Keypoints:
- Civilian ‘constitutional coups’ precede military takeovers
- Long-term rule fuels instability and public frustration
- AU and ECOWAS urged to act before coups occur
SINCE the immediate aftermath of independence in the early 1960s, Africa’s political landscape has been periodically disrupted by military coups d’état. Every so often, soldiers overthrow civilian regimes and take control of governments, suspending constitutions, banning electoral institutions and practices, and declaring transition periods that often prove open-ended or lead to military regimes in civilian clothes.
In 2026, over 60 years since the beginning of formal decolonisation in sub-Saharan Africa, there is no indication that military coups will stop anytime soon. Each time soldiers seize power, regional and international actors respond with a predictable and well-worn script: they condemn the coup and demand the immediate restoration of constitutional order.
They insist that the soldiers return to barracks, and in some cases that the overthrown government be returned to power.
While these familiar reactions affirm the principle that the military should not intervene in politics – their effectiveness has been almost zero.
Of course, the soldiers will not return to barracks. Of course, constitutional order will not immediately be restored. Instead, once they taste power, military leaders often find ways and means of hanging on indefinitely, just like the civilians they ousted. And the cycle of coups continues.
The overlooked history of constitutional coups
An often-overlooked fact of postcolonial African history is that the current spate of military coups was preceded by constitutional coups perpetrated by some of the continent’s first civilian leaders. The battles for African independence after the Second World War were fought on claims and promises of freedom and the liberty of nations and peoples to enjoy that freedom.
African nationalist leaders invoked the provisions of the Atlantic Charter (1941), the United Nations Charter (1945) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) to make a case for their peoples’ rights to freedom and self-determination. But once independence was achieved and colonial officials were replaced by African elites, promises of liberty, human rights and the rule of law for Africans were systematically broken by the new leaders through a series of constitutional coups in which they monopolised power to the exclusion of all their fellow citizens.
Citing the bogey of neocolonialism and the dangers of external sabotage, sometimes real sometimes imagined, some of Africa’s new leaders soon started declaring themselves presidents for life and turning their countries into single-party states where no other party was allowed to exist. They criminalised dissent, mercilessly crushed and silenced alternative political voices and opinions, and in short order almost literally assumed personal ownership of their countries.
Cold War dynamics and entrenched power
Caught in the amoral and brutal ideological crossfire of the Cold War, the new leaders now pandered to the interests of foreign powers, both East and West; disregarded or discarded all unfavourable constitutional provisions; and did whatever they wanted with the lives and destinies of their peoples.
The Non-aligned Movement founded at the Bandung Conference of 1955, whose members claimed to be neutral in the Cold War, could not prevent African countries from being proxy-battlegrounds whose leaders were often given blanket support in the name of ideological containment.
Then as now, regime change through the ballot box became a near-impossibility. Military coups became the only sure way of bringing about political change on the continent.
Modern leaders and prolonged rule
The second and third generations of civilian African leaders learned these lessons from their predecessors. They often did not declare themselves presidents for life or impose de jure single-party states. But they presided over intolerant de facto single-party states that monopolised political power and national resources almost to the exclusion of everyone else.
Where alternative political parties were allowed to exist, they were bullied to the point of irrelevance. Elections were and continue to be routinely rigged yet declared free and fair by international observers as de facto presidents for life are returned to power.
Like their predecessors, these leaders also cracked down upon and jailed their opponents at will, muzzled press freedom and changed constitutions to stay indefinitely in power. A corrupted definition of democracy as the conduct of elections was now held up as evidence of the rule of law, and heads of state insisted on their right to literally own their countries and stay in power for as long as they wish.
In some cases, these leaders bequeathed the presidency to their children, thus turning their countries into family-owned possessions and the nation-state into pseudo-kingdoms where the king may rule forever and never be held accountable.
Africa’s longest-serving leaders
It is instructive to note that in 2026, the six longest-serving African presidents have been in power for a combined total of about 220 years. Paul Biya of Cameroun, 92, has been in power for 50 years (seven as prime minster, 43 as president). He just “won” re-election for an eighth seven-year term.
Teodore Obiang of Equatorial Guinea, 83, has been in power for 44 years. Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, 81, has been in power for 40 years. He too just “won” re-election for a seventh five-year term.
Isaias Afwerki of Eritrea has been in power for 32 years. Ismail Omar Gulleh of Djibouti has been in power for 27 years. And Paul Kagame of Rwanda has been in power for 26 years.
Clearly, while military coups are never desirable, they are reasonably predictable if not inevitable in some of these countries. For as the adage goes, change is the law of life, and those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.
Why coups gain public support
To stop the military coups, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU) and other interested parties must find ways of stopping the monopolisation and abuse of political power and the rule of law by sitting presidents. They must address the political impunity that allows civilian leaders to spend decades in power, behaving as if they own their countries.
They must stop these leaders from waging war against their own citizens by deploying security forces against peaceful opponents and critics, silencing opposition parties, the media and civil society, and by these actions fuelling public frustration, shrinking the civic space, closing all avenues for peaceful change of leadership and giving ambitious soldiers reason to strike.
Overstaying in power and suppressing lawful dissent generate public anger, frustration and indifference or even support for military coups. It is not unusual to see crowds dancing in the streets in the aftermath of military coups in Africa.
A call for preventive action
Condemning coups without addressing these conditions amounts to treating the effect while ignoring the cause. ECOWAS, the AU and other members of the international community must take the proverbial bull by the horns and insist that civilian regimes respect the very constitutional orders that they insist military coupists respect.
Preventive international diplomacy need not violate territorial integrity and the sovereignty of states. It need not and would not undermine African sovereignty; rather, it would help civilian leaders and governments uphold their own constitutional responsibilities and avoid creating uncertain and more difficult futures for their countries and populations.
In short, to stem the rising tide of military coups in Africa, ECOWAS, the AU and other members of the international community must find ways of stopping the abuse of constitutional order before, not after military coups take place. If a country can be suspended from regional bodies after a coup, what prevents that same country from being suspended before a coup?
If sanctions can be imposed on a country after a coup, what prevents sanctions from being imposed when there is ample evidence of impunity and abuse of power and constitutional order before a coup? Why not sanction leaders who refuse to have term limits in their constitutions, or who manipulate their constitutions to cling indefinitely on to power?
If suspensions and sanctions are considered inappropriate, other ways and means must nevertheless be found to stop the constitutional coups. Only then can they stem the tide of military coups in Africa.
Baba Galleh Jallow is the former Executive Secretary of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) in The Gambia.
This article was reproduced from the March-April edition of Africa Briefing Magazine
