Goïta’s indefinite mandate raises alarm over Mali’s democratic future

General Assimi Goïta, Mali’s junta leader, has signed a controversial law granting himself a five-year presidential mandate — renewable indefinitely and without election — sparking widespread concern over the country’s democratic trajectory. The law, made public on July 10, 2025, allows Goïta to remain in power until at least 2030, despite earlier pledges to return […]

General Assimi Goïta, Mali’s junta leader, has signed a controversial law granting himself a five-year presidential mandate — renewable indefinitely and without election — sparking widespread concern over the country’s democratic trajectory.

The law, made public on July 10, 2025, allows Goïta to remain in power until at least 2030, despite earlier pledges to return to civilian rule by March 2024.

The measure, passed by Mali’s military-appointed legislative body and adopted by the Council of Ministers, follows a series of actions that have dismantled democratic institutions, including the dissolution of all political parties and a ban on political gatherings.

Critics say these moves have silenced opposition and entrenched authoritarian rule.

In an interview with Professor Sheriff Ghali Ibrahim, Head of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Abuja, warned that Mali is “sowing the seed for self-destruction.”

He described Goïta’s actions as “dictatorial and tyrannical,” predicting internal rebellion or another coup if the regime continues unchecked.

“There is no timetable, no space for civilian transition. This is more catastrophic than the insurgency in northern Mali. Dissolving political organisations strips Malians of their right to contest and govern,” Ghali said.

The professor added that Goïta’s consolidation of power could provoke widespread unrest. “Within one or two years, you are going to see a general protest. The people will be calling for a revolution or elections.”

Echoing these concerns, Dr Babayo Sule of the National University of Lesotho said the coup and subsequent power consolidation represent a major setback for democracy in Africa.

“While most parts of the world are celebrating the institutionalisation of democratic governance, Africa is witnessing regression,” he said. “In the 21st century, it is unfortunate that military men can still take over power by force.”

Dr Sule warned that Mali’s democratic institutions have been “erupted,” and any future transition—if it occurs—may be a façade. “Goïta may remove his uniform, wear civilian clothes, and continue to rule in the name of democracy. This is a dangerous precedent,” he said.

“The military coup itself has an implication on democracy and democratisation in Africa.

“While most parts of the world are now celebrating the institutionalisation of democratic principles—particularly Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and South America—in Africa we are still witnessing a regression. We are still going backwards.”

Dr Sule lamented that in the 21st century, military takeovers remain a reality on the African continent. “It is really unfortunate that in the 21st century, military men can still take their guns and take over power by force,” he said. “It has serious implications. Anytime the military interrupts civilian governance, it takes that state one or more decades to stabilise and redemocratise.”

On Mali’s current trajectory, Dr Sule was unequivocal adding that, “It seems Goïta is no longer intending to return Mali to democracy. Smuggling an outrageous clause for an unlimited mandate into Mali’s transition means he may not hand over power anytime soon.”

He warned that even if Goïta eventually removes his military uniform, it may be a cosmetic change. “After excessive pressure, he might wear civilian dress and pose himself in Mali’s democracy, continuing to rule in disguise. This is what many African leaders have been doing—anti-democratisation and a very bad precedent.”

Dr Sule also highlighted the blurred lines between military and civilian regimes in Africa. “There is a very thin dividing line between the so-called democratic state and the military state. Even in states that operate democracy, they are still practising militarisation in disguise. They are authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial—and sometimes worse than military regimes.”

He cited Cameroon as a case in point, “One president has been there for over 40 years, bending the rules and changing the constitution to suit his whims. You cannot call this democratisation.”

Dr Sule further criticised Western hypocrisy in supporting such regimes.

“Western powers endorse leaders like Cameroon’s while condemning others. This double standard undermines genuine democratisation.”

On Mali’s exit from ECOWAS and the Multinational Joint Task Force, he said, “This trial has created another regional bloc within a bloc, causing diplomatic rifts and regional security threats. It affects ECOWAS’s ambition for economic integration and collective security.”

He reflected on Francophone Africa, noting that, “The coups in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso are rebellions against French dominance. France never truly left. It still controls currency, reserves, mining, and diplomacy. This excessive control is what made these militaries revolt.”

Dr Sule also linked the wave of coups in Francophone West Africa to anti-French sentiment, arguing that France’s continued economic and political control has fueled military backlash.