Earlier this month, African nations were caught off guard by news that the African Union (AU) had nominated former Senegalese President Macky Sall as its candidate for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

ALSO READ: Burundi’s bid to pick Macky Sall for UN top role collapses after countries break silence

The nomination was not put forward by the AU as an institution, but by Burundi, which currently holds the AU chairmanship. While Sall is a legitimate candidate to succeed António Guterres when his term ends this year, the AU has established clear procedures for presenting candidates to positions of this significance. His candidacy bypassed those procedures entirely—making him, as several analysts have noted, an African candidate, but not the AU’s consensus nominee.

ALSO READ: Can Ndayishimiye rewrite his African story

The AU leadership has been criticised over the nomination process, and warned that the bloc risked being driven into a crisis by its current chair, Burundian President Évariste Ndayishimiye.

ALSO READ: Burundi's role in DR Congo conflict taints Ndayishimiye's tenure at AU – analysts

The situation worsened when Ndayishimiye attempted to secure retrospective AU endorsement through a 24-hour silence procedure—an unusual mechanism that bypassed a formal summit of AU heads of state altogether. At least 20 member states broke the silence, effectively blocking the endorsement.

ALSO READ: Ndayishimiye’s appointee who made a genocidal militia’s dreams come true

The AU chair has been accused of disregarding established rules and showing disrespect toward fellow leaders.

My concern here is not Sall’s candidacy. It is how decisions are being made—or rather, how they are being forced through at the AU. What is clear is that Ndayishimiye did not act alone.

ALSO READ: What are the motivations of Burundi’s military intervention in South Kivu?

The nomination was filed in New York without prior consultation with other African heads of state, and the process has been widely described as a "fiasco” and an overreach by the AU chair.

ALSO READ: How Burundian troops in South Kivu sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis amid DR Congo’s wider war

No specific advisor has been publicly identified as having counselled Ndayishimiye to proceed in this manner. What remains beyond dispute is that the nomination violated AU procedures and lacked the broad consensus required for an endorsement of this scale. It is also worth noting that one line of reasoning points to the possibility that Ndayishimiye acted under the influence of unnamed associates or advisors with a direct interest in Sall’s candidacy. No evidence has surfaced to confirm this, but the pattern of the decision—rushed, procedurally irregular, and resistant to scrutiny—raises questions that have yet to be answered.

The more pressing question is this: could Ndayishimiye have proceeded, together with his ambassador to the UN, without any coordination with Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, the Chairperson of the AU Commission (AUC)?

That scenario is difficult to accept. Filing such a nomination in New York without consulting other heads of state is one matter. Doing so without the knowledge of the AUC Chairperson is another matter entirely.

Currently, no evidence publicly connects Ndayishimiye’s decision to the Chairperson of the AU Commission. On the contrary, it was the Commission that effectively blocked Ndayishimiye’s initiative. There are no public statements, documents, or reports linking Youssouf to any support for or coordination of Sall’s bid. The nomination collapsed precisely because of objections upheld through AU processes, not through any joint effort with the AU chair’s office.

That said, if Ndayishimiye and his ambassador acted entirely without consulting the AUC Chairperson, the latter faces a serious institutional question: who is he working with, and to what extent does his office hold real authority within the AU structure?

The more credible reading of events, however, is that there was some degree of coordination between the two offices, possibly facilitated by an unidentified third-party actor. If that is the case, it points to a governance failure that runs deeper than a single procedural violation.

The failed move by Ndayishimiye has left the AU without a consensus candidate ahead of the 2026 UN leadership election.

Beyond the immediate diplomatic embarrassment, it has raised legitimate and urgent questions about transparency, internal consultation, and the integrity of AU decision-making—questions the institution cannot afford to leave unanswered.

Amani Athar is a media specialist, historian, and playwright.