Closed Doors at a Continental Parliament: Why the PAP’s Extraordinary Session Raises Serious Legal and Democratic Concerns

By Olu IBEKWE

In a development that has sparked concern among observers of African governance, a recent media advisory for the Extraordinary Session of the Pan-African Parliament indicates that, aside from the opening and closing ceremonies, all proceedings, including the election of the President and Vice Presidents, are to be held behind closed doors. This approach sits uneasily with both the letter and spirit of the Parliament’s governing instruments and raises fundamental questions about transparency, legality, and institutional credibility.

A Clear Legal Standard: Openness as the Default

The starting point is not ambiguous. Article 14(4) of the Protocol to the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community relating to the Pan-African Parliament provides in plain terms that:

“The proceedings of the Pan-African Parliament shall be open to the public, unless otherwise directed by the Bureau.”

This provision establishes a presumption of openness. Public access is not a discretionary privilege: it is the default condition of parliamentary proceedings. Any departure from this principle must therefore be justified, specific, and grounded in a formal decision of the Bureau.

The operative phrase “unless otherwise directed by the Bureau” is not a blanket authorization for secrecy. It is a narrow exception. It requires:

A conscious, reasoned decision of the Bureau;
A case-by-case determination, not a wholesale closure of proceedings;
A justification consistent with the broader objectives of transparency and accountability.

A general administrative decision to close virtually the entire session including elections of leadership appears to stretch this exception beyond recognition.

The Foundational Mandate: Participation of African Peoples

This concern becomes even more pronounced when viewed against the foundational purpose of the Pan-African Parliament as articulated in the Constitutive Act of the African Union.

Article 17(1) of the Constitutive Act makes it unequivocally clear that the Pan-African Parliament was established “in order to ensure the full participation of African peoples in the development and economic integration of the continent.” Article 17(2) further provides that the Parliament shall be organized and function in accordance with its Protocol.

These provisions are not ornamental. They define both:

The democratic purpose of the institution (participation of African peoples), and
The legal framework through which that purpose must be realized (the Protocol).

A Parliament that conducts its core proceedings behind closed doors risks undermining both pillars simultaneously. It restricts public participation in practice and departs from the very legal instrument mandated to govern its operations.

The Rules of Procedure Reinforce Transparency

The Protocol’s position is reinforced by the Rules of Procedure of the Pan-African Parliament.

Rule 38 provides that parliamentary sittings are to be open to the public;
Rule 87 guarantees public access to parliamentary documents and records.

These provisions institutionalize transparency as a working principle, not a symbolic aspiration. They ensure that citizens, stakeholders, and Member States can observe, assess, and engage with the Parliament’s work.

Closing proceedings wholesale particularly deliberations and decision-making processes effectively neutralizes these safeguards.

Elections Behind Closed Doors: A Particularly Troubling Precedent

If there is one category of parliamentary activity that demands maximum transparency, it is the election of leadership. Leadership elections shape:

Institutional direction,
Political legitimacy,
Regional representation within the Bureau.

Holding such elections behind closed doors raises unavoidable concerns:

What deliberations inform the vote?
How are competing visions presented and scrutinized?
On what basis are decisions made?

Cloudiness at this level risks eroding confidence not only among citizens but also among Member States and institutional partners.

A Pattern of Procedural Disregard?

The present decision cannot be viewed in isolation. It sits within a broader pattern of tension between policy-driven actions and Protocol-based requirements in the governance of the Pan-African Parliament.

Recent controversies have raised questions regarding:

Conditions for vacancy of Bureau offices under Article 12(8) of the Protocol;
Presiding authority, particularly the limits of external administrative actors vis-à-vis parliamentary officers;
Convening of extraordinary sessions under Article 14(3), including procedural triggers and authority.

Against this backdrop, the decision to hold a closed session especially for Bureau elections appears less as an isolated administrative choice and more as part of a continuing drift away from strict adherence to the Protocol.

There is a growing perception that, rather than being governed by its treaty framework, the Parliament is increasingly subject to policy directives and administrative interpretations, including those emanating from the African Union Commission and its Office of Legal Counsel.

That trajectory raises a stark institutional question: if the Protocol is not to be applied in practice, what then remains of its normative authority?

The Broader Principle: Open Parliament and Democratic Legitimacy

Globally, parliamentary systems have embraced open parliament principles as a cornerstone of democratic governance. These include:

Transparency in legislative processes,
Public participation,
Access to information,
Accountability of elected representatives.

For a continental body such as the Pan-African Parliament whose very raison d’être is to bring African citizens closer to continental governance, these principles are not optional. They are essential.

Closing proceedings undermines this trajectory. It sends a contradictory signal: a Parliament created to amplify the voice of African peoples conducting its most consequential business away from public scrutiny.

Legal and Institutional Implications

The implications are both legal and institutional:

Potential Ultra Vires Action: A blanket closure of proceedings may exceed the narrow exception contemplated under Article 14(4), particularly in the absence of a clear, reasoned Bureau decision.
Conflict with Governing Instruments: The approach risks inconsistency with both the Protocol and the Rules of Procedure, which collectively entrench openness.
Erosion of Normative Hierarchy: Persistent reliance on administrative directives over treaty provisions risks inverting the established legal order within the African Union system.
Institutional Credibility Risks: Transparency is foundational to legitimacy. Its erosion weakens confidence in the Parliament’s processes and outcomes.

A Moment for Institutional Clarity

Instead of treating the Pan-African Parliament Protocol with diminishing regard, the African Union faces a clear choice. It must either:

Reaffirm the primacy of the Protocol as the binding legal framework governing the Parliament; or
Confront the implications of allowing policy directives and administrative interpretations to supplant treaty-based governance.

Put more bluntly, continued departure from the Protocol invites the uncomfortable conclusion that the institution is being run as though the Protocol were optional. At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: why maintain a binding legal instrument that is not consistently observed?

Conclusion

The issue is not simply about whether a session is open or closed. It is about what kind of Parliament Africa wants.

A Parliament faithful to its founding mandate, rooted in participation, transparency, and rule-based governance or one increasingly shaped by administrative convenience and closed processes.

The legal framework is clear. The democratic expectation is even clearer. The Pan-African Parliament must conduct its business in the open, not only because the law requires it, but because its legitimacy depends on it.