Funding Africa's Democratic Voice: How the Pan-African Parliament Lost More Than 40% of Its Budget and Why Restoration Matters

By Olu Ibekwe

Introduction

The Pan-African Parliament (PAP) was established by the founders of the African Union as more than a deliberative assembly. It was conceived as the democratic voice of the peoples of Africa and a key pillar of the Union's governance architecture. Through the Protocol Establishing the Parliament, African leaders envisioned an institution that would promote democratic governance, strengthen accountability, encourage popular participation in continental affairs, and provide parliamentary oversight of the African Union's policies and programmes.

The Protocol assigns PAP a broad mandate to examine and discuss matters affecting the continent, make recommendations on human rights, democratic governance, the rule of law, and institutional development, and serve as a platform through which African citizens can participate in shaping the future of the continent. Importantly, Article 11(2) specifically empowers the Parliament to discuss the budget of the African Union and make recommendations prior to its approval by the Assembly. In doing so, the Protocol embeds the principles of transparency, accountability, parliamentary oversight, and inclusive decision-making within the African Union system.

This vision was reinforced by the Assembly of the Union in the Durban Declaration in Tribute to the Organization of African Unity and on the Launching of the African Union. In that historic declaration, African leaders recommitted themselves to the early establishment of the Pan-African Parliament as a common platform through which African peoples and civil society could actively participate in discussions and decision-making on the challenges confronting the continent. The Parliament was therefore intended not merely as another AU institution, but as an essential mechanism for strengthening democracy, good governance, human rights, and the rule of law across Africa.

Against this backdrop, the story of the Pan-African Parliament's budget over the past decade raises important questions about the relationship between institutional mandate and institutional capacity. While expectations of the Parliament continued to grow, the financial resources available to it moved in the opposite direction.

Between 2016 and 2025, PAP's approved budget declined from approximately US$32.46 million to US$10.35 million, representing a reduction of nearly 68 per cent. Even when measured from 2019, when the budget stood at approximately US$18.5 million, the decline exceeded 40 per cent. The result was a prolonged period of financial contraction that affected the Parliament's ability to fully discharge many of the responsibilities entrusted to it under its founding Protocol.

Today, however, the discussion is no longer limited to how PAP's budget declined. Following years of advocacy and engagement, the African Union Executive Council has formally acknowledged the need to restore critical budget lines removed since 2019 and to regularize the Parliament's funding. The emerging debate is therefore not simply about budget recovery, but about whether Africa's continental parliament will be provided with the resources necessary to fulfil the role envisioned for it by the founders of the African Union.

The Numbers Behind the Decline

The scale of the reduction becomes clear when viewed over time:

Year	PAP Budget (USD)
2016	$32,460,996
2017	$23,867,000
2018	$17,221,564
2019	$18,510,000
2020	$16,408,177
2025	$10,350,000

The trend reveals two distinct phases.

The first occurred between 2016 and 2018, when PAP experienced a substantial reduction as part of broader African Union budget rationalization measures.

The second phase began after 2019, when a number of critical budget lines were removed entirely from the Parliament's allocation, resulting in a prolonged period of financial contraction that continued through 2025. The Executive Council has since confirmed that thirteen critical budget lines were removed from PAP's budget from 2019 onwards.

What Caused the Decline?

Several factors contributed to the reduction.

1.     AU Institutional Reform and Budget Rationalization

The most significant driver was the African Union's institutional reform process. Beginning in the late 2010s, the AU embarked on a comprehensive effort to improve efficiency, reduce administrative costs, and strengthen financial sustainability across its organs and institutions.

Like many AU organs, PAP was affected by these reforms as Member States sought to control expenditure and reduce dependence on external funding.

2.     Removal of Critical Budget Lines

The second factor was the removal of essential operational budget lines after 2019.

The Executive Council's February 2026 decision acknowledged that thirteen critical budget lines necessary for the functioning of the Parliament had been removed and directed the Commission to work with PAP to restore them.

This recognition is important because it confirms that the decline was not merely the result of inflation, exchange rates, or accounting adjustments. Core operational resources were removed from the institution.

3.     The COVID-19 Effect

The COVID-19 pandemic further reinforced budgetary restrictions.

Like many international organizations, the African Union adopted cost-containment measures during the pandemic. While many institutions gradually returned to normal funding levels after the crisis, PAP continued to operate under what the former President of the Parliament Chief Fortune Charumbira described as a "COVID-era budget" long after parliamentary activities had resumed.

4.     Broader AU Financing Challenges

The financial difficulties of the African Union itself also affected PAP. Despite ongoing efforts to strengthen self-financing mechanisms, the AU has continued to face resource constraints arising from uneven Member State contributions and wider fiscal pressures across the continent.

In periods of budget tightening, institutions with limited direct control over resource allocation often experience disproportionate reductions.

How Does PAP Compare With Other AU Organs?

The decline becomes more striking when viewed against the overall AU budget.

In 2016, the African Union approved a budget of approximately US$837.4 million. At the time, PAP's budget of US$32.46 million represented approximately 3.9 per cent of total AU expenditure.

By 2025, PAP's allocation had fallen to just over US$10 million, making it one of the most modestly funded principal organs of the Union despite its continental mandate and membership drawn from across Africa.

This raises an important policy question.

