EU observer missions have regularly pointed out failings, but change has not followed.
An estimated hundred+ million euros of EU taxpayers’ money, intended to support democratic elections in five African countries, has instead strengthened autocratic and corrupt leaders in these countries over the past decade. Expensive training programmes and workshops for state officials, ruling parties and police have been funded with this money, while countless “voter education” programmes continue to prop up a façade of democracy in places where even the best-educated citizens are cheated out of their votes. EU observer missions have regularly pointed out failings, but change has not followed.
These findings result from a five-month-long investigation across five African countries: Kenya, Zambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Nigeria, and Uganda. The project, conducted by investigative journalists in each of these countries, spans ten election cycles in total and traces the history of EU election funding across these cycles over the past decade. The total amount spent by Europe—though difficult to determine due to a lack of information from various EU offices in the countries concerned, and incomplete information from the EU in Brussels—over this period is estimated at at least €100 million in Nigeria, Zambia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Kenya combined.
In Uganda, the EU has decreased electoral support due to the country’s dismal human rights record, but in 2024 it still paid €2 million into a project that organises “discussions” between political parties, including the ruling party and the opposition in that country, even though ruling party–linked security forces have been kidnapping, incarcerating, torturing and killing members of the opposition since at least 2020. Meanwhile, Europe continues funding flows to Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya and Nigeria, where national and state authorities have also killed, imprisoned and disappeared pro-democracy activists.
In Zambia, no killings or torture were reported, but there, too, election fatigue was observed because “the printed script will always say free and fair”, while “outcomes appear predetermined”, as one disillusioned voter said.
Among the findings of the transnational investigation are:
The investigative team perused scores of EU election observer mission reports, finding that most of these routinely mention failings such as untransparent expenditure by the state, police repression, campaign finance opacity, and corruption. Yet election support to state structures in the criticised countries has kept flowing, even after the same states repeatedly ignored the recommendations.
Peter Hermes, a Dutch independent consultant who has observed several election cycles in South Africa and Zimbabwe, says that the EU seems to believe that voter education will help combat the failings in states whose elections it supports. “The problem is not that citizens do not know how to vote — that is, in fact, explained quite well at the voting stations. The problem is that the context for the citizens is unfree. Either they (the rulers) cheat, or government-linked individuals look over your shoulder.”
As part of (NGO- and not EU-linked) observer missions, Mr Hermes has noted that, in autocratic countries, electoral commissions are weighted towards those in power, and formal opposition is often fully aware it cannot win. “In Zimbabwe, the opposition participated anyway because some representatives would get into parliament, which comes with many perks. Meanwhile, ordinary people simply hoped for elections to pass as quickly as possible because there was so much intimidation.”
Like the activists interviewed in this investigation, Mr Hermes believes that grassroots pro-democracy forces should receive support. “Democracy starts at the base. Small local organisations often know very well what needs to be done, and they need support to build a democratic movement from the ground up.” On the statement made by one activist that the EU appears to focus on stability, keeping exports flowing, and migrants out of Europe, Mr Hermes says that “unfortunately, that seems indeed to be the case.”
For this investigation, financial data on EU election support in the five countries was mostly obtained through an appeal by ZAM to EU Regulation 1049/200, which grants EU citizens the right of access to EU documents. While ZAM colleagues with EU citizenship could obtain some information in this way -an emailed Excel sheet was, however, still found incomplete when compared with results of in-country research-, this route was closed to the African investigative journalists trying to find out what the EU was doing in their countries.
An appeal for information to the EU delegation in Zambia went unanswered. A request for an interview with the EU in Côte d’Ivoire was first granted and then cancelled at the last minute, while information on the Nigerian EU delegation website was incomplete, and a request for an interview was refused. The EU delegation in Kenya responded only months after emailed questions, requesting an in-person interview, but due to busy schedules on both sides, the interview could not happen before our deadline; the delegation refused to make input in any other way.
STREAMER “The European Union is a longstanding and substantial supporter of civil society”
Uganda’s EU ambassador, who was asked why the EU has stopped supporting pro-democracy activists while maintaining links with the increasingly oppressive state, responded that the EU office’s “broader mandate is to maintain and develop the overall partnership between the European Union and Uganda across a wide range of areas — political dialogue, development cooperation, humanitarian support, trade and investment, governance, climate action and support to citizens,” and that “the European Union is a longstanding and substantial supporter of civil society in Uganda.”
Besides sending financial information to ZAM as requested under an EU regulation, the EU Commission office in Brussels did not respond to separately mailed questions.
In an emailed statement, a United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) spokesperson based in New York did not engage with asked questions regarding financial opacity or repressive conditions in the countries where it distributes funding, explaining only that its funded activities include “support to governments, electoral commissions and also civil society organisations.”
