An institution born out of a need for a unifying force against historical conflicts, poverty, poor governance, and economic isolation in a continent where borders were drawn in faraway conference rooms, the African Union (AU) was envisaged as a tool for addressing the common problems facing a united Africa. More than two decades since, those same problems persist while the institution thrives. Whereas conflicts flare up across Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, trade remains stifled by underdeveloped infrastructural networks and non-tariff barriers. Meanwhile, millions of unemployed youth continue to emerge into economies that struggle to accommodate new workforce members. The list of ongoing challenges in Africa goes on. Against this backdrop is the AU, a complex structure of various organs designed to solve Africa’s problems. However, the extent to which these institutions are successful in executing their roles remains debatable. Independent research highlights the gap between the AU’s ambitions and its institutional performance A broader body of independent research echoes these institutional tensions. In its publication The African Union at 20: African perspectives on progress, challenges and prospects (2023), the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) brings together African experts to critically assess the AU’s performance over two decades. The study notes that although the AU was envisioned as a transformative force for governance, peace, and development on the continent, progress has been uneven, with its 20th anniversary marked by relatively muted recognition. It points to recurring constraints across AU organs, including weak enforcement capacity, reliance on political will, and inconsistent commitment from member states, factors that continue to limit effective implementation. The ISS further argues that strengthening the AU requires more than technical adjustments; it demands a deeper reconsideration of how Africa conceptualises, designs, and operationalises its continental institutions. By drawing on diverse African perspectives, the publication contributes to on-going debates on improving the effectiveness of organs such as the AUC, AUDA-NEPAD, and the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), underscoring the persistent gap between institutional ambition and practical delivery. Using the latest available research, institutional actions, and expert opinions, Africa Uncensored explores the following fundamental question about the AU: Are its organs making an impact on shaping Africa’s future, or are they being held back by institutional constraints and political challenges? Based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the African capital, the African Union Commission (AUC) acts as the administrative and executive hub of the entire continental institution. It formulates, monitors, and supports the execution of policies across all member states of the institution. According to academic research on the subject, specifically “Punching Above Weight: How the African Union Commission Exercises Agency in Politics”, the AUC has been shown to influence the continent’s agendas and even politics. At the same time, influence is quite distinct from power. Indeed, the AUC is forced to operate within certain boundaries set by sovereign states, each of which has its unique political, economic, and social conditions. During political crises, for instance, the AUC can take measures such as issuing statements or calling upon member states to engage in conflict resolution processes.Such initiatives have failed, however, in addressing the ongoing conflicts in eastern Congo and Sudan. Therefore, while the AUC may be considered influential on a continent scale, the extent of its leadership is quite limited, as its activities depend entirely on the willingness of member states to comply with its recommendations. Whereas the AUC formulates policies, AUDA-NEPAD is charged with the task of implementing those policies. At the recent 2025 Luanda Summit on Infrastructure Financing, the organisation made its intentions very clear: “This Summit was intentional, to move beyond speeches and create a dynamic marketplace, moving us from rhetoric to concrete financing.” This means that there are real challenges facing citizens on a daily basis due to infrastructure deficiencies, such as long travel times along poorly paved roads, power shortages in urban areas, limited availability of water and other utilities, and fragmented logistics and transportation systems hindering trade. According to AUDA-NEPAD, there were US$43.9 billion worth of infrastructure projects in the pipeline. As some of the strategic changes in the approach towards infrastructure development include treating major corridors as continental resources, the organization said: “Our priority PIDA corridors are not just national projects…they require a governance framework to match.” What does it mean for ordinary citizens in practical terms? It means that multiple states should collaborate on large-scale projects in the form of rail transport networks, electricity infrastructure, and port facilities connecting different countries’ economic zones. The problem is that such cooperation may require substantial investments, agreement, and coordination between multiple stakeholders, which often does not happen. For the people affected, the difference can be either positive or negative, depending on the success of infrastructure development.
This page contains an attributed headline and the preview text supplied through the publisher’s RSS feed. Copyright in the original reporting belongs to Africa Uncensored.
