In January 2025, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger made headlines with their collective decision to withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). This unprecedented move by three founding members has created challenges for the region, not only politically but also legally and administratively.
In April 2025, ECOWAS convened an Extraordinary Session of the Council of Ministers in Accra to address the implications of this exit. Among the pressing issues discussed were contingency plans, institutional integrity, and—most significantly—the employment status of nationals from the withdrawing states who currently work in ECOWAS institutions.
The Legal Framework is Clear
The ECOWAS Staff Regulations, backed by provisions of the Revised Treaty, leave little room for ambiguity:
Article 50(h) mandates the separation from service when a staff member’s country withdraws from the organization.
Article 51(1) (b) (viii) reiterates this, stating that staff must exit on the official date of withdrawal.
Article 53(d) offers a humane provision—a grace period of six months to one year to allow for a smooth exit.
These provisions are not discretionary. They are binding rules that uphold the legal and institutional integrity of ECOWAS and ensure the principle of equitable geographical representation, a cornerstone of the organization enacted into the ECOWAS Revised Treaty of 1993.
Concerns Over Implementation
Despite this legal clarity, a circular issued on July 4, 2025, by the ECOWAS Commission appears to contradict both the Council’s decision and the binding regulations. The circular, reportedly retaining all staff at the P4 level and below from the exited states, has raised concerns among legal observers, member states, and even ECOWAS insiders.
At the heart of the issue is whether the Commission has the legal authority to override decisions taken by the Council of Ministers, or to unilaterally reinterpret binding rules.
Why It Matters
Retaining staff from non-member states—particularly without following transitional protocols—raises several serious concerns:
Institutional loyalty and conflict of interest: With no member state to hold them accountable, affected staff might operate without the checks and balances applicable to others.
Distortion of fairness: Such blanket retention deprives citizens of current member states from filling positions that should now be vacant under the geographical quota system.
Erosion of trust: Ignoring the legal framework weakens ECOWAS’s legitimacy and sets a troubling precedent.
A Call for Accountability
The Centre for Community Law, in a letter dated August 4, 2025, respectfully called on the President of the ECOWAS Commission to explain the legal basis for the controversial circular. The letter emphasizes the importance of transparency and urges the Commission to act in line with its legal obligations—not out of hostility toward the citizens of Burkina Faso, Mali, or Niger—but out of a commitment to the rule of law.
The Centre’s letter makes it clear: if no justification is provided by August 19, legal action will follow.
The Stake
The issue at hand is more than administrative—it is existential. ECOWAS stands at a crossroads. Will it reaffirm its commitment to legal order and institutional fairness, or will it slide into ad hoc decision-making?
As the regional body faces one of the most significant internal challenges in its history, how it responds in the coming weeks will define not just the fate of a few staff members, but the credibility and cohesion of ECOWAS itself.
Comments are closed.