Colonial Border-Making and Historical Institutional Legacies in African Union Security Governance: Nigeria’s Leadership in the Sahel

Cite this article: Usman, A. F. & Bello, M. A. 2026. “Colonial Border-Making and Historical Institutional Legacies in African Union Security Governance: Nigeria’s Leadership in the Sahel”. Sokoto Journal of History Vol. 14, Iss. 01. Pp. 176-189. www.doi.org/10.36349/sokotojh.2026.v14i01.016

COLONIAL BORDER-MAKING AND HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONAL LEGACIES IN AFRICAN UNION SECURITY GOVERNANCE: NIGERIA’S LEADERSHIP IN THE SAHEL

By

Abdulateef Femi Usman

 Department of History & International Studies,

Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto-Nigeria

And

Muazu Alkali Bello

Department of Liberal Studies,

Abdu-Gusau Polytechnic, Talata-Mafara, Zamfara State

Abstract: This study explores the continuing impact of colonial border-making and historical Institutional legacies on contemporary insecurity in the Sahel. Despite significant studies on regional insecurity, less emphasis has been devoted to how colonial institutional legacies have organized governance deficiencies and hindered the effectiveness of African Union (AU) actions. Addressing this gap, the paper investigates how colonial administration influenced state capability, institutional frameworks, and regional security dynamics, and evaluates Nigeria’s strategic role in mediating these effects. Employing a historical and exploratory qualitative approach, data were obtained from peer-reviewed literature indexed in Google Scholar and Scopus, archival records from AU repositories, AU Peace and Security Council reports, policy documents, books, theses, and other reputable sources. Thematic analysis guided by Historical institutionalism theory was utilized to interpret findings. Results indicate that artificial colonial borders and historical institutional legacies produced fragmented governance that persists in limiting state capacity, that AU institutional structures are constrained by enduring historical norms, and that Nigeria’s leadership exhibits both strategic influence and structural limitations in shaping regional security outcomes. The study suggests strengthening institutional systems, enhancing regional cooperation, and resolving structural legacies. Findings contribute to History, International relations, Political science and policy studies and emphasize the need for additional research on localized governance systems, community resilience, and operational efficiency of regional security frameworks in the Sahel.

Keywords: African union, Colonial Border-Making, Diplomatic Strategies, Historical Institutionalism, Regional Leadership

Introduction

The contemporary insecurity in the Sahel is deeply rooted in historical processes of colonial border-making and governance, which disrupted pre-colonial political, social, and economic networks (Bøås & Strazzari, 2020). Colonial borders were often drawn with little regard for existing cultural, ethnic, or ecological boundaries. They primarily served European strategic interests rather than local populations (Herbst, 1989). These artificial boundaries fragmented political groupings and placed diverse communities under single administrative authorities, creating structural tensions that persist into the post-colonial era. Historical Institutionalism provides a valuable framework for understanding how these borders and governance structures became embedded in state practices and continue to shape social, political, and security outcomes decades after independence (Pierson & Skocpol, 2002).

In the Sahel and West African context, colonial border-making has influenced governance patterns, mobility, and insecurity. Nigeria’s highly porous borders reflect both colonial legacies and weaknesses in post-independence administration, facilitating the movement of insurgents, small-arms proliferation, and contraband trafficking, complicating national security and peacebuilding efforts (Rwigema, 2025). These dynamics underpin violent conflicts, including the Maitatsine riots, the ongoing Boko Haram insurgency, and recurrent banditry, illustrating that contemporary insecurity cannot be fully understood without reference to historical institutional decisions (Omeni, 2025). Historical institutional legacies particularly indirect colonial rule further reshaped local authority, transforming emirates, customary systems, and legal pluralism in ways that entrenched governance vulnerabilities (Bhattarai & Yousef, 2025). Borderland regions, distant from central administration, became contested spaces exploited by non-state actors, fueling cycles of violence such as farmer–herder clashes and localized banditry (Ojewale, 2025).

Despite extensive research on Sahelian conflicts, including Bøås and Strazzari (2020), Noutchie and Goufo (2025), Omitola et al. (2021), and Moliki and Salami (2024), gaps remain in systematically linking colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies with contemporary insecurity. Accordingly, this study addresses the following questions: What role did colonial border-making and governance strategies play in shaping contemporary insecurity in the Sahel? How do these historical legacies interact with local mobility, governance, and cross-border dynamics to produce persistent vulnerabilities? The objectives are to examine the enduring impacts of colonial state formation on Sahelian insecurity, assess how institutional arrangements have structured governance gaps, and contribute to policy and scholarly understanding. This study is significant as it provides a historically grounded perspective that illuminates structural drivers of conflict, informs regional security strategies, and strengthens the theoretical application of Historical Institutionalism in understanding persistent institutional and security challenges.

Research Methodology

This study employs a historical, exploratory qualitative research design to examine the enduring effects of colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies. Historical qualitative research is particularly suited for analyzing long-term institutional processes because it prioritizes contextual depth, interpretive analysis, and temporal continuity over measurement and quantification, as highlighted by Skarbek (2020). The historical approach allows a systematic investigation of how colonial governance arrangements were constructed, institutionalized, and transmitted over time. The exploratory qualitative orientation complements the historical technique, which is consistent with the practices outlined by Pant (2023) and Cresswell (2013).

