On December 26, 2025, Israel’s historic recognition of the Republic of Somaliland as a sovereign nation sent a clear message to the international community: it is time to acknowledge the political and legal realities of the Horn of Africa.
While this move was celebrated in Hargeisa, the African Union (AU) responded with a swift and predictable condemnation, citing a rigid interpretation of colonial-era borders that is not only outdated but also riddled with contradictions.
The AU’s reaction is a missed opportunity to reward a beacon of stability in a volatile region and a failure to apply its own founding principles with wisdom and foresight. A closer examination of the AU’s own records and the current leadership of the AU Commission reveals a position that is not only hypocritical but also deeply compromised by a clear conflict of interest.
The AU’s rejection of Israeli recognition hinges on a strict adherence to the 1964 Cairo Resolution, which enshrines the principle of the inviolability of borders inherited at independence.
The AU Chairperson, H.E. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, reiterated this position, warning that recognising Somaliland would set a “dangerous precedent” and undermine the “unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Somalia.” This argument, however, conveniently ignores the AU’s own 2005 fact-finding mission to Somaliland, which came to a starkly different conclusion.
The 2005 AU report is a damning indictment of the AU's current stance. The mission found that the 1960 union between Somaliland and Somalia was "never ratified" and had “malfunctioned,” bringing “enormous injustice and suffering to the people of the region.”
The report explicitly stated that Somaliland's search for recognition was "historically unique and self-justified in African political history" and that its case “should not be linked to the notion of 'opening a Pandora's box.’”
The mission even recommended that the AU should find a “special method of dealing with this outstanding case.”
Moreover, the 2005 AU mission praised Somaliland’s democratic achievements, noting that “since its declaration of independence in 1991, Somaliland has been steadfastly laying the foundations of a democratic State, clothed with the relevant attributes of a ‘modern State.’”
The report highlighted Somaliland’s constitution with separation of powers, the functional co-habitation of traditional governance institutions with elected representatives, active opposition political parties, and a budding independent press.
For over three decades, Somaliland has maintained peace and stability while building democratic institutions—a stark contrast to the chronic instability that has plagued Somalia.
The AU’s current position is therefore a complete repudiation of its own carefully considered findings, sacrificing a pragmatic and just solution for a dogmatic and outdated principle.
Furthermore, the AU's “Pandora’s Box” argument is a canard. The AU has already set precedents by recognising the independence of Eritrea from Ethiopia and South Sudan from Sudan.
In both cases, the AU accepted the reality of new states born from conflict and political division. Somaliland's case is arguably stronger, as it is not creating a new border but restoring an old one.
The 1960 union between Somaliland and Somalia was a voluntary association that was never formally ratified by either party—a legal reality that distinguishes Somaliland from typical secessionist movements.
By refusing to engage with Somaliland, the AU is not preventing separatism; it is punishing a successful and democratic state for the failures of its neighbour, while simultaneously betraying its own institutional memory and established precedents.
This glaring contradiction in the AU’s position is further compounded by a clear conflict of interest at the highest level of the AU Commission. The current Chairperson, H.E. Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, is from Djibouti. As has been widely reported, Djibouti derives up to 80 percent of its national income from port fees, with Ethiopia paying an estimated $1.5 to $2 billion annually for access to its ports.
The Ethiopia-Somaliland MoU, which grants Ethiopia access to the sea in exchange for recognition, poses a direct and existential threat to Djibouti’s economy. For the AU Chairperson to be the primary voice of opposition to Somaliland’s recognition, when his own country has a direct and substantial financial interest in maintaining the status quo, is a serious conflict of interest that undermines the credibility and impartiality of the AU.
The AU’s decision-making process on this critical issue cannot be seen as objective when it is so clearly compromised by the national interests of its leadership.
It is time for the African Union to abandon its dogmatic, contradictory, and compromised stance on Somaliland. Instead of issuing reflexive condemnations, the AU should heed the advice of its own 2005 fact-finding mission and engage with Somaliland in a constructive and forward-looking manner.
Recognising Somaliland is not a threat to African stability; it is an opportunity to reward a successful democracy, promote regional peace, and uphold the very principles of self-determination and justice that the AU claims to champion. The world is moving on, and the AU risks being left behind, clinging to an outdated map that no longer reflects the reality on the ground.
Prof Wafula Okumu is a former AU staffer and author of several publications on the African Union including, ‘The African Union at 20, African Perspectives on Progress, Challenges and Prospects.’
