Guinea-Bissau on the Brink: Election Winner Rejects Junta, Demands Power as a Way Forward. By Raymond Enoch

Guinea-Bissau is increasingly sliding deeper into political crisis as Dr Fernando Dias da Costa, who claims victory in the country’s 23 November 2025 presidential election, has flatly rejected a power-sharing transition proposed by the ruling military junta, insisting instead, on his immediate inauguration as president.

Dias, speaking through his National Campaign Directorate, described the junta’s transition plan as a sham designed to legitimise what he called a military usurpation of power following the concluded but yet disputed.
“We categorically reject any so-called transition government imposed through arms and brute force,” the campaign said in a strongly worded statement. “Fernando Dias da Costa is the legitimate winner of the presidential elections. Any solution that does not recognise this fact is illegitimate and unacceptable.”

The crisis traces back to 26 November 2025, when the military seized power just days after voting ended but before official results were announced. Many observers believe the move was orchestrated by former President Umaro Sissoco Embaló to avoid an impending electoral defeat, handing control to loyalists within the armed forces.

Despite regional and international pressure, the junta has pushed ahead with a transition roadmap that includes a power-sharing government and elections fixed for December 2026. Dias and his allies have dismissed the plan outright, refusing to accept ministerial slots or seats in any transition council formed under what they call “coup authority.”

Their rejection puts them at odds with the ECOWAS Commission, which last month cautiously welcomed measures announced by the military authorities, including the formation of an “inclusive” transition government, the release of political detainees, and the retention of the ECOWAS Stabilisation Support Mission in Guinea-Bissau (ESSMGB).
But the Dias campaign says these gestures are cosmetic and misleading.
“Yes, there have been limited changes,” the statement acknowledged, including the transfer of opposition leader Domingos Simões Pereira from detention to house arrest and Dias’ return home after seeking refuge at Nigeria’s embassy. “However, this does not constitute freedom. Pereira remains under arbitrary detention without any legal basis.”

Pereira, president of the PAIGC and a key opposition figure, was barred from contesting the elections and later detained after mobilising support for Dias.

According to the campaign, no charges have been brought against him, and his continued confinement is described as “political persecution.”
The campaign further accused the military of attempting to deceive ECOWAS, the African Union, the United Nations and the European Union by projecting an image of cooperation while ignoring key regional decisions calling for a rapid return to constitutional rule.

“The so-called transition blatantly disregards the will of the Bissau-Guinean people,” the statement said, adding that Guinea-Bissau is now living under “a disguised dictatorship.”
Adding fuel to the controversy, portraits of Embaló reportedly still hang in government offices, and analysts say the former president continues to exert influence behind the scenes. The junta has already amended the constitution, expanding presidential powers and opening the door to Embaló’s possible return through the proposed transition elections.

Dias’ camp is now calling on ECOWAS to move beyond statements and impose targeted sanctions on individuals obstructing democracy. It has also urged the international community to refuse recognition of the junta and to insist on the publication of the election results.

“The struggle for democracy, legitimacy and dignity will continue,” the campaign vowed. “We shall not rest until the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is fully restored.”

As ECOWAS grapples with multiple coups and leadership crises across the region, Guinea-Bissau is fast becoming another test of its credibility — and of whether military takeovers can be rolled back through diplomacy alone.