Additionally, all data were drawn from credible sources, including peer-reviewed literature indexed in Google Scholar and Scopus, archival records from African Union repositories, Policy documents, AU Peace and Security Council reports, Articles, and Theses. These sources are widely recognized for their reliability in reconstructing historical processes and institutional developments, as noted by Gill et al. (2018). Triangulation across diverse sources strengthens the credibility of findings and mitigates interpretive bias arising from reliance on a single source.

Similarly, the data analysis followed rigorous thematic procedures guided by Historical Institutionalism, which emphasizes path dependence, institutional persistence, and the long-term impact of governance arrangements on political and security outcomes (Pierson & Skocpol, 2002). Systematic coding and interpretation identified recurring institutional patterns linking colonial borders, historical institutional legacies and contemporary Sahel insecurity. By integrating historical depth with qualitative rigor, the study produces findings that are theoretically grounded, methodologically robust, and empirically verifiable.

Theoretical Premise: Historical Institutionalism and Colonial Legacies in the Sahel

This study adopts Historical Institutionalism (HI) as its guiding theoretical framework. Foundational work by Skocpol and Steinmo established the theory’s focus on the historical origins of institutions and their role in shaping state formation, policy continuity, and long-term governance outcomes (Pierson & Skocpol, 2002; Steinmo, 2008). Building on these insights, Thelen and Pierson expanded the framework to explain how institutions, both formal and informal, including rules, governance structures, and practices, emerge, persist, and influence social, political, and economic behavior over time. The theory emphasizes that decisions taken during critical junctures have enduring effects on institutional trajectories, producing path-dependent patterns that constrain or enable actor behavior (Mahoney et al., 2019).

Given the above, the theory rests on five key assumptions. First, institutions created at one point in history endure beyond their initial context. Second, historical events generate path-dependent processes that influence future outcomes. Third, institutions structure and constrain actor behavior. Fourth, critical junctures determine the long-term direction of institutions. Fifth, institutional change is generally incremental rather than abrupt. These assumptions are particularly relevant to the study of the Sahel, where colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies established institutional arrangements that continue to shape contemporary insecurity, governance gaps, and mobility patterns.

Furthermore, the framework is used to examine how colonial choices regarding borders and governance intermediaries created long-term vulnerabilities that persist in Sahelian states. Recent research applying the theory in African contexts underscores its relevance. Boone (2014) links colonial land policies to contemporary conflicts, Herbst (1989) highlights enduring governance patterns in postcolonial African states, and Walther and Retaille (2019) connect historical border-making to present-day insecurity in the Sahel. However, there remains a gap in integrating both colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies within a single theoretical framework to explain persistent insecurity, which this study addresses.

Scientifically, this theory provides a robust causal lens connecting historical institutional decisions to contemporary outcomes. By focusing on path dependence and institutional persistence, this study situates modern Sahelian insecurity within its colonial foundations, offering theoretically grounded insights that advance institutionalist scholarship and deepen understanding of historical drivers of conflict and governance vulnerabilities.

Literature review

The essence of a literature review in any of the academic exercises is to know what was done and what needs to be done, fills the gaps, and contributes to the body of knowledge. As a result, this study reviews a legion of literature: Table 1 summarizes the key themes and focus areas of the literature review across five major analytical dimensions.

Table 1: Overview of Literature Review Themes

No	Literature part	Key Focus/themes	Observations/Findings
1	Historical Evolution of AU and Nigeria’s Role	Institutional transformation, OAU to AU, colonial legacies	Colonial borders fragmented authority, AU structures attempt proactive governance
2	Nigeria’s Diplomatic Strategies	Leadership, coalition-building, regional engagement	Emphasis on multilateralism, ECOWAS collaboration, advocacy for African solutions
3	Nigeria’s Leadership in AU Decision-Making	Agenda-setting, PSC engagement, normative influence	Hybrid leadership model blending material capacity and cooperative strategies
4	AU Security Governance	Norms, institutions, operational challenges	Gaps in translating political will into effective security outcomes
5	Nigeria’s Strategic Role in AU Norms & Security	Norm creation, operational contributions, sanctions	Situational leadership, historical legitimacy leveraged in policy and peace operations

Source: developed by the researchers from the literature (2026)

Historical Evolution of the African Union and Nigeria’s Role

The African Union (AU) represents a significant institutional transformation from the Organization of African Unity (OAU), reflecting shifting continental priorities in governance, security, and integration since decolonization (Dogah, 2022; Mabitsela, 2023). While the OAU successfully promoted solidarity, decolonization, and non-interference, its rigid adherence to state sovereignty has been widely criticized for limiting effective responses to intra-state conflicts. These limitations were closely linked to colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies, which fragmented authority and entrenched weak governance structures across African territories (Dogah, 2022; OAU, 1964). Despite this recognition, the literature offers limited systematic analysis of how colonial borders shaped the OAU’s institutional weaknesses and how these legacies continue to constrain AU security governance in the Sahel.

