Guinea-Bissau’s “Ceremonial Coup”: A Troubling Sign for West African Democracy?

Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan recently voiced deep concern over the events in Guinea-Bissau. For him, the recent military intervention hits harder than even his 2015 election loss to Muhammadu Buhari. This sentiment isn’t just political; it speaks to Jonathan’s long-standing commitment to stability in the region. He traveled to Guinea-Bissau as part of the West African Elders Forum to observe the presidential and parliamentary elections. The military’s power grab during this observation period feels like a direct setback.

I’ve seen enough political shifts to know that things aren’t always as clear-cut as they seem. Observer missions from the African Union, ECOWAS, and other bodies were still actively engaged when the military made its move. The situation raised immediate concerns about Jonathan’s safety and the integrity of the democratic process. He was later evacuated, landing back in Nigeria visibly shaken.

Jonathan described the situation as uniquely “bizarre,” diverging from a typical military coup scenario. His unease is understandable. President Umaro Embaló’s initial claim of being arrested, while simultaneously communicating with international media via phone, is unusual, to say the least. It stirs doubts about the legitimacy of the declared coup.

The elections, by most accounts, were peaceful. Reports from ECOWAS, the AU, and other observer groups support this. Yet, Embaló himself announced the coup, even stating he’d been detained. This narrative simply doesn’t align with standard coup protocol. Jonathan, with decades of experience in Nigerian politics, found it difficult to reconcile.

“It is painful for me that President Embaló was the one announcing a military takeover of government,” Jonathan remarked, underscoring the unprecedented nature of the events. He even went so far as to call it a “ceremonial coup” – a power play where the president oddly participated in his own apparent ousting.

Embaló’s actions – announcing the coup and claiming arrest while actively using his phone to speak to the media – challenge conventional understanding. We’re not talking about a situation where a head of state is completely cut off and silenced. There’s something off about the whole picture.

Jonathan advised against military intervention to reinstate the previous government. It’s better to encourage ECOWAS and the AU to release the election results. He also rightly demanded the release of opposition leader Fernando Dias from military custody, emphasizing his innocence.

Details surrounding Jonathan’s evacuation further complicate the narrative. Both Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire offered to send aircraft. Ultimately, the Ivorian government managed to secure clearance faster. Côte d’Ivoire’s proximity to Guinea-Bissau and historical ties may have smoothed the process. Still, the fact that two nations scrambled to extract him speaks to the gravity of the situation.

The “coup” and its aftermath in Guinea-Bissau raise serious questions about West Africa’s democratic trajectory. Is this a genuine power grab? Is it a manufactured crisis? It’s difficult to give a solid answer.

Recent political events in Guinea-Bissau underscore the fragility of democratic institutions in the region. ECOWAS and the African Union must thoroughly investigate this situation and act appropriately. Beyond condemnation, a clear strategy to support long-term stability and democratic governance is essential.

Jonathan’s experience should serve as a wake-up call. External actors must work together to promote transparent governance and uphold the rule of law in West Africa. This situation in Guinea-Bissau requires a deeper look, something’s not adding up. I’m skeptical of the surface narratives, and I suspect more information will surface in due course.

Read Original

Keywords: Guinea-Bissau coup, West Africa democracy, Goodluck Jonathan, Umaro Embal, ECOWAS, African Union, ceremonial coup, political stability