The African Union’s Congratulatory Letter To Paul Biya Is A Betrayal Of Its Founding Ideals -By Isaac Asabor

When the African Union (AU) recently extended its congratulations to Paul Biya on his so-called “eighth-term victory” in Cameroon, it did not just betray the Cameroonian people, it mocked its own founding principles. The same institution that once vowed to uproot “unconstitutional changes of government” has now applauded one of the continent’s longest-ruling autocrats, a man who has turned Cameroon into a fiefdom of gerontocracy and fear. This is not diplomacy. It is complicity.

To understand the gravity of this betrayal, one must recall what the AU was created to be. The “Constitutive Act of the African Union (2000)” was meant to replace the toothless Organization of African Unity (OAU), which hid behind “non-interference” while despots ran wild. The AU promised a new dawn, a doctrine of ‘non-indifference’, a continental commitment to democracy, human rights, and good governance. Its “African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (ACDEG)” explicitly condemns any manipulation of constitutional provisions to extend tenure. It considers “sittightism”, the pathological refusal to leave office, a form of unconstitutional rule.

But now, as Biya, aged 92, clings to power for over four decades, the AU’s congratulatory message makes a mockery of those commitments. It signals to the continent that longevity, not legitimacy, is the new currency of African leadership.

It is astounding that an institution that once suspended nations for military coups has turned a blind eye to ‘constitutional coups’. The AU was quick to denounce recent takeovers in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso, imposing sanctions and suspensions within days. Yet, when Biya manipulates the system to remain in power indefinitely, the AU’s reaction is not condemnation, but congratulations.

The hypocrisy is glaring. The AU’s “Lomé Declaration (2000)”, its first major statement against unconstitutional rule, defined legitimacy not merely as the presence of elections, but as adherence to democratic standards. Yet, Biya’s elections are neither democratic nor legitimate. They are rituals of continuity. Cameroonians vote, but they do not choose. The results are preordained, the process compromised, and the outcome predictable.

In its statement, the AU chair Mahmoud Ali Youssouf expressed “grave concern” about the violent repression of protests following the election, but still congratulated Biya. That contradiction is staggering. How can one condemn repression while endorsing the ruler responsible for it? It is like congratulating an arsonist for saving a burning house he set ablaze.

Paul Biya’s continued rule is not governance, it is occupation by inertia. Since taking office in 1982, he has ruled Cameroon from the shadows of luxury and distance, often spending months abroad while his country bleeds from poverty, conflict, and corruption. The Anglophone crisis festers, dissent is criminalized, and the economy stagnates.

Yet the AU congratulates him, ignoring the blood of protesters still fresh on the streets of Dschang and Garoua. It calls for “inclusive dialogue” but rewards the man who crushed dissent, jailed opponents, and weaponized fear. Such double-speak strips the AU of moral authority. It reveals an organization captured by the very gerontocrats it should be holding accountable.

At 92, Biya embodies the worst of Africa’s old guard, leaders who mistake longevity for legitimacy, who believe the state is their private estate. His latest “victory” is not a triumph of democracy; it is the triumph of decay. The AU’s endorsement gives him the veneer of continental approval he craves, even as his people cry out for change.

At this juncture, it is expedient we revisit what the AU ‘claims’ to stand for: “The Constitutive Act (Article 4)” affirms the promotion of democratic principles and institutions, popular participation, and good governance. “The African Charter on Democracy (Article 23)” defines as unconstitutional any “amendment or revision of the constitution which infringes the principles of democratic change of government.” In a similar vein, the Peace and Security Council is empowered to sanction leaders who cling to power unconstitutionally.

By these standards, Biya’s continued reign is a textbook case of unconstitutional governance. The Cameroonian constitution was twisted and amended to erase term limits, ensuring his eternal presidency. The elections that followed were neither free nor fair. Opposition parties faced intimidation, arrests, and censorship. Protesters were shot for daring to demand change.

If that does not qualify as a democratic violation, what does? And if the AU cannot call that out, then its charters is nothing but decorative documents, idealistic scripts gathering dust in Addis Ababa.

The AU’s problem is not ignorance, it is cowardice. It has mastered the art of selective courage. When soldiers take power by force, the AU acts swiftly, invoking principles and sanctions. But when aged incumbents manipulate constitutions, it retreats into silence, mouthing platitudes about “dialogue” and “stability.”

This double standard has eroded the AU’s credibility. It has emboldened leaders in Togo, Uganda, and Equatorial Guinea to treat term limits as optional suggestions. It tells African citizens that the AU’s moral compass spins according to political convenience.

When the AU congratulates a man like Biya, it legitimizes gerontocracy. It tells the youth, the continent’s majority, that their future is hostage to the whims of men who have outlived their vision. It tells reformers that change will not come from Addis Ababa, but in spite of it.

The AU’s founding fathers envisioned a continental body that would defend Africans against tyranny. But today’s AU is dominated by heads of state who see themselves in Biya, men who have no intention of leaving power anytime soon. They protect their own, not their people.

The “African Peer Review Mechanism”, once touted as a tool for accountability, now functions as a polite club of mutual flattery. The “Peace and Security Council”, supposed to act decisively in crises, is paralyzed by political timidity. The AU has become a mirror reflecting the mediocrity of its members, not a beacon guiding them toward reform.

If the AU cannot call out Biya’s democratic fraud, then it has no right to condemn coups elsewhere. Because what difference is there between seizing power with a gun and seizing it with a pen? Both betray the will of the people. Both strangle democracy. Both lead to bloodshed and instability.

The African Union must decide whether it stands for governments or for people. Its congratulatory letter to Biya is not a mere diplomatic courtesy; it is a political statement that echoes across the continent. It tells autocrats that they can rule indefinitely, manipulate constitutions, silence dissent, and still earn a pat on the back from Addis Ababa.

For a union founded on “non-indifference,” silence, or worse, celebration, in the face of democratic decay is unforgivable. The AU must retract its congratulations and reaffirm its commitment to democratic transitions. Otherwise, it will stand exposed as just another club of sit-tight rulers congratulating one another as their nations sink deeper into despair.

The Cameroonian people deserve better. Africa deserves better. And the AU must remember that its legitimacy does not come from presidents, it comes from the people they have failed.