By Samuel Ouma*
When the gavel fell at the 39th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa in February, it marked more than the routine passing of the Union’s rotating chairmanship. It signaled the arrival of a leader stepping into one of the most complex moments in recent continental diplomacy. Burundi’s President Évariste Ndayishimiye assumed the chair of the African Union for 2026 with a mandate that, on paper, appears straightforward: elevate water and sanitation as central pillars of Africa’s development agenda. In reality, his tenure begins amid a turbulent geopolitical landscape that will test the limits of what a one-year AU chairmanship can realistically achieve.
The choice of the African Union’s theme for 2026 — assuring sustainable water availability and safe sanitation systems in pursuit of the goals of Agenda 2063 — was deliberate. Across Africa, water is no longer merely a development concern but a strategic one. It sits at the intersection of food security, climate resilience, urban expansion, industrialisation and public health. The AU leadership believes that by elevating water to the centre of continental policy, the Union can rally governments, financial institutions and international partners around an issue capable of delivering practical impact for ordinary citizens while avoiding the ideological divides that often paralyse political initiatives.
For Ndayishimiye, the theme provides a concrete platform from which to project continental leadership. But it also places him at the head of an institution facing some of its most demanding diplomatic tests in recent years.
His own rise to the position reflects a journey shaped by Burundi’s turbulent political history. A former rebel fighter who emerged from the ranks of the CNDD-FDD during the country’s civil conflict, Ndayishimiye entered the presidency in 2020 after the sudden death of his predecessor. Since then he has attempted to reposition Burundi diplomatically while maintaining firm control domestically. Critics continue to raise concerns about political freedoms and human rights in the country, but within African diplomatic circles he has steadily built a reputation as a pragmatic participant in continental affairs.
Those relationships proved valuable as he secured the consensus required for the AU’s rotating chairmanship. Diplomats in Addis Ababa note that he arrived with experience inside the AU system and an understanding of how its political machinery works. In the year preceding his election he was already involved in continental initiatives related to peace and security and youth engagement, roles that gave him familiarity with the Union’s complex network of committees, envoys and regional blocs.
The ceremonial handover from Angola’s President João Lourenço was brief but symbolically important. Standing before fellow heads of state, Ndayishimiye framed his priorities in starkly practical terms. Without equitable access to water and sanitation, he argued, Africa cannot hope to deliver public health, economic inclusion or sustainable prosperity. It was a statement that linked a technical development agenda to the larger political question of stability across the continent.
Yet almost immediately, the realities of geopolitics began to intrude on the carefully framed theme of the year.
One of the earliest tests confronting the new chairperson comes from a familiar source of instability in the Great Lakes region. Tensions involving Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have once again resurfaced despite a peace understanding reached only months earlier in Washington, D.C., an agreement for which U.S. President Donald Trump publicly claimed diplomatic credit. In a striking coincidence, Ndayishimiye himself was present during the signing ceremony, a detail that now places him uncomfortably close to a deal whose durability is already being questioned as cross-border accusations and military manoeuvres resume.
For the African Union, the renewed tensions highlight a long-standing dilemma. External powers often step in to broker high-profile agreements on African conflicts, yet the responsibility for maintaining peace ultimately returns to regional institutions that struggle with limited enforcement mechanisms. As chairperson, Ndayishimiye may find himself navigating the delicate balance between supporting international diplomatic initiatives and asserting African ownership of conflict resolution.
Beyond the Great Lakes region, the broader global environment is also shifting in ways that demand an African response. The conflict in the Middle East continues to reverberate across the continent, affecting energy markets, political alliances and public opinion in African capitals. Governments from North Africa to the Horn have found themselves under pressure to articulate positions that reflect both domestic sentiment and strategic interests. For the African Union, crafting a unified voice on the crisis remains difficult, yet failure to do so risks reinforcing perceptions that the continent remains marginal in major global debates.
Ndayishimiye’s chairmanship therefore arrives at a moment when Africa is grappling with how to project influence on issues far beyond its borders. The expectation among many African diplomats is that the AU must find ways to make its positions heard more clearly in global forums, particularly at a time when geopolitical competition among major powers is intensifying.
Closer to home, another potential crisis looms over the continent’s youngest nation. South Sudan, which emerged from years of devastating civil war, faces renewed political tensions that some observers fear could spiral back into open conflict. Any deterioration there would immediately demand the attention of regional organisations and the African Union, forcing the chairperson to juggle high-stakes mediation with the development agenda he has pledged to advance.