Moreover, the adoption of the AU Constitutive Act in 2000 and the creation of institutions such as the Peace and Security Council (PSC), Pan-African Parliament, and African Peer Review Mechanism marked a normative shift toward proactive continental governance (AUC, 2013). Key policy documents, including From Barriers to Bridges, emphasize the AU’s intent to address challenges arising from colonial borders and fragmented governance (AUC, 2013). The establishment of the PSC, in particular, signaled an attempt to move beyond the OAU’s non-interventionist posture by enabling collective responses to intra-state and cross-border conflicts (AUC, 2014). However, empirical evaluations of whether these institutional innovations have effectively mitigated border-related insecurity in the Sahel remain underdeveloped in existing scholarship.

Nigeria’s role within both the OAU and AU illustrates the opportunities and constraints of state leadership in addressing historically rooted governance challenges. During the OAU era, Nigeria’s support for liberation movements and mediation initiatives demonstrated sustained diplomatic activism (Piate & Nekabari, 2025). In the AU era, Nigeria’s demographic size, economic capacity, and military resources have positioned it as a central actor in institutional development and security governance (Alkali et al., 2023). Yet the literature rarely interrogates how Nigeria’s domestic governance challenges intersect with its capacity to shape continental strategies to overcome the historical institutional legacies and fragmented borders (Alkali et al., 2023a; Alkali et al., 2023b).

Comparative analyses of OAU and AU frameworks suggest a transition from sovereignty-centered approaches to more interventionist security norms (Dogah, 2022; Latib, 2020). Regional initiatives such as the AU Strategy for the Sahel reflect efforts to operationalize this shift (AUC, 2014). Nonetheless, there is limited empirical evidence assessing whether these strategies have translated into improved conflict management or state stability in the Sahel.

Nigeria’s contributions to peacekeeping missions in Liberia, Sudan, and Mali, alongside advocacy for the African Standby Force and integrated border governance, underscore its strategic influence in AU security institutions (Alkali et al., 2023b; AUC, 2020). Nigeria’s engagement with Agenda 2063 further reflects sustained leadership commitment. However, few studies critically link these contributions to measurable security outcomes or examine how national interests are reconciled with continental priorities.

Nigeria’s Diplomatic Strategies and Regional Leadership in the African Union

Nigeria’s diplomatic engagement and leadership within the AU reflect a longstanding commitment to continental governance, peace, and regional stability, rooted in a foreign policy tradition that prioritizes African unity and collective action (Gambari, 1980; Akinyemi, 1987; Alkali et al., 2023a). This leadership is grounded in a foreign policy orientation emphasizing African solidarity, conflict prevention, and regional integration, sustained across successive political regimes (Akinterinwa, 2004). While the literature consistently portrays Nigeria as an engaged continental actor, it offers limited critical analysis of how this normative commitment translates into durable institutional influence within the AU’s evolving governance architecture.

A central debate concerns whether Nigeria’s role within the AU is best understood as hegemonic or collaborative. Scholars argue that Nigeria’s demographic size, economic capacity, and military contributions position it as a potential hegemon capable of shaping continental agendas and norms (Prys & Jungfernstieg, 2010; Talibu & Ahmad, 2016). Its repeated election to key AU bodies, including the Peace and Security Council, and leadership in peace operations reflect regional recognition of its strategic influence (Ndzendze & Adunimay, 2024). Nigeria’s role in securing the re-election of a Nigerian AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace, and Security further demonstrates its capacity to mobilize diplomatic support and reinforce normative frameworks on governance and conflict management. However, this strand of the literature privileges material capability and electoral success, leaving under-analyzed the institutional and structural conditions that mediate Nigeria’s influence beyond discrete diplomatic outcomes.

At the same time, Nigeria’s AU diplomacy emphasizes collaboration through coalition-building and consensus formation. Engagement with regional economic communities, particularly ECOWAS, facilitates coordinated approaches to conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and institutional reform (AUC, 2014; Ndzendze & Adunimay, 2024). Initiatives such as the African Standby Force and the Silencing the Guns agenda under Agenda 2063 illustrate Nigeria’s commitment to shared leadership rather than unilateral dominance. Archival AU communiqués and Peace and Security Council decisions further highlight Nigeria’s role in norm advocacy related to coups, unconstitutional changes of government, and peace enforcement mandates (AUC, 2014). Yet the literature rarely evaluates the extent to which these collaborative engagements have altered entrenched security dynamics shaped by historical and institutional legacies.

Beyond formal institutions, Nigeria employs broader diplomatic tools. Presidential diplomacy and senior officials’ advocacy for African-led conflict prevention and the operationalization of norms reinforce Nigeria’s leadership profile (Canton, 2021). Speeches, communiqués, and archival records document sustained engagement from West African peace operations in the 1990s to contemporary AU and UN missions (Oshewolo et al., 2021). Nevertheless, existing studies tend to catalogue diplomatic activism rather than synthesize how these efforts interact with institutional constraints within the AU framework.

Domestic governance challenges occasionally constrain Nigeria’s external influence, underscoring the importance of aligning rhetorical commitments with practical capacity (Alkali et al., 2023a). While the literature acknowledges these constraints, it stops short of systematically analyzing how domestic pressures affect Nigeria’s credibility and consistency as a continental leader. Overall, Nigeria’s AU diplomacy balances hegemonic potential, collaborative leadership, and normative advocacy. Yet, a clear gap remains in understanding how this balance shapes the AU’s capacity to address insecurity rooted in historical institutional weaknesses.

