EU–AU human rights talks expose a shared crisis of civic space — and an urgent test of the partnership
When civil society leaders stood before officials from the African Union and the European Union in Brussels on 7 October, their message was stark and unvarnished: the basic infrastructure of civic life — independent media, watchdog organisations, protest — is under pressure on both continents. For a gathering meant to stitch together cooperation across two sprawling political orders, the warning was less an appeal than a diagnosis: the very actors who hold governments to account are being squeezed, and the AU–EU partnership will be judged on whether it protects them.
- Advertisement -
Who spoke and what they said
The Inter‑Continental Human Rights Dialogue brought together institutions and rights bodies from both sides of the Mediterranean. On the civil‑society side, Omar Faruk Osman, secretary general of the National Union of Somali Journalists and co‑chair of the AU–EU Civil Society Steering Committee on Human Rights, delivered a briefing with his European counterpart, Lionel Grassy of FIACAT. They were received by AU Commissioner Bankole Adeoye and EU Special Representative for Human Rights Kajsa Ollongren.
Osman told delegates bluntly that “civil society’s engagement is indispensable to strengthening democratic governance,” and urged sustained legal and financial support for rights defenders. That plea — simple, almost prosaic — cut to the heart of the debate. In recent years, activists face a suite of pressures: legal harassment, shrinking funding, smear campaigns, and digital repression such as internet shutdowns. These tactics are becoming routine tools of governance in places previously assumed to be immune.
From Beijing to Brussels: why this matters
The AU–EU dialogue is not just another summit line item. It is supposed to be the forum that translates shared commitments into concrete action: joint monitoring, political pressure, technical support and funding to protect rights. But the evidence suggests the terrain on which such tools must operate has shifted. Across Africa and parts of Europe, governments have embraced laws and practices that stigmatise independent NGOs, outlaw spontaneous protest, criminalise journalism and weaponise counter‑terror and public‑order rhetoric to justify repression.
Those tactics don’t follow a single ideological script. In some countries, leaders use anti‑foreign‑funding laws to dry up civil‑society coffers; in others, disinformation and state‑aligned smear campaigns delegitimise critics. Digital controls — throttling, blocking, or outright shutdowns — have become an attractive lever for authorities wanting to contain dissent while avoiding international backlash that comes with overt violence.
The result is a globalised toolbox of repression. It is deployed by democratically elected governments trying to manage political contests, by fragile states facing security threats, and by regimes aligning themselves with powerful external patrons. For the EU and AU, this means threats to civic space are not isolated anomalies but a systemic challenge that transcends borders.
What civil society asked for — and what that would cost
At the meeting, civil society spelled out a compact of demands: protect human rights defenders; ensure predictable and flexible funding channels for NGOs; provide legal assistance to prosecuted activists; affirm the independence of regional and global human‑rights institutions; and defend media freedom. They argued that human rights are indivisible — that the weakening of bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council or the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ultimately affects accountability everywhere.
These are not inexpensive asks. Sustained funding, legal aid and diplomatic backup require political will and resources. They also demand an honest reckoning about the contradictions within EU and AU foreign policies — especially when strategic or security interests lead to partnerships with governments that flout basic rights. Can the EU, for instance, pursue migration deals or security cooperation without simultaneously demanding better human‑rights standards?
Lessons from the margins
Listen to activists on the ground and the implications are immediate: a journalist in a capital city who once relied on a small grant to investigate corruption now faces both a law that restricts foreign funding and a digital campaign that brands them a spy; an environmental defender who mobilised peaceful protests finds themselves charged with inciting unrest; a rights organisation that used to take referrals from European partners finds its account frozen under anti‑money‑laundering rules.
These are not hypothetical scenarios. They are the daily reality for many African and European activists. They underscore the point civil society made in Brussels: support must be nimble, cross‑border, and politically backed. It should also be designed with the realities of digital repression in mind — supporting secure communications, legal recourse for online smear campaigns, and rapid-response funds for activists under threat.
Paths forward — practical and political
If the EU and AU are serious about defending civic freedoms, several steps are within reach:
- Commit to pooled, flexible funding mechanisms that can be tapped quickly by local NGOs and defenders.
- Build bilateral and regional legal defence funds to support litigation and legal aid.
- Coordinate diplomatic pressure when activists are detained or media outlets are targeted, including joint statements and travel‑restricted measures against individuals responsible for repression.
- Strengthen regional monitoring bodies and ensure they receive both technical support and political backing to operate independently.
- Invest in digital resilience for civil society: secure platforms, training and contingency planning for shutdowns and attacks.
These measures are not novel. What is missing is consistent implementation and the willingness to make human‑rights protection a non‑negotiable element of wider strategic relationships.
Questions for the future
The AU–EU dialogue this month was a reminder that alliances are only as credible as the values they defend. As geopolitics hardens and security imperatives multiply, will both unions choose short‑term bargains or long‑term commitments to civic space? Will they treat civil society as partners or as collateral?
The answers will determine not only the fate of activists and journalists but the health of democracies that depend on an informed public and accountable institutions. In a moment when the instruments of repression travel quickly across borders, the test for Brussels and Addis Ababa is whether they will move in step to protect the very actors who make pluralism possible.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
