Coup in Guinea-Bissau: What happened, why it happened, and what it means

On 26 November 2025, a group of army officers in Guinea-Bissau announced on state television that they had taken “total control” of the country, declaring the suspension of the electoral process, closing borders and detaining top political figures as gunfire was reported in the capital, Bissau. The military, calling itself the “High Military Command for the Restoration of Order,” said it had seized power the day before provisional results from a hotly contested presidential election were due to be announced. Several senior politicians, including President Umaro Sissoco Embaló, were reportedly detained. 

Guinea-Bissau’s 2025 elections came after months of mounting political tension. Observers and civil society groups had raised questions about the process’s credibility: the main opposition party (PAIGC) was reportedly barred from the presidential contest, and both leading candidates publicly claimed victory before official results were released. Earlier on, repeated crises had marked Embaló’s presidency itself: prior coup attempts, an effectively paralysed parliament at times, and accusations by opponents that he used security operations to consolidate power. These structural weaknesses, a politicised security sector, weak institutions, and a history of military intervention, set the stage for the army to step in when elections looked likely to produce contested outcomes. 

Guinea-Bissau has one of the region’s most troubled democratic records: since independence in 1974, it has experienced numerous coups and attempted coups, and analysts say the country’s democratic institutions remain fragile. The latest takeover interrupts an already fragile electoral process and risks eroding whatever progress had been made toward rule-based politics. Even if the military frames its action as a short-term measure to “restore order,” history in the country (and elsewhere in the region) shows that military interventions often become protracted, undermine civilian oversight, and erode public trust in elections and the rule of law. The suspension of the vote also raises the likelihood of parallel claims to legitimacy and a renewed cycle of political polarisation and instability. 

Early reports from Bissau described caution and uncertainty rather than mass jubilation or widespread resistance. In a country where coups have been part of the political landscape for decades, public reactions are usually mixed: some segments of society, exhausted by corruption, poor services and political bickering, may welcome an apparent return to “order.” In contrast, others, including civil society groups and opposition supporters, see military rule as a violation of democratic choice. The speed of the army’s seizure, the closure of borders and the shutdown of media suggest a tense environment in which open public opinion is hard to gauge and may be shaped quickly by who controls information and security on the ground. 

Regional and international bodies responded quickly with alarm. West Africa’s ECOWAS and the African Union, both of which had observers in the country, issued statements expressing concern and calling for a swift return to constitutional order and the release of detained officials. United Nations and Western governments also condemned the takeover, warning of possible sanctions and of isolation if the country does not return to civilian rule. Capital and diplomatic pressure will be a key lever: Guinea-Bissau relies heavily on international partners for aid and diplomatic recognition, and swift, coordinated external responses can constrain a junta’s options, though such measures often take time to bite and can have humanitarian side effects. 

This coup comes in the wake of a string of military takeovers across West and Central Africa since 2020. It also revives international concern about Guinea-Bissau’s persistent institutional weaknesses, including its past entanglement with transnational drug trafficking that earned it the label of a “narco-state” in earlier UN reporting. Those long-term governance problems make the country particularly vulnerable to fluctuating foreign support and to cycles of instability that are hard to break with short-term fixes. 

What Is Next?

Key things to watch in the coming days and weeks are: whether the military announces a timeline for handing power back or names a caretaker authority; the fate of detained political leaders; the stance and unity of ECOWAS, the African Union and major bilateral partners (Portugal, the EU, the UN); and any moves by local civil society, unions, or organised groups to push for a return to civilian rule. International pressure, diplomatic pressure, financial pressure, sanctions, and internal resistance will together shape whether this becomes another short, contained rupture or the start of a more extended interruption of democratic governance. 

Bottom line

The November 2025 seizure in Bissau is both a symptom and a cause of democratic fragility: it grows out of long-running institutional weakness, contested politics, and a politicised security sector,  and deepens the risk that democratic norms will be rolled back. The outcome will depend on the balance between internal actors demanding a return to elections and international actors wielding diplomatic and economic levers, as well as on whether Guinea-Bissau’s fragile institutions can survive yet another shock.