Rule of law in Africa has always been a controversial issue to foreign investors looking to take steps in to emerging markets. The recent acts of piracy coordinated on the ground between Nigeria and Somalia are examples not only of a lack of domestic security but of the power of African inter-connectedness, even if it benefits those on the wrong side of the law. 

That interconnectedness, if utilized properly by governments of the African Union (AU) nations can not only ratify the boom economy of piracy but dynamically decrease the political risks which continue to hinder African investment. 

Please read on for an article from Sheshu Sani, human rights activist, contributor to the BBC’s Focus on Africa magazine, and author of ‘Scorpions Under Pillow: Terrorism in Africa’ regarding the lack of structure in conquering corruption in the AU, the need for reform in African democracy, and a united definition of illegality in Africa.

It is said that unity exists in diversity - but does Africa support this tired cliché? There has been a lot of talk of late about a United States of Africa. It is an interesting concept, but for it to work we should probably look at what would be at its heart - the African Union (AU).

Leaving aside the momentous announcement of the Great Leader’s new job and unfolding events in neighboring Guinea-Bissau, let us turn first to a recent test case for the effectiveness of this august body-Guinea (Conakry).

In a nutshell we saw an illegal military regime in the country late last year foist itself on the country’s citizens. Those involved were initially condemned by many across Africa, with an impending threat of sanctions from appropriate quarters. A few days later, this illegal military regime was hypocritically accepted by the AU to “stabilise the country and immediately conduct elections”.

Nigeria muddied the waters further by giving its two-cents worth. The country’s government, through its ministry of foreign affairs and information, unequivocally condemned the putsch and subsequently called for the restoration of democracy in Guinea. They followed this up by dispatching an unsolicited envoy - none other than the country’s ex-military leader General Ibrahim Babangida - to Conakry to intervene. 

The problem was that his stance was at variance with Nigeria’s official view. True to his roots, General Babangida wasted no time calling the coup plotters “patriots”, thus legalising the unconstitutional military takeover. These mixed messages are not surprising given the internal workings of what passes for democracy in Nigeria.

Prior to 1999, in the age of military rule in Nigeria, it was unlawful to protest against the government. Those who tried were jailed, maimed or killed. In the new dispensation, those wishing to protest against the government require a police permit.

Under military rule, journalists who dared to criticize the junta were either framed for imaginary coup plots and jailed, or were simply dispatched to the great beyond through the agency of a letter bomb. Now those who irritate the government are economically strangled, by either being denied juicy advertorial by state agencies or being ostracized from those in power. They are also at times ‘quarantined’ by the security agents of the powers that be.

Under military rule, out of disdain and disrespect, there was no place for the judiciary - government decrees took away its function. In the democratic dispensation there is a place for the judiciary but its court orders are disregarded. 

So, if Nigeria is anything to go by, it seems that African democracy is contradictory and an expression of a mild form of dictatorship. Therefore it follows that the body meant to promote this democracy - the AU - will prove ineffective in its mandate from the outset. 

Of late, those living in Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabwe, the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and Western Sahara may be best placed to practice political dentistry in to the mouth of the AU. This is simply to establish whether or not the body has any teeth at all.

It does not look promising. The systematic approach of the body to coups and conflict in Africa could be likened to the strange attitudes of a sick or old dog; quick to bark on sight of a person, only to lie down and watch from afar.

The AU remains little more than a symbol in as much as its policies and actions in managing conflict have no effect. It certainly fails dismally in getting Africa to speak with one voice, but perhaps this is understandable.

Ghana has no business interests in Mauritania for it to apply economic sanctions that can be effective and meaningful. Nigeria’s President Umaru Musa Yar’ Adua has no desire to go to Harare for medical check-ups nor does Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe want to go to Abuja’s malls to shop for his wife. So any travel bans and sanctions imposed from within Africa on the continent’s erring leaders would be ineffective.

The buck stops with the public face of the body - its chair. This all brings me back to the Great Leader. With the advent of Muammar Gaddafi as the new chairman of the body, it should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of Libyan history that he will not be coming down hard on those who carry out coups, or have a scant regard for democracy. United States of Africa indeed! The AU is united in being dictated to by a tethered from of democracy.