05 May Reflections on the Nomination of Macky Sall for the Position of United Nations Secretary-General
[Hakim Nkengurutse is a PhD candidate in Public Law at CY Cergy Paris University. He is affiliated with the Centre for Legal and Political Philosophy (CY) and the Chair for Public and Comparative Law (Humboldt University of Berlin).]
On 2 March 2026, the permanent representative of the Republic of Burundi at the United Nations (UN) notified both the Presidents of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and the UN Security Council (UNSC) for the month of March, of his country’s decision to nominate former Senegalese president (2012-2024), Macky Sall, for the position of Secretary-General of the UN (UNSG).
Although not impossible, it is nonetheless highly unusual for a country to nominate a candidate who is not its citizen. Yet Burundi currently chairs the African Union (AU). Consequently, some hastily concluded that Macky Sall was “Africa’s candidate” and Burundi, ipso facto, “Africa’s envoy”. Others, however, received the news with scepticism by pointing to the absence of a formal AU mandate: Macky Sall’s name does not feature on the agenda of the AU summit held in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia in February 2026. This debate was put to an end on 27 March 2026, when the AU refused to formally endorse Macky Sall’s candidature.
Against this backdrop, this piece argues that Burundi, in its letter nominating Macky Sall, uses an ambiguous language. The letter hints a continental endorsement while formally presenting the nomination as Burundi’s. In addition, Burundi has put the continental organisation and its member states before a fait accompli. Simply put, the AU and/or its member states cannot nominate competing candidates for the position of UNSG without undermining the credibility of the AU. Unfortunately, the AU refusal to endorse Macky Sall’s candidature fits into this dynamic, even though it is justified by the need to uphold the rule of law within the Union, that is, the idea that no one is above the law. Therefore, these recent developments in the AU politics of endorsements render even more relevant a prospective analysis of the possible outcome of Macky Sall’s candidature.
The Selection Process of a UN Secretary-General
The UNSG is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the UN Security council (article 97 of the UN Charter). The Presidents of the UNGA and the UNSC jointly address a letter to member states announcing the start of the selection process and inviting candidates to be presented.
A candidate is either nominated by one UN member state individually or a group of member states. In addition, a regional organisation, such as the AU, can endorse a candidate nominated for the UNSG position by one or more of its member states. For example, in 2006 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) endorsed a citizen of one of its member states. To be sure, the UN and the AU do not overlap. From a legal standpoint, only UN member states can nominate a candidate for the UN top position. Endorsement by the AU or any other regional organisation simply means that the candidate for the UNSG position enjoys political backing from that organisation.
A list of retained candidates is sent to the UNSC which then recommends to the UNGA the appointment of the UNSG.
The AU Politics of UN Secretary-General Endorsement
Considering the strategic importance of candidatures for the positions in international organisations, both for member states and in advancing Africa’s agency, the AU has established a process and mechanism for nomination for such positions. Through the AU Commission, the nominating member states submit their nominations to the “AU ministerial committee on candidatures within the international system (the Committee)”. The committee serves as a standing nominating organ with delegated authority from the Executive council of the AU. Where applicable, the nomination is reviewed by regional group(s) (Western, Eastern, Southern, Central and Northern Africa) and forwarded for consideration to the committee (Rule 3.2). Upon the committee’s recommendation, the Executive council of the AU decides to endorse the candidate or not.
It is through the process outlined above that a candidate is formally endorsed by the AU. An AU endorsement, including for UN positions, is highly political. From the point of view of the nominating member state, it secures continental backing and positions the nomination as “Africa’s”. From the point of view of the AU, it strategically positions the continental organisation within a broader competitive landscape vis-à-vis other regions vying for the UN top position.
However, Macky Sall was not endorsed by the AU and his name does not feature on the report the committee presented on the 14th of February 2026 to the 48th ordinary session of the Executive Council.
Continental Framing of a National Nomination
The nomination of Macky Sall by Burundi suggests continental endorsement for two reasons. First, Macky Sall is a citizen of the Republic of Senegal, which makes the nomination by Burundi highly unusual. It should be noted that UN member states almost exclusively nominate their own citizens even though there is no formal rule requiring them to do so. However, Burundi’s capacity as AU chair for 2026-2027 term rectifies this “anomaly” by signalling an AU endorsement. In fact, in the letter of nomination sent to the presidents of the UNSC and the UNGA, the permanent representative of Burundi stated that he was acting on behalf of his “government, current chair of the African Union”. The nomination is thus strategically, yet ambiguously, framed as Burundi’s but with AU endorsement.
