The November 26, 2025 “coup” in Guinea-Bissau has triggered two very different reactions. Many readers praised my earlier analysis for capturing the political and security implications. Others, however, insisted I had missed the most intriguing piece of the puzzle: whether this was a coup at all, or merely political theatre performed with military props.
Initially, I resisted that interpretation. Having lived through, and participated, in the 1994 Gambian coup, I am well aware of how myths grow taller than facts. To this day, some Gambians still repeat the preposterous fantasy that President Sir Dawda Jawara secretly conspired with Lt. Yahya Jammeh to topple himself. That kind of delusional storytelling made me reluctant to believe that President Umaro Sissoco Embaló might mastermind his own overthrow.
But the more one listens to ECOWAS observers, insider accounts, and eyewitness reports coming out of Bissau, the harder it becomes to dismiss the possibility that this “coup” may have been less of a military operation and more of a political screenplay.
Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, a man who has seen enough West African coups to qualify as a regional seismograph, could barely mask his bewilderment. According to him, every ballot had been counted, tallied, verified, and signed off. The National Election Commission was poised to announce the results the next morning. Everything, he emphasized, was peaceful and transparent. No irregularities. No chaos. No spark for a military takeover.
Then, as if on cue, soldiers appeared on Wednesday, just one day before the announcement, and disrupted the entire democratic process.
What startled Jonathan most wasn’t the timing, but the theatrics. Embaló, supposedly under siege, somehow phoned international media to announce his own removal. As Jonathan dryly noted, after decades of watching coups unfold, he had never encountered a president broadcasting his overthrow like a public service announcement.
He never used the words “staged coup,” but he didn’t need to. Anyone familiar with standard military procedure can recognize when the script deviates from the manual.
Premature victory declarations are common in African elections, so both Embaló and opposition candidate Fernando Dias claiming to have won was unremarkable. The suspicious part is everything that followed namely the sudden “coup,” the detention of both candidates, and Embaló’s swift evacuation to Senegal under “temporary asylum”, while Dias, the supposed beneficiary of the coup, remains locked up.
What kind of coup deposits the victim safely abroad and imprisons the man who was about to win?
Even Senegal’s Prime Minister, Ousmane Sonko, could barely hide his exasperation. Asked why Senegal had granted Embaló asylum, he all but distanced himself from the decision and hinted that it was solely President Diomaye Faye’s decision. Then came the real shocker in which he openly described the entire Bissau episode as “shady.”
He went further, calling for the prompt completion of Guinea-Bissau’s electoral process and the declaration of the rightful winner. Sonko questioned the logic and legality behind the arrest and detention of Fernando Dias and Domingos Simões Pereira, the PAIGC leader who had been controversially disqualified by the Supreme Court and barred from contesting the November election. He demanded their immediate release and condemned the decision to deny Pereira access to his medication while in custody.
For the Prime Minister to call a neighboring coup “shady,” and to do so with such damning language, is extraordinary. Prime Minister Sonko, whose relationship with his own president is visibly fraying, to say so is politically volcanic.
Rumors in Dakar are swirling that President Diomaye Faye, once packaged as the anti-Macky Sall, is reported to be quietly drifting back into Sall’s gravitational field. And Sall, now living comfortably in Morocco, just happens to be Embaló’s “close friend and brother.” Reports suggest Embaló shopped for asylum in three countries before Diomaye gave the green light.
Why the sudden generosity?
Whose counsel is Diomaye following?
And what does that mean for Senegal’s already strained political architecture?
These questions matter, because regional alliances often shape how coups, or fake coups, are engineered and interpreted.
Jonathan challenged ECOWAS and AU observers directly by stating that they have the results, witnessed the count and the election was peaceful. Why not announce them?
But here lies the eternal problem; Africa’s regional bodies apply morality like seasoning, liberally on paper but sparingly in practice. They condemn some coups and bless others with silence. They are harsh on certain juntas while turning a blind eye to civilian autocrats who happen to be members of the “rogue club.”
So, will ECOWAS defy old habits and confront Embaló?
Will the AU dare to speak truth instead of issuing recycled statements?
I would not bet a single dalasi on it.
Strip away the diplomatic fog and the logic becomes hard to ignore. Independent tallies suggested Dias was heading for victory; the scheduled Thursday announcement would have confirmed it; the Wednesday intervention froze the process; Embaló rebranded himself as the “victim” rather than the loser; Dias was neutralized; and ECOWAS was left juggling mediation instead of condemnation.
If that doesn’t resemble a manufactured crisis, it comes dangerously close.
Africa’s politicians have long mastered the art of bending constitutions, rigging institutions, and exploiting militaries. What is new is the evolution of coups without gunfire, silent takeovers seemingly coordinated with incumbents rather than against them.
Any state that can be overthrown via telephone call is not a stable state. It is merely renting its authority.
The drama is still unfolding. After a tense night in Dakar and growing pressure sparked by Sonko’s blunt criticism and public outcry, Embaló reportedly requested relocation. Senegal obliged, arranging a private flight that spirited him off to Congo Brazzaville, with a close associate in tow.
For now, all we can do is monitor, analyze, and expose.
