By Alusine A. Sesay
It is no longer a concealed truth that the so-called “coup” in Guinea-Bissau bears all the hallmarks of orchestration rather than genuine rebellion. I laid out this position in detail in an earlier article published only days ago.
Over the weekend, however, several new developments emerged, the most striking being the public pronouncements of Goodluck Jonathan, former President of Nigeria and one of the principal election observers in Guinea-Bissau.
His commentary has, in effect, rendered Maada Bio’s task as the current ECOWAS Chair and chief mediator exceedingly onerous, if not virtually untenable, even before Bio departed Sierra Leone for Bissau.
One may ask: in what way has Jonathan complicated matters?
The answer lies in the extent to which he exceeded the boundaries of diplomatic prudence.
Jonathan’s remarks on the electoral impasse, comments that should have been carefully measured and strictly provisional, were delivered with such unrestrained forthrightness that they have significantly narrowed Bio’s room for manoeuvre.
It would have sufficed for Jonathan to simply characterise the situation as a “palace coup,” a staged political drama rather than an authentic military takeover. Instead, he went further, issuing explicit directives on an international media platform, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the global press was listening intently and recording every word.
Goodluck Jonathan stated publicly that:
- Guinea-Bissau should be suspended from ECOWAS with immediate effect
- The junta must release the detained opposition leader without delay
- The military authorities should relinquish power forthwith
- The electoral commission must be allowed to announce the results of the recent election without obstruction
While these recommendations may, in substance, be sound, it is emphatically not his place to articulate them so publicly. Statements of this nature should emanate from the ECOWAS Chair, Maada Bio, and only after discreet, preliminary diplomatic engagements conducted behind closed doors.
Public diplomacy must always be preceded by private diplomacy.
Thus, before Bio even set foot outside Sierra Leone, Jonathan had already pre-empted and publicly prescribed the outcomes Bio would otherwise have been expected to negotiate tactfully.
As a result, Bio now confronts a diplomatic landscape in which much of his authority has been inadvertently undermined.
In reality, Bio’s visit appears destined to fulfil little more than procedural obligations tied to his ECOWAS role. The likelihood that the Guinea-Bissau junta will comply with Jonathan’s public demands is exceedingly remote.
Furthermore, one must not overlook the personal dynamics involved.
Former Guinea-Bissau President Umaro Sissoco Embaló, widely believed to have engineered this elaborate “self-coup,” is a close political ally of Maada Bio. It was Embaló, among a select group of regional leaders, who offered Bio critical political support during Sierra Leone’s contested 2023 elections.
Given such a relationship, it is difficult to imagine Bio openly contradicting or applying significant pressure on a man who has previously stood firmly in his corner.
Thus, it is unsurprising that this visit may yield little of practical consequence. It is likely to serve, more than anything else, as a performative exercise to satisfy diplomatic protocol.
Beneath the veneer of statesmanship, both men understand each other far more intimately than the public may appreciate.
The most plausible concession one might expect is the eventual release of the detained opposition leader, but only at a time and manner entirely dictated by the junta.
As for the notion that ECOWAS will compel a transfer of power or authorise the publication of Guinea-Bissau’s electoral results, such expectations are fanciful, and Bio is undoubtedly aware of this.
One harsh truth that ECOWAS citizens often overlook is that the contemporary ECOWAS bears scarcely any resemblance to an institution truly devoted to the welfare, aspirations, or democratic integrity of its peoples.
Instead, it increasingly functions as a political sanctuary for incumbent leaders, preserving power structures, reinforcing elite networks, and insulating governments from accountability.
As unpalatable as it may be to acknowledge, Africa is witnessing a troubling trend: outgoing leaders carefully selecting their successors through contrived or choreographed “coups,” from Guinea and Gabon to Zimbabwe, Chad, and now Guinea-Bissau.
So the pressing question becomes: Who will be next?
