The military junta in Guinea-Bissau is wavering on its commitment to hold elections on 6 December 2026, casting doubt on its central promise to restore civilian rule following the November 2025 coup. To grasp what is at stake, it helps to trace the electoral crisis that triggered the military takeover, review the transition authorities’ pledges, and weigh the skepticism they now attract.
A disputed vote and the army’s intervention
The crisis erupted after the November 2025 presidential election. As the national electoral commission was still tallying ballots, both incumbent president Umaro Sissoco Embaló and opposition candidate Fernando Dias da Costa claimed victory. On 25 November, the army seized power, halting the electoral process. The soldiers said they acted to prevent destabilization and thwart a plot, though these claims have not been independently verified.
The coup upended the vote before final results could be announced. According to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, ballots were subsequently destroyed and opposition figures imprisoned. The takeover thus left a fundamental question unresolved: who had actually won the election that the military interrupted?
The vow to return to civilian rule
The junta portrayed its intervention as a move to restore stability. It then established a transition led by General Horta N’Tam and promised to return the country to civilian rule through presidential and legislative elections.
In January 2026, the transition authorities set those elections for 6 December 2026. The presidential decree asserted that conditions were in place for a credible vote and specified that the junta leader would not be a candidate. Yet from the outset, several obstacles to the process’s credibility were apparent: opposition figures were imprisoned or in exile, and the revision of the Constitution by the transitional legislative body raised questions about its legality.
A new Constitution sparks controversy
The transition also embarked on an overhaul of institutions. The constitutional referendum held in August 2026 aimed to replace the semi-presidential system with a presidential one, concentrating more power in the presidency. The draft also proposed reducing the number of lawmakers from 102 to 65 and districts from 29 to 12.
The authorities defended these changes as a step toward institutional stability. But the opposition, notably the PAIGC, denounced a process likely to strengthen the executive and entrench the junta’s grip. Parties and civil society organizations boycotted the referendum. The new Constitution thus crystallized a contradiction: the transition promises elections, but the political rules are being reshaped by institutions established under military rule.
The electoral calendar under strain
As the vote approaches, holding elections on 6 December appears uncertain. The electoral commission believes technical conditions will not be met in time, and the prime minister says parties are not ready to take part in a reliable vote. A postponement would therefore pose a direct risk to the main deadline meant to justify the transition’s duration.
The authorities can cite organizational constraints to explain a delay. But for part of the opposition and observers, a postponement would also extend military control over the political process. The issue is not limited to the voting date: it concerns the ability of parties to compete freely, access to media, the safety of candidates and voters, and the neutrality of security forces.
Credibility will be measured by actions
The promise of a return to civilian order cannot be judged solely by an official timetable. It will depend on concrete guarantees: allowing the opposition to participate, clarifying the status of imprisoned or exiled officials, ensuring freedom of expression, and guaranteeing that electoral institutions can operate without military pressure.
A vote held in a climate of fear or exclusion risks prolonging the crisis rather than resolving it. Conversely, an inclusive process, with rules accepted by the main actors and a respected timetable, could pave the way out of the transition. In Guinea-Bissau, the question now is whether the promise made after the coup will become a genuine transfer of power—or remain a commitment with no certain deadline.