Dr. Mohamed H’MIDOUCHE
Economist, author, former senior official of the AfDB
Recent crises show that the resilience of a multilateral bank is no longer limited to the continuity of its operations. It also requires preserving the functioning of its statutory bodies and the legitimacy of their decisions. Drawing on the experiences of the AfDB, BADEA, and Afreximbank, this article argues for making the continuity of statutory governance a full-fledged component of institutional resilience.
Beyond Business Continuity
Multilateral development banks play a central role in Africa’s economic transformation. They finance infrastructure, support regional integration, promote intra-African trade, and facilitate the development of the private sector. Their ability to intervene relies not only on their financial strength but also on the quality of their governance, which underpins the trust of member states, partners, and markets.
Over the past decades, these institutions have significantly strengthened their internal control mechanisms, risk management, compliance, cybersecurity, and business continuity. At the same time, their environment has become more unstable. Pandemics, armed conflicts, natural disasters, cyber-attacks, geopolitical tensions, or travel restrictions can now disrupt, sometimes within hours, the normal functioning of an international organization.
This evolution calls for a broader understanding of institutional resilience. Ensuring the continuation of operations remains essential. But another question now arises: how to enable Governors, Boards of Directors, and Management to fully exercise their responsibilities when the usual operating conditions are severely disrupted?
This question does not challenge the existing mechanisms or decisions made by the institutions concerned. African multilateral banks have repeatedly demonstrated their adaptability. The issue is rather to recognize that the continuity of statutory governance must now complement operational continuity.
Different Crises, Same Governance Requirement
The experiences of the African Development Bank, BADEA, and Afreximbank illustrate this new reality. They are very different in their context and cannot be assimilated. However, they converge towards the same lesson: a crisis can affect not only operations but also the organization of Annual Assemblies and, more broadly, the functioning of decision-making bodies.
The temporary relocation of the AfDB headquarters to Tunis in 2003, in a deteriorated security context in Côte d’Ivoire, showed that a multilateral institution could preserve its essential functions and decision-making process. In April 2023, the armed conflict in Sudan led the BADEA Board of Governors to temporarily relocate its headquarters from Khartoum to Riyadh to protect staff and maintain the Bank’s operational capacity.
In May 2026, the AfDB Annual Assemblies were held in Brazzaville in a context of increased health vigilance. Their maintenance, after risk assessment with health authorities and relevant organizations, illustrated the importance of anticipation and coordination. A few weeks later, Afreximbank announced a modification of the arrangements for its Annual Meetings and General Assembly originally planned in El Alamein, following decisions external to the institution.
These situations are neither comparable nor hierarchical. They simply remind us that governance prepared to function in exceptional circumstances is a determining factor for stability, legal security, and institutional trust.
From Strong Foundations to More Anticipatory Governance
African multilateral banks already have strong institutional foundations. Their constitutive agreements, statutes, and regulations organize the respective competencies of Governors or Shareholders, Boards of Directors, Presidents, and Management. The modalities of convocation, quorum, voting, and the validity of deliberations are framed by their founding texts.
The reflection proposed here does not aim to suggest a revision of these agreements or to imply that institutions are insufficiently prepared. It rather leads to distinguishing two complementary notions: operational continuity, which aims at the continuation of essential activities, and statutory governance continuity, which ensures the capacity of decision-making bodies to exercise their competencies in accordance with texts and legal security requirements.
This distinction is as practical as it is conceptual. A bank can maintain its financing, systems, and services while facing difficulties in convening its main bodies. Conversely, governance capable of quickly adapting to exceptional circumstances reinforces the legitimacy of decisions and reassures member states, financial partners, rating agencies, and markets.
Institutional resilience must therefore become more anticipatory: it is no longer just about reacting effectively, but about preparing in advance the conditions in which statutory bodies will continue to exercise their responsibilities.
Making Annual Assemblies a Critical Governance Function
Annual Assemblies are not mere ceremonial events. They allow member states or shareholders to approve financial statements, review results, set major directions, conduct certain elections or appointments, and adopt resolutions that commit the institution in the long term. They also represent a major moment of accountability, resource mobilization, and economic diplomacy.
Their preparation should therefore be recognized as a critical governance function. Four orientations can be considered.
Firstly, Annual Assemblies should be explicitly integrated into business continuity policies and risk mappings. This would identify decisions that cannot be postponed, quorum requirements, voting modalities, confidentiality needs, and essential resources for their holding.
Secondly, applicable responsibilities in exceptional situations would benefit from better documentation. Without modifying founding texts, internal procedures could specify the coordination between Governors, the Board of Directors, the President, Management, and support structures.
Thirdly, alternative scenarios should be prepared from the designation of the host country: maintenance with reinforced measures, city change, hybrid format, remote holding of statutory sessions only, or limited postponement where texts allow. Each scenario should be legally validated and technically tested.
Fourthly, agreements with host countries should more explicitly address exceptional situations: security, public health, force majeure, possible relocation, digital infrastructure, and communication with delegations. Periodic simulation exercises would finally test the robustness of the system.
These proposals do not aim to standardize practices or challenge the autonomy of institutions. They reflect a simple conviction: the more complex crises become, the more the quality of preparation becomes a determinant of governance quality.
Towards a New Generation of Institutional Resilience
Recent crises have confirmed the institutional maturity of African multilateral banks and their ability to preserve their missions in demanding environments. The next step is to more explicitly integrate the continuity of statutory governance into their resilience policies.
This evolution does not require a unique model or a revision of constitutive agreements. It calls for a continuous improvement approach, based on anticipation, feedback, and voluntary sharing of best practices. The diversity of African experiences is a valuable asset in this regard.
By making the continuity of statutory governance a subject of reflection, preparation, and cooperation, African multilateral banks can not only strengthen their own resilience but also contribute to the evolution of international standards of institutional governance.
True resilience is not only measured by the ability to continue operations. It also lies in the ability to preserve, regardless of circumstances, the regularity of governance, the legitimacy of decisions, and the trust of stakeholders.
Ultimately, financial strength underpins the credibility of a multilateral bank. The quality of its governance supports its performance. But it is its ability to guarantee, in all circumstances, the continuity of its statutory governance that durably consolidates its legitimacy and allows it to fully accomplish its mission in the service of development.