Even as these crises dominate the headlines, the summit in Addis Ababa also produced a series of ambitious declarations about Africa’s long-term future. Among the most politically charged was the renewed push for global recognition of the historical injustices of slavery and colonial exploitation. Ghana’s President John Mahama used the summit to press for a stronger continental campaign demanding reparations for the transatlantic slave trade and its enduring economic consequences. The Assembly signaled support for Ghana to continue leading international advocacy on the issue, framing reparations not simply as a moral demand but as part of a broader debate about historical accountability, development justice and Africa’s place in the global economic system.
The conversation on reparations reflects a growing willingness among African governments to engage more assertively in global historical and political debates. For some leaders, the issue represents an opportunity to reshape international narratives about Africa’s past while also opening discussions about structural inequalities that continue to shape global development patterns.
Another major theme emerging from the summit was the renewed momentum behind the idea of visa-free travel across the continent. Facilitated discussions led by the African Development Bank Group highlighted the economic benefits of greater mobility for trade, tourism and labour markets. The concept has circulated in African policy circles for years, but recent conversations suggest a growing recognition that regional integration cannot succeed without freer movement of people.
For the African Union, the vision of a more open continent aligns with broader ambitions tied to the African Continental Free Trade Area, which seeks to create the largest free trade zone in the world by number of participating countries. If goods and services are to move efficiently across borders, advocates argue, Africans themselves must also be able to travel more easily within the continent.
These initiatives — water security, reparations diplomacy and visa-free mobility — together illustrate the breadth of expectations surrounding the African Union’s current agenda. They reflect both the practical development concerns facing African societies and the political aspirations of a continent seeking greater influence in global affairs.
For Ndayishimiye, the challenge will be turning these declarations into tangible progress during a chairmanship that lasts only twelve months. Success will depend on his ability to mobilise consensus among member states, coordinate closely with the African Union Commission and attract the financing required to transform policy ambitions into real projects.
The water and sanitation agenda alone will demand precisely this kind of coordination. Africa faces enormous infrastructure gaps in both urban and rural areas. Rapid population growth, climate pressures and expanding cities mean that millions of people continue to lack reliable access to clean water and adequate sanitation. Addressing the problem requires sustained investment, governance reforms and cross-border cooperation on shared water resources.
Within the AU, proposals are already circulating for a continental water financing mechanism, stronger cooperation among river basin authorities and initiatives linking water security to agricultural productivity and climate adaptation. If implemented effectively, such measures could produce tangible improvements in daily life across the continent.
Yet the challenge for the chairperson is time. The AU presidency lasts only a year, a period often consumed by diplomatic crises that leave little room for long-term policy initiatives. Ndayishimiye must therefore find ways to advance his development agenda while responding to the unpredictable shocks that regularly confront African diplomacy.
Domestic politics will also shape his room for manoeuvre. Burundi itself remains a politically sensitive environment, and Ndayishimiye must balance his continental responsibilities with the demands of maintaining stability at home. African leaders watching his tenure will inevitably interpret his actions through that lens.
As his year begins, reactions across the continent reflect a mixture of cautious optimism and guarded skepticism. Some diplomats welcome the focus on practical development priorities, arguing that the AU’s credibility could benefit from delivering visible improvements in essential services. Civil society organisations, however, stress that progress in water and sanitation should be accompanied by stronger commitments to transparency, accountability and inclusive governance.
International partners have likewise expressed willingness to engage, particularly on infrastructure financing and regional integration initiatives. But they also expect clear frameworks that ensure African ownership of projects and responsible management of funds.
In the end, the measure of Ndayishimiye’s chairmanship will not lie in the themes announced in Addis Ababa but in the results achieved across the continent. If his leadership can transform policy discussions into pipelines, sanitation systems and water infrastructure that improve everyday life, his tenure could strengthen the African Union’s relevance at a time when its credibility is frequently tested.
If not, the promise of a leadership reset may remain largely rhetorical.
For millions of Africans who still lack access to clean water and safe sanitation, however, the stakes are anything but symbolic. Their expectations will ultimately determine whether the African Union’s newest chairperson presides over a year remembered mainly for diplomatic turbulence — or one that quietly delivered progress where it matters most.
* Culled from March Issue of PAV Magazine.