Nigeria’s Leadership and Influence in AU Decision-Making

Nigeria’s leadership in AU decision-making reflects a complex interaction of strategic priorities, historical diplomatic activism, and institutional engagement through both formal and informal mechanisms (Amao et al., 2025). Nigeria’s diplomatic style combines assertive advocacy with coalition facilitation, grounded in a longstanding pan-African tradition and commitment to collective responses to conflict. AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) reports indicate that Nigerian representatives frequently articulate positions aligned with broader African interests, reinforced by its capacity to contribute troops, resources, and diplomatic leverage to AU mandates (Ndzendze & Adunimay, 2024; Alkali et al., 2023). Strategic priorities within PSC deliberations often focus on early warning mechanisms, conflict prevention, and strengthening institutional responses to unconstitutional changes of government. While this literature consistently presents Nigeria as a pivotal agenda-shaper, it provides limited analytical clarity on how such influence is sustained beyond formal participation in AU decision-making structures.

A major scholarly debate concerns whether Nigeria’s role within the AU constitutes hegemonic leadership or multilateral cooperation. Several studies argue that Nigeria’s demographic size and material capabilities confer de facto leadership status, enabling it to shape agenda-setting and coalition formation within AU institutions (Alkali et al., 2023a; Alkali et al., 2023b; Oshewole et al., 2021). Nigeria’s repeated election to the PSC and its contributions to AU and United Nations peace support operations illustrate how material capacity translates into diplomatic influence. At the same time, these studies emphasize Nigeria’s consistent engagement through regional economic communities such as ECOWAS, demonstrating a preference for collective processes rather than unilateral imposition. This body of work points to a hybrid leadership model that blends influence with cooperation. Yet, it stops short of examining how this duality affects policy coherence, implementation, and enforcement within AU institutions.

A second strand of the literature focuses on the relationship between political will and structural constraints. Nigeria demonstrates a strong rhetorical and diplomatic commitment to AU norms on democratic governance and constitutional order (Kgasoane, 2021). Public statements by Nigerian leaders at AU summits and PSC meetings reinforce its image as a normative actor advocating institutional integrity and collective security (Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, 2021). However, funding constraints within the AU, logistical challenges affecting the African Standby Force, and Nigeria’s domestic governance pressures complicate translating political commitment into sustained regional action. While these constraints are widely acknowledged, the literature rarely integrates them into a systematic explanation of why AU decision-making outcomes frequently fall short of normative aspirations.

A further analytical concern relates to leadership legitimacy in norm enforcement. Nigeria’s anti-colonial legacy and role in liberation struggles provide normative authority, but domestic political and security challenges can undermine perceptions of its credibility (Talibu, 2026). Although Nigeria remains active in PSC communiqués and peace mandates, empirical assessments of how legitimacy concerns affect compliance and enforcement outcomes remain limited.

African Union Security Governance: Norms, Institutions, and Operational Challenges

Nigeria’s leadership in African Union (AU) decision-making reflects a complex interaction of strategic priorities, historical diplomatic activism, and institutional engagement through both formal and informal mechanisms. Since the transition from the OAU to the AU in 2002, Nigeria has emerged as a central actor in shaping continental norms, particularly in peace and security governance (Ibrahim & Babangida, 2025). Its diplomatic approach combines assertive advocacy with coalition facilitation, rooted in pan-African solidarity and a commitment to collective responses to conflict (Yahaiya, 2025). AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) reports show that Nigerian representatives frequently articulate positions aligned with broader African interests while foregrounding Nigeria’s capacity to contribute troops, resources, and diplomatic leverage to AU mandates (Oshewole et al., 2021). Strategic priorities within PSC deliberations emphasize early warning systems, conflict prevention, and institutional responses to unconstitutional changes of government, reflecting Nigeria’s dual focus on normative frameworks and operational outcomes. However, the literature remains analytically limited in explaining how individual state influence interacts with institutional design and collective decision-making processes within AU security governance.

Scholars argue that Nigeria’s demographic size, economic capacity, and military resources confer de facto leadership status, enabling it to influence agenda setting and coalition formation within AU decision-making arenas (Alkali & Usman, 2025). Recurrent election to the PSC and contributions to AU and United Nations peace support operations illustrate how material capabilities translate into diplomatic influence. At the same time, analyses emphasize Nigeria’s commitment to multilateralism, highlighting consistent coordination with regional economic communities such as ECOWAS to align positions on AU resolutions and promote consensus-based legitimacy (Alkali et al., 2023b). While this literature captures the tension between material power and institutional constraint, it does not fully theorize how this tension shapes the effectiveness of the AU’s collective security framework.