Can the institution expected to represent the voices of over 1.4 billion Africans effectively perform its mandate while receiving only a small fraction of overall AU resources?

The Executive Council's recent decisions suggest that many Member States increasingly believe the answer is no.

Institutional Mandate and Financial Capacity

The decline in the Pan-African Parliament's budget is not merely an administrative or financial issue. It raises fundamental questions about the African Union's ability to fully realize the democratic governance architecture envisioned in its founding instruments.

The Protocol Establishing the Pan-African Parliament assigns the institution a wide range of responsibilities, including promoting democratic governance, strengthening accountability, encouraging popular participation in continental affairs, advancing human rights and the rule of law, and contributing to policy development across the African Union. The Protocol also specifically empowers PAP to discuss the African Union budget and make recommendations prior to its approval by the Assembly.

These responsibilities cannot be discharged effectively without adequate institutional capacity.

Parliamentary oversight requires fact-finding missions, committee meetings, stakeholder consultations, public hearings, election observation missions, legislative research, policy analysis, translation services, and sustained engagement with Member States and citizens. Similarly, the development of Model Laws, advisory opinions, and policy recommendations depends upon the availability of technical expertise, professional staff, and operational resources.

When resources are significantly reduced over a prolonged period, the impact extends beyond the institution itself. It affects the Parliament's ability to provide oversight, represent the voices of African citizens, contribute to policy deliberations, and strengthen accountability within the broader African Union system.

The challenge therefore is not simply that PAP lost more than 40 per cent of its budget. The deeper concern is whether the Parliament can effectively perform the responsibilities assigned to it by the Protocol while operating under financial constraints that have steadily eroded its operational capacity.

This is why the recent decisions of the Executive Council to restore critical budget lines and regularize PAP's funding are significant. They reflect an emerging recognition that strengthening the Parliament is not merely a budgetary matter but an investment in democratic governance, accountability, citizen participation, and the institutional effectiveness of the African Union itself.

What Functions Were Curtailed?

Budget reductions had practical consequences for the Parliament's operations.

1.     Reduced Oversight and Fact-Finding Missions

Parliamentary oversight is one of PAP's most important functions.

Funding constraints reduced the frequency and scope of fact-finding missions, election observation activities, oversight visits, and parliamentary engagements with Member States.

2.     Limited Legislative and Policy Work

PAP has increasingly become involved in developing Model Laws and policy frameworks to support harmonization across Africa.

However, legislative drafting, stakeholder consultations, expert engagements, and validation workshops require resources. Budget constraints inevitably limited the Parliament's ability to undertake such initiatives at scale.

3.     Constraints on Committee Activities

The ten Permanent Committees form the operational backbone of the Parliament.

Reduced funding restricted committee meetings, public hearings, consultations with stakeholders, and follow-up activities necessary for effective oversight and policy development.

4.     Staffing Challenges

Financial limitations also contributed to staffing constraints.

Over time, critical vacancies remained unfilled, increasing pressure on existing personnel and reducing institutional capacity. This challenge was eventually acknowledged by the Executive Council, which authorized the filling of twenty-five critical positions as part of a phased recruitment programme.

5.     Parliamentary Diplomacy and Citizen Engagement

As Africa's continental parliamentary institution, PAP plays an important role in parliamentary diplomacy, citizen participation, and engagement with regional and international partners.

Budgetary limitations inevitably reduced the institution's ability to sustain such activities at the desired level.

What Would Budget Restoration Cost?

The Executive Council has not directed a return to the 2016 funding level of US$32.46 million.

Instead, its focus has been on restoring the Parliament's budget to a sustainable operational level by reintroducing the critical budget lines removed since 2019 and regularizing the institution's funding.

If PAP were restored to approximately its 2019 budget level of US$18.5 million, the increase required would be about US$8.15 million annually above the 2025 allocation.

Within the context of the African Union's overall budget, this would represent a relatively modest investment for an institution charged with strengthening democratic governance, legislative harmonization, accountability, citizen participation, and continental integration.

From Budget Recovery to Institutional Effectiveness

The significance of recent Executive Council decisions lies not merely in the prospect of additional funding.

They represent a recognition by Member States that the Parliament cannot effectively discharge its mandate while operating under prolonged financial constraints.

The sustained advocacy undertaken by the Sixth Bureau under the leadership of H.E. Chief Fortune Charumbira helped elevate the issue of PAP financing within AU policy circles and contributed to a series of Executive Council decisions culminating in the 2026 directive to restore critical budget lines and regularize the institution's funding.

The challenge now passes to the Seventh Bureau, the African Union Commission, the Permanent Representatives' Committee, and Member States.

The debate is no longer whether PAP's budget declined. The evidence is clear.

The more important question is whether the restoration measures already approved by the Executive Council will now be fully implemented and translated into a stronger, more effective Parliament capable of fulfilling its continental mandate.

For the Pan-African Parliament, budget restoration is not simply a financial exercise. It is about restoring the operational capacity of an institution that the AU's founding instruments envisioned as the democratic voice of Africa's peoples. The question before Member States is therefore not whether PAP deserves adequate funding, but whether the African Union is prepared to fully resource one of its principal organs to perform the oversight, representative, advisory, and budgetary functions entrusted to it under the Protocol Establishing the Pan-African Parliament.