Kenya’s failure in the African Union (AU) Chairmanship race was not merely a diplomatic setback but a harsh geopolitical reality check. Once considered a cornerstone of African diplomacy, Kenya found itself outmanoeuvred not just by competitors but by its own strategic miscalculations. From missteps in candidate selection to alienating key regional allies, Nairobi’s approach failed to align with the AU’s evolving expectations of unity, sovereignty, and principled governance.
At the heart of Kenya’s failed bid was the selection of Raila Odinga, a veteran yet polarising figure whose domestic political baggage compromised his credibility as a unifying force for the continent. Despite his stature, Odinga’s career has been defined as much by resilience as by repeated electoral defeats, having lost the Kenyan presidency five times—in 1997, 2007, 2013, 2017, and 2022. His inability to secure a national mandate raised serious doubts about his capacity to build continental unity.
More significantly, Odinga’s political legacy remains overshadowed by Kenya’s 2007 post-election crisis, which resulted in over 1,000 deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands. While not solely responsible, his role in contesting electoral outcomes and mobilising mass protests reinforced perceptions of volatility rather than diplomatic competence. In an organisation where stability, credibility, and conflict resolution are paramount, these associations proved detrimental to his candidacy.
Beyond domestic concerns, Odinga’s foreign policy positioning proved particularly damaging. His explicit support for Somaliland’s secession, in direct violation of Somalia’s sovereignty, contradicted the AU’s 1964 Cairo Resolution, which upholds the sanctity of post-colonial borders to prevent fragmentation and instability. Given Africa’s history of separatist conflicts, his stance was widely viewed as reckless and fundamentally misaligned with AU principles.
The diplomatic opposition to Odinga’s bid was swift and relentless. The Somali diaspora, including prominent academics and former diplomats, played a decisive role in mobilising resistance, perceiving Odinga’s position as a direct threat to Somalia’s territorial integrity and a destabilising force for the continent. In response, Somali actors leveraged diplomatic networks and regional alliances to systematically dismantle his candidacy. This was not merely a political dispute, but a strategically coordinated intervention that underscored broader concerns about Kenya’s foreign policy posture and its implications for regional stability.
Recognising the stakes, Somali diplomats mounted an intensive lobbying campaign across key AU member states, framing Odinga’s candidacy as a dangerous precedent for secessionist legitimacy in Africa. Their advocacy reshaped the electoral discourse, reinforcing perceptions that his leadership would be divisive rather than unifying. By consolidating support around an alternative candidate committed to AU sovereignty and regional cohesion, Somali diplomacy not only marginalised Kenya’s bid but also highlighted the increasing influence of smaller states in shaping Africa’s multilateral governance.
Odinga’s defeat was not merely the result of a fragmented vote but the direct outcome of a well-executed diplomatic strategy that effectively neutralised his prospects. This episode serves as a case study in how targeted geopolitical manoeuvres, backed by clear strategic objectives and sustained diplomatic engagement, can decisively influence high-stakes continental leadership contests.
Kenya’s broader foreign policy miscalculations further weakened its standing. As noted by Dr Mukhisa Kituyi, Prof Abdiwahan Sheikh Abdisamad, and Dr Miguna Miguna, Nairobi’s positioning on global justice issues fractured its alliances within the AU.
This was most evident in Kenya’s reluctance to support South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Israeli military actions in Gaza. South Africa, drawing on its anti-apartheid legacy, positioned itself as the moral conscience of the continent, rallying overwhelming support from nations with histories of colonial resistance. Kenya’s perceived alignment with Israel, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration, was widely seen as a betrayal of African solidarity. This alienated key AU states, including Algeria, Egypt, Senegal, and Chad, diminishing Kenya’s diplomatic leverage at a critical moment.
While foreign policy missteps played a role, Kenya’s failure also reflected a shifting regional power balance. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Madagascar actively opposed Nairobi’s bid, underscoring deeper geopolitical fractures within the AU.
The DRC, engaged in economic and security disputes with Kenya, aligned itself with Djibouti’s candidate, strategically using the election to reinforce its regional interests. Meanwhile, Madagascar, wary of Nairobi’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean, saw the election as an opportunity to contain Kenya’s regional ambitions.
Despite its small size, Djibouti emerged as a formidable challenger, leveraging its strategic geographic position and entrenched AU networks to challenge Kenya’s diplomatic dominance. This development signalled a critical shift, demonstrating that Kenya’s once-unquestioned regional leadership is now actively contested. The AU election revealed that smaller states, through coalition-building and strategic alliances, can now exert significant influence, reshaping Africa’s multilateral diplomacy.
Amid these shifting dynamics, Rt. Hon. Mahamoud Ali emerged as the leader Africa needed, a unifying figure with an unequivocal commitment to sovereignty and regional stability. His firm advocacy for Palestinian self-determination, alongside his unwavering support for African unity, positioned him as a statesman capable of navigating the AU through its most pressing geopolitical challenges.
His election marked a turning point for African governance, reinforcing the continent’s determination to reclaim agency in global diplomacy and reject leadership perceived as driven by personal ambition or external influence. In a region still grappling with colonial legacies and geopolitical interference, his victory symbolised a broader demand for governance grounded in principle rather than political entitlement.
Kenya’s loss represents a watershed moment, necessitating a fundamental reassessment of its diplomatic strategy. To restore its credibility within the AU, Nairobi must rebuild regional alliances, recalibrate its foreign policy, and engage African nations through genuine partnerships rather than transactional diplomacy.
Future AU candidates must not be selected based on domestic political stature, but rather on their ability to unify the continent. Kenya must prioritise leaders with extensive multilateral experience, a deep understanding of AU governance, and a proven capacity for consensus-building. Additionally, its stance on key geopolitical issues, including Zionist policies and regional conflicts, must be refined to mend fractured alliances and reposition itself as a credible force in African diplomacy.
Africa has spoken, and the message is clear. The AU will no longer accept leadership that thrives on division, personal ambition, or external influence. Kenya’s failed bid was more than a political loss, it was a defining moment in Africa’s governance trajectory, reaffirming the primacy of sovereignty, unity, and ethical leadership.
For Kenya, the road to diplomatic redemption will be arduous. However, if Nairobi is to reclaim its standing on the continental stage, it must embrace a new era of diplomacy—one defined by strategic foresight, genuine engagement, and an unwavering commitment to African unity.
By Hussein Soyan
Senior Analyst in Global Affairs and Investment, specialising in finance, foreign policy, and economic development. He collaborates with leading institutions to deliver strategic insights and innovative research.
