If Africa eventually receives permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, another difficult question immediately follows: which African countries should occupy them? The African Union's position is that Africa should receive no fewer than two permanent seats, with the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto for as long as the veto remains. It also wants five non-permanent African seats in an expanded Council. Importantly, the African position says that the African Union should select Africa's representatives and submit them to the General Assembly for election.

That settles one part of the question, but not everything. Which countries would the African Union choose? Should they be the continent's largest economies? Should population matter? Should geographical regions take turns? Or should the seats belong to Africa as a whole rather than effectively becoming permanent privileges for two particular countries?

Frequently Asked Questions

Has Africa chosen the countries that would occupy the permanent seats?

No. The African Union has not yet selected the specific countries that would occupy the proposed seats.

Who does the African Union want to select the representatives?

The African position gives the African Union responsibility for selecting Africa's representatives for submission to the General Assembly for election.

Could Nigeria be one of the countries?

Nigeria has strongly supported the African Model, but support for the model does not mean that Nigeria has been officially selected for a permanent seat.

Could the seats rotate among African countries?

Rotation is one possible model for addressing regional representation, but the African Union's current position specifically seeks permanent seats rather than replacing them with longer-term or renewable arrangements.

Would the countries representing Africa have veto power?

The African position calls for full permanent-member privileges, including the veto for as long as the veto continues to exist.

The Discussion

Choosing Africa's representatives would not be a simple matter of identifying the two most powerful African countries.
Nevertheless, Africa has 54 sovereign states with different histories, economies, political systems and regional interests. A country representing Africa on the Security Council would therefore be expected to operate within a continental framework rather than simply pursue its own national interests.
This is why the African Union's role is important. Its current position is that Africa itself should decide which countries represent it. That approach is intended to prevent the selection process from becoming a competition in which individual countries independently claim the seats.
But even if the African Union makes the selection, difficult questions remain. Should population be considered? Should economic size matter? Should a country's contribution to peacekeeping influence the decision? Should North, West, Central, East and Southern Africa each have an opportunity over time? These questions could become particularly important if the same two countries were repeatedly chosen.

My Argument: Should Permanent Seats Belong to Countries or Africa?

This is where I think the discussion deserves to go further. Additionally, the phrase “Africa's permanent seats” can be understood in two different ways. One interpretation is that two African countries would become permanent members. In that case, the countries themselves would hold permanent positions. Another interpretation is that the seats belong to Africa, while African countries take turns occupying them.

The second model could allow more African countries to participate over time. A country from West Africa could occupy a seat during one period, followed by a country from East, Central, North or Southern Africa under an agreed system.
There is already a broader discussion at the UN about regional representation, including proposals involving regional seats, longer renewable terms and periodic review. A 2026 UN reform paper even examined a model in which seats would be allocated regionally while individual states would be elected to occupy them for longer, renewable terms.
However, this is not the same as the current African proposal. The African Group has explicitly argued that longer-term or renewable seats should not be used as a substitute for permanent African membership. That distinction is important. Nevertheless, the question is therefore not simply “Which African country is powerful enough to represent Africa?” It could also be “How can a permanent African seat provide meaningful representation to a continent of 54 countries?”

Wind Up

Africa's demand for permanent representation creates a second challenge that cannot be ignored: deciding who should occupy the seats. The African Union has already established an important principle. It wants the continent to select its representatives before submitting them to the General Assembly for election. But the eventual selection will still require difficult discussions about geography, political interests, national capacity, regional balance and continental responsibility. Perhaps the most important distinction is between a permanent seat for an African country and a permanent seat belonging to Africa.
If the seat belongs permanently to a particular country, only a small number of African states may ever hold that privilege. If the seat is treated as a form of African regional representation, there may be greater room for rotation and broader participation. The answer to who should represent Africa may therefore depend on a question that comes before choosing any country: what exactly should an African permanent seat represent?