From UN reform and debt to critical minerals, climate finance and AI, African leaders have rarely sounded more aligned on the need to rebalance global power, reports Jon Offei-Ansah
Keypoints:
- African leaders converge around global power reform
- Debt and minerals broaden the representation debate
- Rare unity emerges despite national differences
AFRICAN leaders arrived at the 81st United Nations General Assembly with different national interests and foreign-policy alignments. Yet across several prominent interventions in New York, one message came through with unusual consistency: the continent wants a greater share of global decision-making power.
That does not mean Africa suddenly agrees on everything. It plainly does not. But on Security Council reform, the cost of capital, critical minerals, climate finance and new technologies, the common ground is hard to miss.
UNGA 81 is revealing not a single African worldview, but something potentially more significant: a broad convergence around who gets to make the rules.
One argument, many accents
Africa has spoken collectively before.
The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus on UN Security Council reform has, since 2005, demanded at least two permanent African seats on the UN Security Council, with the same privileges as existing permanent members for as long as the veto remains.
So the demand for representation is not new.
What feels different this year is how far that argument now reaches beyond the Security Council.
Kenya’s William Ruto gave perhaps the clearest expression of the longstanding grievance. Africa, he said, is ‘permanently discussed, yet permanently excluded’ from the Council.
Nigeria arrived at the same point through history. President Bola Tinubu’s statement, delivered by Vice-President Kashim Shettima, argued that ‘the world of 2026 cannot remain captive to the distribution of power in 1945’.
Ghana’s John Mahama pushed the argument further.
‘Security Council reform is not a favour to Africa; it is an imperative for the legitimacy, credibility, and survival of the United Nations,’ he said.
African leaders are no longer talking only about getting a seat at the table. Increasingly, they want a say in writing the rules as well.
Africa Briefing has already examined Mahama’s wider vision for Africa’s place in a changing world order, including his argument that the continent must help shape emerging global arrangements rather than simply adjust to decisions taken elsewhere.
Zimbabwe’s Emmerson Mnangagwa made the point more bluntly:
‘Africa is rising, and the horse-rider mentality has no place in a globalised world.’
Harare’s election to a non-permanent Security Council seat for 2027–28 gives that language an added edge. Zimbabwe will sit at the table for two years, but temporary membership also underlines the wider complaint: participation is not the same as permanent influence.
Power beyond the Security Council
The argument becomes broader once the speeches move beyond UN reform.
Ruto linked exclusion from global decision-making to the price African countries pay for money. Developing economies, he argued, often borrow at higher rates than wealthier countries, leaving less room for infrastructure, health and education.
His line was memorable:
‘Capital must price risk; it must not price prejudice.’
Ruto did not put all responsibility outside Africa. He also spoke about sound debt management, stronger institutions and accountability at home.
Mahama made a similar connection. He linked high borrowing costs, discriminatory credit assessments and unsustainable debt to an economic model in which Africa exports raw materials while much of the higher-value processing and job creation takes place elsewhere.
Political exclusion and economic exclusion are increasingly being presented as different expressions of the same imbalance.
One set of institutions determines who has permanent influence over war and peace. Others shape who can borrow cheaply, attract capital and capture the greatest value from global trade.
Seen that way, the speeches are more closely connected than they might first appear.
Minerals bring the argument into focus
Critical minerals bring that argument into sharper focus.
Africa has long complained about exporting commodities and importing finished goods. What has changed is the strategic importance of the resources beneath African soil.
Lithium, cobalt, copper, graphite and manganese are increasingly important to batteries, electric vehicles, power grids and renewable-energy technologies. Competition for secure supplies has intensified, giving some African governments more room to negotiate over processing and investment.
Sierra Leone’s Julius Maada Bio captured the concern in one sentence:
‘The green transition must not reproduce the extractive terms of the past.’
Bio called for processing at source, technology transfer, fairer value chains and stronger local industries.
Mahama similarly said Africa should not become a passive arena for another scramble for resources, while Mnangagwa argued that critical minerals should be beneficiated and value-added at source.
Africa Briefing has been tracking the same shift as global competition for African critical minerals gives governments greater negotiating leverage.
But leverage is not the same as power.
Processing minerals competitively requires reliable electricity, transport, skilled labour, stable regulation and large amounts of capital. The gap between ambition and capacity remains one of the biggest tests behind the rhetoric heard in New York.
South Africa widens the frame
South Africa approached the debate from another direction.
President Cyril Ramaphosa did not deliver South Africa’s formal General Debate address. His contribution here came in a pre-recorded message to a UNGA 81 high-level event on inequality on September 23.
‘The task before us is a formidable one, to build a new multilateral frontier and expand our global coalition against inequality,’ Ramaphosa said as he sought support for an International Panel on Inequality emerging from South Africa’s 2025 G20 presidency.
His intervention helps connect issues that might otherwise look separate.
Security Council representation is about unequal political influence. High borrowing costs concern unequal access to finance. Raw-mineral exports raise questions about who captures economic value. Climate finance is partly about who carries the cost of a crisis driven disproportionately by earlier industrialisation.
Pretoria has also warned that the UN risks losing global authority if international institutions fail to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.
The same instinct is beginning to surface around technology.
African countries were largely absent when many post-war institutions were designed. Some governments do not want the continent to arrive equally late to decisions governing artificial intelligence, digital infrastructure and data.
Africa Briefing has reported on Ghana’s push for continent-wide AI and data governance rules, another field in which collective African scale and market power could matter if governments coordinate their positions.
Unity has limits
It would still be a mistake to say Africa now speaks with one voice on every major international question.
The continent remains divided over conflicts, alliances, governance, trade policy and relations with major powers.
South Africa’s approach to global affairs is not Kenya’s. Nigeria’s strategic calculations differ from Zimbabwe’s. Governments also vary enormously in their economic management, democratic institutions and relationships with China, Europe, Russia and the United States.
Even on Security Council reform, the Common African Position does not settle every practical question about which countries would occupy permanent seats if reform happened.
Rare unity is therefore a better description of UNGA 81 than absolute unity.
What stands out is that leaders with very different politics are reaching much the same conclusion: institutions created when most African countries were still colonies no longer reflect today’s balance of population, resources and economic influence.
From aid to leverage
Perhaps the biggest change is in the way African leaders are talking about their place in the world.
For decades, Africa’s relationship with wealthier countries was commonly framed around aid, debt relief and development assistance.
Those questions remain important.
But several leaders are increasingly foregrounding what Africa itself brings to the negotiation — strategic minerals, renewable-energy potential, growing markets, diplomatic votes and a young population.
Ruto’s language of exclusion, Mahama’s attack on structural inequality, Bio’s warning about extraction, Ramaphosa’s focus on inequality and Mnangagwa’s rejection of the ‘horse-rider mentality’ are different expressions of the same wider frustration.
Africa has articulated common positions before.
What feels different at UNGA 81 is how widely the argument now travels — from the Security Council to sovereign debt, from climate finance to critical minerals and artificial intelligence.
The continent is not speaking with one voice on every global question.
But on the need for a redistribution of international influence, the common message is becoming harder to ignore.
That may be the clearest lesson from Africa’s interventions in New York.
The debate is moving beyond what the world should do for Africa.
Increasingly, it is about what Africa expects to help decide with the world.