LILONGWE-(MaraviPost)-Africa’s renewed push for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council has again taken centre stage at the 81st UN General Assembly, but the central obstacles remain largely unchanged: who would occupy new African seats, what powers they would have, and whether the existing permanent members would agree to alter a system that has operated since 1945.
The analysis is based on a September 26 report by Al Jazeera, which examines why decades of African demands for Security Council reform have produced repeated diplomatic discussions but no agreement on the Council’s permanent membership structure.
Africa’s case
Africa’s argument is built around its exclusion from the permanent membership of a body whose decisions have significant consequences for international peace and security.
The Council currently has 15 members: five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — and 10 members elected for two-year terms.
No African country occupies a permanent seat.
At the same time, Africa remains heavily represented in the Council’s agenda, particularly through conflicts, peacekeeping operations and security crises on the continent. Al Jazeera notes that of 24 Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII in 2025, 18 concerned Africa.
That creates the central political argument behind the African position: countries and populations most affected by many Council decisions remain without permanent representation in the institution’s highest decision-making category.
What Africa is demanding
The African Union’s established position, expressed through the Ezulwini Consensus, calls for at least two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Security Council.
The African position also says that if the veto remains part of the Council’s system, new permanent African members should have the same prerogatives, including veto power. UN records continue to reflect this position.
This is important because Africa is not simply asking for additional seats. The debate is also about whether new permanent members would have the same decision-making authority as the existing five.
The veto is at the heart of the problem
The veto makes reform particularly difficult.
A permanent member can block a substantive Security Council resolution, meaning that adding permanent members without equivalent powers could leave a new category of permanent representation with significantly less influence.
African governments have therefore generally opposed a reform model that would create permanent African seats without veto rights while the existing five retain theirs. The UN record shows that African representatives have repeatedly argued for equal treatment if the veto continues to exist.
At the same time, some African governments have expressed opposition to the veto system itself, arguing that it conflicts with principles of sovereign equality. The African position therefore contains a distinction: abolition of the veto is supported in principle, but if it remains, African permanent members should not be excluded from it.
The difficult question: Who represents Africa?
Even if UN members agreed to expand the Council, another question would immediately arise: which African countries would occupy the permanent seats?
Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa have been among the countries associated with the campaign for permanent African representation.
However, the African Union has maintained a continental position rather than assigning the proposed permanent seats to particular countries. Its approach leaves the selection of African representatives to the continent’s own mechanisms.
This means that Africa must simultaneously negotiate externally with the wider UN membership while managing questions of representation within the continent.
Why changing the system is so difficult
Security Council reform is not simply a matter of securing enough votes in the General Assembly.
The UN Charter itself creates a high legal threshold for amendments. Article 108 requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN members, including all five permanent members of the Security Council.
That gives the existing permanent members a formal role in approving fundamental changes to the institution in which they currently hold privileged positions.
This helps explain why the reform debate has continued for years without producing a final settlement.
Africa’s influence beyond the numbers
The argument is therefore about more than adding African flags to the Security Council chamber.
Former Nigerian Foreign Minister Ibrahim Gambari, cited by Al Jazeera, argues that African countries should have greater involvement in shaping decisions concerning conflicts and peacekeeping operations on the continent. Other voices quoted in the report frame the issue around whether African countries should have meaningful influence over decisions that directly affect their populations.
There is also a question of working methods. African countries have raised concerns about the role of permanent members in drafting and steering Council resolutions, particularly on matters affecting regions outside those permanent members’ own territories.
The bigger picture
The unresolved reform debate reflects a wider tension inside the United Nations: the institution’s political structure was created in the aftermath of the Second World War, while the distribution of political and economic influence in the international system has changed considerably since then.
Africa’s 54 UN member states constitute the organisation’s largest regional bloc, yet the continent has no permanent seat.
The question now is whether the 81st General Assembly can move the discussion beyond repeated declarations and towards an agreement on the Council’s membership, regional representation and veto arrangements.
For Africa, the reform campaign is therefore not simply about obtaining seats. It is about determining whether the continent will have a permanent role in decisions on international peace and security that have repeatedly affected African countries.
For the wider UN system, the unresolved issue raises a broader question: can an institution established in 1945 adapt its decision-making structure to the geopolitical realities of 2026?
Al Jazeera’s analysis shows that the demand remains prominent, but the disagreements over representation, veto power, candidate countries and Charter reform continue to stand between the demand for change and an actual restructuring of the Security Council.
Leave a Reply