Another key analytical strand concerns the relationship between political will and structural constraints. Nigeria’s strong commitment to AU norms, including the Norms on Democratic Governance, Elections, and Constitutionalism, underscores its advocacy against unconstitutional changes of government (Haruna, 2020). Public statements by Nigerian leaders at AU summits reinforce their role as a normative actor promoting institutional integrity and collective security (Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, 2021). Yet, persistent challenges, including AU funding gaps, logistical constraints affecting the African Standby Force, and Nigeria’s domestic governance pressures, constrain the translation of political will into sustained regional action (Oshewole et al., 2021 & Osaghae & Olarinmoye, 2024). Existing studies largely acknowledge these constraints descriptively, offering a limited systematic explanation of how they generate operational shortcomings in AU security governance.

 

Nigeria’s Strategic Role in Shaping African Union Norms and Security Practices

Nigeria’s engagement in shaping the norms and security practices of the AU reflects a historically informed diplomatic strategy that combines normative advocacy with operational support for continental peace and security mechanisms (African Union Commission [AUC], 2020). Since the establishment of the AU’s normative frameworks, particularly the AU Constitutive Act and the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council (PSC), Nigeria has been a leading voice in articulating collective responses to security challenges (Haruna, 2020). Archival policy documents from the AU and the Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs show that Nigerian leaders have consistently emphasized the importance of norms that balance respect for state sovereignty with the imperative to prevent mass atrocities and unconstitutional changes of government (Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation, 2025). These interventions are grounded in historical legacies of anti-colonial activism and post-independence commitments to African unity, which underpin Nigeria’s strategic use of platform diplomacy within continental forums. However, the literature essentially treats these normative commitments as declaratory, offering limited analytical engagement with how such principles are negotiated, contested, or prioritized during acute political crises within the AU.

A central theme in the literature concerns the tension between hegemonic influence and multilateral collaboration in norm-setting. Nigeria’s demographic size, economic potential, and military capacity position it as a natural leader whose strategic interventions shape AU policies (Alkali & Usman, 2025). For example, Nigeria played a pivotal role in advocating collective sanctions and regional cooperation mechanisms against unconstitutional changes of government, reflected in PSC resolutions in the mid-2000s (Alkali et al., 2023b). Public speeches by Nigerian presidents emphasized “African solutions to African problems,” reinforcing normative leadership within a broader multilateral framework rather than through unilateral dominance. Hence, Nigeria’s leadership is best understood as situational and issue-specific. Yet, existing studies do not sufficiently explain the conditions under which hegemonic influence strengthens, rather than undermines, multilateral norm legitimacy within AU institutions. While these studies acknowledge operational limitations, they tend to focus on implementation challenges without systematically linking them to earlier norm-setting processes, leaving a gap in understanding how institutional design affects norm compliance and enforcement outcomes.

Another key debate concerns the interaction between historical legacies and contemporary security challenges. Nigeria’s leadership in liberation struggles and post-colonial peacebuilding has endowed it with normative authority in AU discussions on conflict prevention. Yet domestic governance challenges, including the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, banditry, and farmer–herder clashes, complicate Nigeria’s credibility and capacity to project influence at the continental level (Ojo, 2024). Similarly, Nigeria’s support for AU sanctions against unconstitutional governments in Burkina Faso and Guinea further illustrates its strategic role in embedding norm enforcement within institutional frameworks, highlighting the balance between sovereignty, enforcement, and collective action (Alkali et al., 2023b). Despite these insights, the literature provides limited empirical evaluation of how domestic insecurity affects external norm leadership over time, particularly in shaping compliance among other AU member states.

Discussion and Findings

The African Union and Nigeria’s Historical Role

This study found that the evolution of the African Union from the OAU reveals enduring institutional constraints shaped by historical legacies. The findings show that despite institutional innovations such as the Peace and Security Council and the AU Constitutive Act, the AU’s capacity to respond effectively to insecurity in the Sahel remains limited by structural weaknesses rooted in colonial border‑making and historical institutional legacies. This aligns with Dogah (2022) and Mabitsela (2023), who note the OAU’s rigid adherence to state sovereignty constrained conflict responses, and these limitations persist in AU frameworks.

The study also found that Nigeria’s leadership role illustrates how national agency interacts with enduring institutional arrangements. As highlighted by Alkali et al. (2023a; 2023b), Nigeria’s diplomatic activism and contributions to peacekeeping and regional security initiatives signal its strategic influence on continental governance. However, Piate and Nekabari (2025) show that domestic governance challenges can constrain Nigeria’s ability to translate this influence into effective operational outcomes. Comparative analyses by Dogah (2022) and Latib (2020) suggest that AU interventions remain incremental and often constrained by inherited norms of sovereignty and institutional design.

Guided by Historical Institutionalism, the analysis emphasizes that institutions created at one historical point endure beyond their initial context. The colonial‑era design of borders and governance structures continues to shape AU security governance and Nigeria’s strategic role, demonstrating how historical institutional endurance influences contemporary patterns of insecurity and policy capacity in the Sahel.

Nigeria’s Diplomatic Strategies and Regional Leadership

The analysis indicates that Nigeria’s diplomatic strategy within the African Union reflects a complex interplay between normative leadership ambitions and structural constraints embedded in institutional legacies. Consistent with Gambari (1980) and Akinyemi (1987), Nigeria’s longstanding foreign policy tradition prioritizes African unity, collective action, and conflict prevention. Alkali et al. (2023a; 2023b) further demonstrate that Nigeria’s proactive engagement through both formal AU institutions and informal diplomatic networks has been sustained across successive political regimes, suggesting that leadership norms influence continental governance patterns.

