The possible postponement of elections scheduled for 6 December has triggered a widening public debate in Guinea-Bissau, casting fresh doubt on the central pledge made by the military junta: handing power back to civilians after seizing control in November 2025. The fallout is now playing out across the political spectrum, with opposition figures, civil society groups and international observers weighing what a delay would mean for the country’s already fragile transition. To grasp what is at stake, it helps to trace the electoral crisis that preceded the coup, review the commitments made by the transitional authorities and assess the growing scepticism they now face.
From contested vote to military takeover
The crisis took shape after the presidential election of November 2025. While the national electoral commission was still tallying ballots, both the incumbent president, Umaro Sissoco Embaló, and opposition candidate Fernando Dias da Costa claimed victory. On 25 November, the army stepped in, halting the electoral process. The soldiers said they acted to prevent the country from sliding into instability and to foil a plot — allegations that have never been independently verified.
The coup upended the vote before definitive results could be announced. According to the Africa Centre for Strategic Studies, ballots were subsequently destroyed and opposition figures were imprisoned. The takeover left a fundamental question unanswered: who had actually won the election that the military interrupted?
The promise of a return to civilian rule
The junta framed its intervention as a move to restore stability. It then established a transition led by General Horta N’Tam and vowed to return the country to civilian rule through presidential and legislative elections.
In January 2026, the transitional authorities set those elections for 6 December 2026. A presidential decree stated that conditions were in place for a credible vote and specified that the head of the junta would not be a candidate. Yet from the moment the date was announced, several obstacles to the process’s credibility were already apparent: opposition figures were in prison or in exile, and the revision of the Constitution by the transitional legislative body raised questions about its legality.
A new Constitution, a deepening controversy
The transition also launched a redesign of state institutions. A constitutional referendum held in August 2026 sought to replace the semi-presidential system with a presidential one, concentrating more power in the presidency. The draft also proposed cutting the number of parliamentarians from 102 to 65 and reducing districts from 29 to 12.
The authorities defended these changes as a step towards institutional stability. But the opposition, particularly the PAIGC, denounced a process likely to strengthen the executive and entrench the junta’s grip. Parties and civil society organisations boycotted the referendum. The new Constitution thus crystallised a contradiction: the transition promises elections, yet the political rules are being reshaped by institutions established under military rule.
The electoral timetable under strain
As the vote approaches, whether elections will take place on 6 December appears increasingly uncertain. The electoral commission believes the technical conditions will not be met in time, and the prime minister says parties are not ready to take part in a reliable ballot. A postponement would therefore deal a direct blow to the main deadline meant to justify the length of the transition.
The authorities can point to logistical constraints to explain a delay. But for parts of the opposition and many observers, a postponement would also extend military control over the political process. The issue is not simply the date of the vote: it concerns the ability of parties to compete freely, access to the media, the safety of candidates and voters, and the neutrality of the security forces.
Credibility will be judged by actions
The promise of a return to civilian order cannot be assessed on an official calendar alone. It will depend on concrete guarantees: allowing the opposition to participate, clarifying the fate of imprisoned or exiled officials, ensuring freedom of expression and making sure electoral institutions can operate without military pressure.
An election 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 timetable that is respected, could open the way out of the transition. In Guinea-Bissau, the question now is whether the pledge made after the coup will become a genuine transfer of power — or remain a commitment with no certain deadline.