The other hint towards an AU endorsement is timing. The nomination of Macky Sall intervened in less than a month after the 39th AU Summit held in Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia. This fact alone explains why some analysts wrongly concluded that Burundi merely acted as “Africa’s envoy”.
AU Refusal of Post-nomination Endorsement
On 27 March 2026, the AU refused post-nomination endorsement of Macky Sall. Indeed, Burundi had used the silence procedure, which is a decision-making mechanism without a formal meeting or vote, unless a member state objects by “breaking the silence”, to secure the continental organisation’s endorsement (21 member states broke the silence, including Senegal). It should be noted that this procedure is outside of the AU’s established process for candidatures within the international system. Against this background, the AU faced a “dilemma”: endorse Macky Sall’s candidature and, in doing so, condone Burundi’s behaviour of circumventing the established process of endorsement within the AU or uphold the rule of law by condemning Burundi, even though it means weakening the organisation’s stance on the global scene. The AU chose the latter option. However, the timing could not be more critical as Africa seeks to position itself vis-à-vis other regions (e.g. Latin America group) vying for the UN top position.
AU Member States Post-nomination Endorsement?
Unlike the AU critical position, African states can endorse a candidate of their choice outside the AU framework. At the moment, for unknown reasons, no state has done so.
Unsurprisingly, Senegal has not formally endorsed its citizen. In fact, it was among AU member states who “broke the silence”. One explanation is that Macky Sall’s legacy is contentious. At home, he is accused of misconduct during his mandate as president (2012-2024), notably, for allegedly incurring a 7 billion “hidden debt” which was only discovered after he had left office. As such, some have even likened the circumvention of the AU process by Macky Sall – and Burundi – with that of the constitutional process ahead of Senegal’s 2024 presidential elections which plunged the country into a constitutional crisis. It is against this background that Senegal’s “break of silence” must be understood.
Concluding Remarks
As indicated above, neither the AU nor the presiding country have the power to decide on candidates for the position of UNSG: each country decides sovereignly, with the AU endorsement or not. In addition, Burundi’s president, in his capacity as AU Chair, acts as an “executor” of the Assembly of heads of State and Government. Therefore, the ambiguity in the language of Burundi’s letter of nomination suggests simultaneously a provocative and prudential move.
A Provocative Move
A provocative move lies in the fact that Burundi takes initiative in advancing Africa’s ambitions for the UN top position. Indeed, if Burundi intended to gain national prestige using the AU platform as chair, why not nominate its own citizen? This analysis is however too simplistic. The fact that Burundi positions Macky Sall’s nomination as Africa’s does not invalidate national calculations. One possible again is immaterial. For various reasons outside the scope of this piece, Burundi has often been absent from the global scene. However, chairing the AU – the first time – has provided the East-African country the opportunity to reposition itself within the regional and the wider global landscape. Therefore, if Macky Sall is successful, Burundi will evidently take credit for this. Furthermore, nominating Macky Sall is also a strategic move. The former Senegalese president is well connected and considering the political nature of the office, this maximizes his chances of ascending to the UN top position. In fact, he was recently in Paris, France for a campaign where he reportedly met with the French president, Emmanuel Macron.
The other possible gain is material. Indeed, it is not excluded that the country may seek the appointment of a Burundian citizen to head one of the UN agencies in the event that Macky Sall secures the position – the UNSG appoints the staff to the secretariat (article 101(1) of the UN Charter). For example, France – one of the five veto holders at the UNSC – had blocked the appointment of the former UNSG, Kofi Annan, until he agreed that a French citizen would be appointed to head the UN peacekeeping department.
A Prudential Move
A prudential move is in the lack of clear acknowledgement of an AU endorsement in the letter (Burundi has not changed the letter of nomination even after the AU refused to endorse Macky Sall). Burundi has thus put the AU and its member states before a fait accompli. Against this backdrop and from the point of view of Africa, two configurations for the outcome of Macky Sall’s nomination are possible. First, Burundi can withdraw the nomination in favour of a candidate, if any, who is endorsed by the AU. Second, other African countries can nominate their own candidates notwithstanding Burundi’s, and in doing so, weaken the AU stance on the global scene. The third option would have been for the AU to endorse Macky Sall’s candidature, regardless of whether Burundi’s actions were consistent or not with the established mechanisms for endorsements. This would have sent a strong signal regarding Burundi’s political influence for its AU mandate as well as regarding Africa bloc’s cohesion. Nevertheless, refusing to endorse Macky Sall and endorsing a competing candidate are two different things. Ultimately, the outcome of the former Senegalese president’s candidature remains to be seen as the process for the selection of the next UNSG is currently underway.
Leave a Reply