Comparative literature emphasizes that Nigeria’s demographic size, economic capacity, and military contributions position it as a significant regional actor capable of shaping AU agendas (Prys & Jungfernstieg, 2010; Talibu & Ahmad, 2016). Nigeria’s repeated election to key AU bodies and its role in securing leadership positions reflect strategic influence in institutional decision‑making (Ndzendze & Adunimay, 2024). At the same time, its coalition‑building efforts with ECOWAS and commitment to collective initiatives such as the African Standby Force and Agenda 2063 demonstrate collaborative engagement rather than unilateral dominance (AUC, 2014).

Consequently, interpreting these outcomes through Historical Institutionalism, the findings suggest that institutional structures created in earlier historical contexts endure and shape contemporary diplomatic behaviour. The AU’s framework, rooted in OAU‑era norms of sovereignty and institutional design, continues to mediate how Nigeria’s leadership translates into tangible governance outcomes. Colonial institutional legacies thus persist as enduring constraints and enablers, influencing both Nigeria’s regional leadership role and the AU’s capacity to address security challenges.

Nigeria’s Leadership and AU Decision-Making

The findings indicate that Nigeria’s leadership in African Union decision-making is shaped by a combination of strategic priorities, historical diplomatic activism, and institutional engagement through formal and informal mechanisms. The analysis further finds that Nigeria’s repeated election to key AU bodies and its contributions to UN and AU peace operations reflect its hybrid leadership model, combining hegemonic capacity with cooperative engagement, in line with Alkali et al. (2023b). This approach, however, is constrained by structural challenges, including funding limitations, logistical gaps in the African Standby Force, and domestic governance pressures, which limit the translation of rhetorical commitment into consistent regional action, as noted by Kgasoane (2021). Leadership legitimacy emerges as a critical factor. Nigeria’s anti-colonial legacy provides normative authority, but domestic political and security challenges shape perceptions of credibility, echoing Talibu's (2026) observations.

This discussion is guided by Historical Institutionalism, particularly the assumption that institutions created at one point in history endure beyond their initial context. Colonial administrative legacies and early governance structures have shaped Nigeria’s institutional environment, constraining policy options and influencing AU engagement strategies. The findings show that Nigeria’s leadership reflects both the possibilities and limits imposed by path-dependent institutional trajectories, linking historical context directly to contemporary continental security outcomes.

Colonial Border-Making and the Structural Roots of Insecurity

The findings demonstrate that contemporary insecurity in the Sahel is profoundly shaped by colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies which remain enduring structural determinants of governance fragility. Artificial borders fragmented political, economic, and social systems, producing states with weak territorial integration and contested authority, while historical Institutional legacies, entrenched uneven governance through local intermediaries, limiting central accountability. These findings agree with (Dogah, 2022) and are reinforced by (OAU, 1964). They show that historical processes are not merely context but actively constrain present security outcomes and institutional performance.

Similarly, the analysis further finds that borders cutting across ethnic, economic, and ecological zones exacerbate center-periphery tensions, facilitate transnational insecurity, and limit state capacity, a conclusion that concurs with that of Dogah (2022) and Mabitsela (2023). Also, historical institutional legacies, for instance indirect rule compounded these effects by privileging customary authorities, producing fragmented governance structures that persist after independence. Contemporary insecurity, including insurgency and illicit cross-border activity, is concentrated in regions historically governed through indirect rule, where state presence and legitimacy remain weak, supporting patterns identified by Dogah (2022).

This discussion and findings are guided by Historical Institutionalism, particularly the assumption that institutions created at one point in history endure beyond their initial context. Colonial borders and historical institutional legacies constituted foundational institutional arrangements that structured postcolonial governance trajectories. The findings demonstrate that these historical institutions continue to shape state capacity, actor behavior, and AU security interventions. By highlighting the persistence of institutional arrangements over time, this study links historical legacies directly to contemporary insecurity, providing a theoretically grounded explanation that bridges colonial governance structures, post-independence institutional design, and current security outcomes.

Nigeria’s Role in Shaping African Union Norms and Security Practices

Findings further demonstrate that Nigeria’s engagement in shaping AU norms combines historical legitimacy, normative advocacy, and operational support for continental security mechanisms, aligning with the African Union Commission's (2020) findings. Nigeria has consistently emphasized balancing state sovereignty with preventive measures against mass atrocities, as observed by the Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation (2025). These strategic interventions are grounded in anti-colonial activism and post-independence commitments to African unity (Haruna, 2020).

Further evidence suggests that Nigeria exercises situational hegemonic influence, moderated by multilateral collaboration. Its demographic size, economic capacity, and military contributions enable it to shape policy outcomes, a dynamic supported by Alkali and Usman (2025). Advocacy for collective sanctions and coordination with ECOWAS, highlighted by Alkali et al. (2023b), illustrates the operationalization of normative principles within multilateral structures. Operational contributions, including AU-mandated peacekeeping in Liberia, Sudan, Mali, and the Sahel, demonstrate how normative commitments translate into practice, a pattern observed by Oshewole et al. (2021).

