s G20 Sherpa, specialised technical committees and other established organs.

The controversy had already surfaced during the Permanent Representatives Committee meeting on 16 September. Member States reportedly objected to the proposed appointment, questioning its legal basis, institutional necessity and potential interference with existing responsibilities. They also conveyed their concerns to the Director of the Chairperson’s Cabinet. Morocco was reportedly the only country openly supporting the initiative.

Nevertheless, two days later, the Chairperson proceeded with the announcement in a Communiqué, disregarding the objections raised by Member States and effectively imposing a fait accompli.

This sequence is particularly disturbing. The Commission is not a private office in which its head can create news positions or structures and redistribute institutional responsibilities at will. Its authority is governed by the African Union’s legal instruments and the decisions of its competent decision-making organs. The Chairperson’s executive powers cannot be treated as a license to bypass collective decision-making whenever it becomes inconvenient.

By proceeding despite explicit reservations, Youssouf has risked turning consultation with member states and relevant organs and institutions into a mere formality and transforming a unilateral appointment into a confrontation over the very principles governing the Union.

Creating parallel authority and undermining African institutions

The breadth of Sijilmassi’s mandate threatens to create a parallel centre of authority within the Commission as powerful as the Chairperson and all Commissioners together. The African Union already has established structures responsible for coordinating African positions and representing the continent in international forums. These arrangements are the product of collective decisions and should not be undermined through appointments whose responsibilities remain unclear.

The problem becomes particularly acute in the G20, where Africa’s representation carries considerable political and economic weight. The Commission’s announcement stipulates that the Special Envoy must operate under the authority of the Union’s G20 representative, or Sherpa. Yet reports of an earlier attempt by Sijilmassi to assume leadership of an AU delegation travelling to Bangkok for a World Bank meeting have intensified concerns about the practical implications of his role.

Such a situation risks subordinating an elected Commissioner, entrusted with responsibilities by African Member States, to an unelected appointee whose mandate and authority remain contentious. It would also send a deeply damaging message to international partners about the coherence of African representation.

More troubling still, Sijilmassi retired from his position as General Director within the AUC on 30 August, barely three weeks before his appointment as Special Envoy was announced on 18 September. This raises serious questions about the purpose of the newly created position and the determination to retain his services despite existing institutional arrangements. It also raises concerns about the Chairperson’s decision to re-engage a retired official without observing the required cooling-off period of at least one year before soliciting his services again.

No diplomat or official, however experienced or well connected, should become indispensable at the expense of the rules, structures and collective interests of the African Union.

The European Union, France and Morocco: Whose agenda is being served?

The most disturbing dimension of the affair is the apparent role of external actors in promoting the appointment. Information circulating within diplomatic circles indicates that the European Union and its Member States “proposed” Sijilmassi for the position and provided funding for his remuneration.

If external partners can influence who occupies strategic positions within the Commission, the implications for African institutional independence are profound. Financial cooperation must never become a mechanism for shaping the Union’s internal political and administrative arrangements.

The contradiction is glaring. An AUC’s Envoy appointed to strengthen Africa’s voice in global governance would himself occupy a position reportedly promoted and financed by external powers. How can the African Union credibly demand reform of the international financial architecture and greater African autonomy while appearing vulnerable to external influence in its own affairs?

The controversy also reinforces concerns about the influence of France and Morocco within African diplomatic circles. Sijilmassi enjoys close relationships with European representatives in Addis Ababa, some of whom have openly praised his abilities in excessively laudatory and enthusiastic terms during AU meetings. Morocco’s support for the appointment, despite the objections of other Member States, adds a politically sensitive dimension to the controversy and reinforces concerns that the Special Envoy’s priorities may be more closely aligned with Rabat’s interests than with the collective interests of the African continent, a perception increasingly shared by many within the Union.

These relationships should not be dismissed as inconsequential. They raise legitimate concerns about the networks of influence through which external political agendas can penetrate African institutions.

France has long maintained significant political and diplomatic influence across the continent, while Morocco has pursued an assertive campaign to expand its position within African structures. Neither country can be expected to abandon its national interests. The responsibility of the African Union’s leadership, however, is to ensure that such interests never take precedence over the collective interests of its Member States.

The concern is therefore not simply about the nationality of one appointee. It is about whether the Commission is becoming increasingly receptive to external preferences while showing insufficient regard for the objections of African governments. Africa cannot demand sovereignty abroad while tolerating dependency and political manipulation within its own institutions.

A troubling return to old practices

The Sijilmassi affair risks becoming emblematic of a wider institutional malaise: opaque appointments, overlapping mandates, patronage, administrative manoeuvres and the concentration of authority in the hands of individuals operating beyond meaningful collective scrutiny.

These are precisely the practices that have undermined confidence in the African Union over the years. The election of Mahmoud Ali Youssouf had offered an opportunity to break with this legacy and restore confidence in the Commission. That opportunity is now being jeopardised by decisions that appear to reproduce the very weaknesses the Union needs to overcome.

The consequences extend far beyond one appointment. An institution divided by competing centres of authority and vulnerable to external influence cannot effectively coordinate Africa’s positions on peace and security, trade, climate finance, international security or reform of global governance. Nor can it convincingly champion the sovereignty of African states while its own internal processes generate doubts about independence and accountability.

The return of these practices is especially alarming because it risks normalising the idea that institutional rules can be circumvented whenever political connections, external sponsorship or individual ambitions demand it.

Member States must act before the precedent becomes permanent

The responsibility for stopping this drift rests with the African Union’s Member States and its competent organs. The Permanent Representatives Committee must ensure that the objections already raised are not buried beneath diplomatic silence. The Commission should be required to explain the legal basis of the appointment, its financing, its reporting arrangements and its relationship with the mandates of elected Commissioners and existing AU structures.

Any responsibilities assigned by the Assembly or Executive Council must remain protected unless they are revised through the appropriate procedures. If the Special Envoy’s position cannot be justified institutionally, it should be reconsidered. If retained against all odds, its mandate must be clearly defined and prevented from duplicating or undermining existing responsibilities. Above all, Member States must demonstrate that the African Union is governed by rules and collective decisions, not by unilateral appointments or the preferences of external partners.

The question is no longer simply whether Sijilmassi should occupy a particular office. It is whether the Commission Chairperson can impose controversial institutional arrangements despite the objections of Member States without facing meaningful consequences. If such conduct is allowed to stand, it will establish a dangerous precedent for future leaders and further weaken the Union’s institutional foundations.

The African Union must belong to Africa

Mahmoud Ali Youssouf still has an opportunity to correct course and demonstrate that the hopes surrounding his election were justified. Genuine leadership requires more than announcing decisions and rhetorical Pan African promises; it demands respect for institutional boundaries, accountability to Member States and the courage to resist external and internal pressures.

The African Union was established to advance African aspirations, defend the continent’s independence and strengthen its collective voice. It cannot fulfil that mission if corruption, misconduct, opaque appointments and foreign political agendas are allowed to shape its affairs.

Africa has struggled for decades to escape external domination and secure control over its political and economic destiny. It would be a bitter irony if the institutions created to safeguard that independence became channels through which outside powers exercise influence over African priorities.

The warning signs are unmistakable. The question now is whether Member States will defend the Union’s integrity or allow old practices to return, this time under the banner of institutional innovation.

The African Union must serve African peoples and the collective decisions of its Member States, not individual ambitions, diplomatic patronage or foreign agendas. Its credibility, independence and future depend on that choice.