Guinea‑Bissau Cannot Complete Presidential Election, Electoral Commission Says

Introduction

The West African nation of Guinea‑Bissau has been thrust back into the spotlight after its electoral commission announced that the presidential election scheduled for 23 November could not be completed. Armed men seized ballot boxes, stole vote‑tally sheets, and destroyed the servers that stored the results. Within days, the military seized power, installed a transitional president, and promised a one‑year roadmap back to constitutional order.

This article provides a comprehensive, SEO‑optimized overview of the unfolding crisis. We examine the facts, explore the role of regional bodies such as ECOWAS, compare the event with similar coups in West Africa, and outline practical advice for observers, NGOs, and foreign governments.

2>

What Happened on 23 November?

Guinea‑Bissau’s presidential election was set to take place on 23 November 2024. The electoral commission (EC) – officially the **Comissão Nacional Eleitoral (CNE)** – had prepared polling stations across the country’s 45 constituencies. On election day, preliminary voting proceeded without major incident, but the situation deteriorated in the early hours of 26 November.

The Coup and Seizure of Power

On 26 November, senior army officers, led by Major‑General Horta Inta‑a, announced a coup. The military took control of the capital, Bissau, and effectively halted the vote‑counting process. By the afternoon, the CNE’s headquarters and several regional offices had been stormed. According to CNE senior official Idrissa Djalo, “We do not have the infrastructure and logistical capacity to continue with the electoral process.”

Ballot Box and Server Destruction

Djalo reported that a “force of unidentified armed and hooded individuals” entered the commission’s premises on 26 November. The attackers:

• Confiscated the computers of all 45 CNE staff present that day.
• Seized ballot boxes and tally sheets from every constituency.
• Destroyed the central server where electronic results were stored.

Without the physical tally sheets and with the digital data erased, the commission declared the election “impossible to finish.” The loss of these primary sources means that any attempt to reconstruct the vote would be speculative and legally contestable.

Regional Response – ECOWAS Intervention

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) quickly condemned the coup and announced a series of diplomatic measures, including the threat of sanctions against the coup leaders. A high‑level delegation headed by Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio met with the military and CNE officials in Bissau on 2 December. ECOWAS scheduled a summit for 14 December to discuss a coordinated response, emphasizing the need to restore constitutional order and to enable a credible election.

Historical Context of Instability

Since gaining independence from Portugal in 1974, Guinea‑Bissau has endured chronic political turbulence. Only one president, João Bernardo “Nino” Vieira, completed a full term. Coups, mutinies, and assassinations have become recurring features of the nation’s political landscape. The country’s fragile institutions are further weakened by its role as a transit hub for cocaine trafficking between Latin America and Europe, a factor that has attracted the interest of organized crime groups and, according to the transitional president, “narco‑traffickers.”

Summary

In short, the combination of a military coup, the theft of ballot boxes, and the deliberate destruction of the electoral commission’s servers made it impossible for Guinea‑Bissau to finalize the 23 November presidential election. The CNE’s declaration of an incomplete election reflects a lack of both physical evidence and digital records. ECOWAS has taken a firm stance, promising sanctions and a diplomatic push for a one‑year transition under Major‑General Inta‑a, who claims the coup was necessary to thwart “narco‑traffickers” seeking to undermine democracy.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For International Observers

Organizations monitoring elections should:

1. Document the chain of custody for any remaining physical ballots.
2. Collect testimonies from CNE staff and local poll workers.
3. Coordinate with ECOWAS to ensure any future election is conducted under a transparent, internationally‑observed framework.

For NGOs Working on Governance

Non‑governmental groups should prioritize:

• Capacity‑building for the electoral commission, focusing on secure data backups and offline storage.
• Community outreach to explain the importance of a credible electoral process.
• Advocacy for legal reforms that protect election infrastructure from military interference.

For Foreign Diplomats

Embassies and foreign ministries should:

• Maintain open channels with ECOWAS and the transitional government.
• Consider targeted sanctions on individuals responsible for the ballot theft and server destruction.
• Support humanitarian assistance to mitigate the broader social impact of the political crisis.

Points of Caution

While the transitional leader frames the coup as a fight against narco‑trafficking, independent verification of these claims remains limited. Analysts should avoid:

• Accepting official narratives without corroborating evidence.
• Assuming that a one‑year transition will automatically lead to free and fair elections.
• Overlooking the risk that the destroyed data could be reconstructed or falsified, potentially fueling future disputes.

Furthermore, the presence of multiple armed factions and the involvement of criminal networks increase the unpredictability of the security environment.

Comparison with Recent West African Coups

Compared with its neighbours, Guinea‑Bissau’s crisis is distinctive for the deliberate destruction of digital election records, a tactic not commonly reported in other West African coups. This act raises additional challenges for post‑coup verification and for any future legal contestation of election outcomes.

Legal Implications

Under both domestic law and international standards, the following legal issues arise:

• Violation of electoral integrity: The seizure of ballot boxes and destruction of servers contravenes Guinea‑Bissau’s Constitution (Article 127) which guarantees free and secret voting.
• Potential war crimes: If evidence emerges that the destruction of electoral data was intended to intimidate civilians, it could be classified as a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.
• Sanctions framework: ECOWAS’ threat of sanctions is grounded in the ECOWAS Protocol on Non‑Aggression and the community’s own charter, which mandates collective action against unconstitutional changes of government.
• International election monitoring: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges signatory states to hold periodic, genuine elections. Failure to do so may trigger scrutiny from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Legal experts advise that any future election in Guinea‑Bissau must be accompanied by an independent audit of the destroyed data and a transparent mechanism for addressing grievances.

Conclusion

Guinea‑Bissau’s inability to complete its presidential election is the result of a coordinated military takeover, the physical theft of ballot materials, and the intentional erasure of digital records. The crisis underscores the fragility of democratic institutions in a country plagued by chronic instability, drug‑trafficking routes, and weak governance structures. While ECOWAS has signaled a firm stance, the path to a credible, constitutional election remains uncertain.

Stakeholders—including international observers, NGOs, and foreign governments—must prioritize data security, transparent verification processes, and robust regional cooperation to prevent a repeat of this scenario. Only through a concerted, legally sound effort can Guinea‑Bissau hope to restore confidence in its electoral system and chart a stable democratic future.

FAQ