Historical Institutionalism guides this analysis, particularly the assumption that institutions created at one point in history endure beyond their initial context. Data further corroborates that Nigeria’s enduring governance structures and historical legitimacy shape its capacity to project influence. At the same time, domestic security challenges, including Boko Haram and farmer-herder conflicts, constrain norm enforcement, as Ojo (2024) highlights. Overall, the findings reveal that Nigeria’s strategic role emerges from the interaction among historical legacies, institutional frameworks, and operational practices, providing insight into conditions that strengthen AU security outcomes.

Conclusion

This research interrogated the historical foundations of insecurity in the Sahel, focusing on colonial border-making and historical institutional legacies. The study explains how artificially imposed colonial borders fragmented pre-existing political, social, and economic networks, resulting in weak territorial integration and contested authority. These structural arrangements, transmitted into post-independence governance, constrained state capacity, entrenched center-periphery tensions, and shaped institutional responses to cross-border insecurity. The second part examines historical institutional legacies as a governance strategy, highlighting how the privileging of selected local authorities undermined inclusive political representation and traditional conflict-resolution mechanisms. As a result, regions historically governed under indirect rule remain contested spaces where non-state actors, including insurgents and bandits, exploit institutional weaknesses and limited state presence, perpetuating cycles of violence. These enduring legacies directly shape contemporary patterns of mobility, governance deficits, and transnational security challenges across the Sahel. The third part focuses on Nigeria’s diplomatic strategies and regional leadership. Results further reveal that Nigeria translates normative commitments into operational contributions through peacekeeping missions, advocacy for integrated border governance, and coalition-building within AU and ECOWAS frameworks. The study further highlights that domestic governance pressures and regional dynamics mediate the effectiveness of Nigeria’s leadership, underscoring the tension between historical legitimacy and contemporary constraints in shaping regional security outcomes. The fourth part addresses Nigeria’s influence in AU decision-making, showing that strategic advocacy, material contributions, and normative leadership interact with institutional constraints to shape continental policy. The fifth part examines AU security governance, including institutional frameworks, operational challenges, and the role of historical legacies in mediating contemporary security outcomes. The study’s historical and exploratory qualitative research design, guided by Historical Institutionalism theory, allows for a systematic analysis of path dependence, institutional persistence, and the long-term effects of colonial governance on insecurity.

References

Adeyemi T. F. (2024). African Union peacekeeping mission in South Sudan and efforts towards rehabilitation and reintegration of war victims (2013).

African Union Commission, Peace and Security Department. (2013). From barriers to bridges: Collection of official texts on African borders from 1963 to 2012 (2nd ed.). African Union Border Programme. https://archives.au.int/handle/123456789/5035

African Union Commission, Peace and Security Department. (2014). The African Union strategy for the Sahel region (PSC/PR/3(CDXLIX)). African Union Commission. https://archives.au.int/handle/123456789/8599

African Union Commission, Peace and Security Department. (2020). African Union strategy for better integrated border governance. African Union Commission. https://archives.au.int/handle/123456789/8851

Akinterinwa, B. A. (2004). Nigeria's new foreign policy thrust: Essays in honour of Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji, CON, at 70. Vantage Publishers.

Akinyemi, A. B. (1987). Reciprocity in Nigerian foreign policy (the Akinyemi doctrine). Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.

Alkali, B. M., Fuad, O. M. B., & Osman, N. B. (2023b). Nigeria's multilateral approach in West Africa: A case study of Côte d'Ivoire electoral violence. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(2), 2030–2040. https://doi.org/10.15379/ijmst.v10i2.2747

Alkali, B. M., Othman, M. F. B., & Osman, N. B. (2023a). Nigeria's Afrocentric foreign policy thrust in West Africa: An appraisal of Cote d'Ivoire's political crises 2010–2011.

Alkali, M. B., & Usman, A. F. (2025). Hegemonic influence and regional crisis management: A neo-institutionalist analysis of Nigeria’s role in ECOWAS. Journal of African Resilience and Advancement Research.

Amao, F., Olivier, M., & Magliveras, K. D. (2025). Rule-making in the African Union: Current challenges and the way forward. In Inclusive Rule-Making by International Organisations (pp. 83–106). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bhattarai, K., & Yousef, M. (2025). Colonial past and current ruling systems. In The Middle East: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 83–103). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Bøås, M., & Strazzari, F. (2020). Governance, fragility, and insurgency in the Sahel: A hybrid political order in the making. The International Spectator, 55(4), 1–17.

Boone, C. (2014). Property and political order in Africa. Cambridge University Press.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide.

Canton, H. (2021). African Union—AU. In The Europa Directory of International Organizations 2021 (pp. 413–427). Routledge.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Dogah, D. (2022). From the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the African Union (AU): Regionalism, international organization, and institutional change in Africa.

Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria. (2021). Nigeria’s foreign policy and regional engagement: Annual review. Government of Nigeria.

Federal Ministry of Information and National Orientation. (2025, December 30). Nigeria calls for the respect of Somalia's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unity. https://fmino.gov.ng/nigeria-calls-for-respect-of-the-sovereignty-territorial-integrity-and-unity-of-somali

Gambari, I. A. (1980). Party politics and foreign policy: Nigeria under the first republic. Ahmadu Bello University Press.

Gill, M. J., Gill, D. J., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Constructing trustworthy historical narratives: Criteria, principles and techniques. British Journal of Management, 29(1), 191–205.

Haruna, M. A. (2020). Nigeria and the African Union (2002–2019). Journal of Globalization Studies, 11(2), 35–54.

Herbst, J. (1989). The creation and maintenance of national boundaries in Africa. International Organization, 43(4), 673–692.

Ibrahim, A., & Babangida, A. J. (2025). Exploring Nigeria's national interest in the context of international relations. Academy Journal of Multidisciplinary Doctoral Research, 3(1), 16–28.

Kgasoane, K. (2021). Factors influencing unconstitutional changes of government and their implications on governance in Africa. University of Johannesburg.

Latib, S. (2020). The efficacy of African Union multilateralism in governance: An institutional approach. University of South Africa.

Lecours, A. (Ed.). (2005). New institutionalism: Theory and analysis (Vol. 23). University of Toronto Press.

Mabitsela, S. (2023). The role of OAU on representation of national liberation movements at the UN, 1963–1974. Journal of African Union Studies, 12(1), 71–87.

Mahoney, P. P., Remmer, K., Skocpol, T., Steinmo, S., & Thelen, K. (2019). Historical institutionalism: Origins and developments. The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation, 95.

Moliki, A. O., & Salami, N. O. (2024). From Boko-Haram to armed banditry: An assessment of insecurity in northern Nigeria. University of Africa Journal, 69.

Ndzendze, B., & Adunimay, A. W. (2024). An appraisal of the AU's Peace and Security Council, 2003–2022. In The Quest for Unity (pp. 225–242). Routledge.

Noutchie, S. C. O., & Goufo, E. F. D. (2025). Governing land in times of crisis: How local institutions shape conflict escalation across the Central Sahel. International Journal of Research in Business & Social Science, 14(10).

Ojewale, O. (2025). Borders, bandits, and limited statehood in frontier regions: Evidence from southwest Niger and northwest Nigeria. Crime, Law and Social Change, 83(1), 1–26.

Ojo, J. S. (2024). Convergence of terror: Boko Haram insurgency, Fulani militancy, armed banditry, and separatist movement in Nigeria (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth).

Omeni, A. (2025). Before Boko Haram: Islamic fundamentalism and violence in Northern Nigeria. Terrorism and Political Violence, 1–16.

Omitola, B., Adedire, S., Akinrinde, O. O., Omodunbi, O., & Sackflame, M. M. (2021). The triangle of terror: Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen, bandits and organized insecurity in Nigeria. Studia Securitatis, 15(1).

Organization of African Unity. (1964). Border disputes among African States (Resolution AHG/Res. 16(I)). Organization of African Unity. https://archives.au.int/handle/123456789/1092

Osaghae, E. E., & Olarinmoye, O. O. (2024). Nigeria's solidarity with South Africa's liberation struggle. In The Road to Democracy in South Africa (pp. 367–392). Routledge.

Oshewolo S; 2021. A reconsideration of the Afrocentric principle in Nigeria’s foreign policy framework. GeoJournal, 86(3):1503-1510

Oshewolo, S., Nwozor, A., Fayomi, F., & Oluwatuyi, M. (2021). “Instrumentalizing” the United Nations: Nigeria and its quest for regional leadership in Africa. World Affairs, 184(1), 77–100.

Pant, K. R. (2023). Eight moments in the history of qualitative research. AMC Journal (Dhangadhi), 4(1), 38–44.

Piate, S. M., & Nekabari, D. C. (2025). Nigeria’s national interest and liberation diplomacy in the context of Africa. Social Scientia: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(1).

Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. Political Science: The State of the Discipline, 3(1), 1–32.

Prys, M., & Jungfernstieg, N. (2010, September). The variability of regional powers. Paper presented at the SGIR 7th Pan-European Conference on IR, Vol. 9, p. 11.

Rwigema, P. C. (2025). Impact of the Berlin Conference (1884–1885) on EAC development: 40 years after the division of Africa. Reviewed International Journal of Political Science & Public Administration, 6(1), 25–47.

Skarbek, D. (2020). Qualitative research methods for institutional analysis. Journal of Institutional Economics, 16(4), 409–422.

Steinmo, S. (2008). Historical institutionalism. Approaches and methodologies in the social sciences: A pluralist perspective, 118–138.

Talibu, O. (2016). Multilateralism and the hegemonic posture of a regional power: A case study of Nigeria, 1960–2015 (PhD thesis, University Utara Malaysia, Changlun, Malaysia).

Talibu, O., & Ahmad, M. Z. (2016). Empiricizing regional hegemony in the periphery: A case study of Nigeria. International Affairs and Global Strategy, 42, 8–18.

Walther, O. J., & Retaillé, D. (2021). Mapping the Sahelian space. In L. A. Villalón (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the African Sahel (pp. 15–34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198816959.013.8

Yahaya, J. U. (2025). Nigerian foreign policy and its role in Africa’s peacekeeping landscape: The giant's footprint. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.