The 2026 Ibrahim Index of African Governance found that Foundations for Economic Opportunity improved in 44 of 54 countries over the past decade, while Security & Rule of Law deteriorated in 34, showing that gains were uneven across the continent.
The continent’s overall governance score increased 0.8 point to 50.1 out of 100 between 2016 and 2025. Foundations for Economic Opportunity rose 3.7 points, and Human Development gained 2.5 points. Security & Rule of Law lost 1.7 points.
The pattern was mixed even within individual countries. In 25 countries, where 46.9% of Africa’s population lives, opportunity scores increased as security and rule-of-law scores declined. The index’s results therefore show economic-opportunity gains alongside setbacks in security and rule of law across a substantial share of the region’s population.
The index assesses governance from 2016 through 2025 using 319 variables organized into 96 indicators and drawing on 51 data sources. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation publishes the index, and the American University in Cairo hosted the 2026 launch.
At the launch, foundation founder and chair Mo Ibrahim emphasized the importance of dependable data for people and governments seeking to assess their countries’ conditions and direction.
In a Nov. 11 opinion article for The Guardian, freelance writer and Caribbean analyst Kenneth Mohammed argued that colonial rule shaped African institutions but does not absolve current leaders of responsibility for their choices. He said colonial-era structures and infrastructure were built around extraction, and argued that Western banks and corporations have benefited from governance weaknesses.
Mohammed also argued that public scrutiny needs independent investigators and courts, as well as leaders prepared to accept consequences. He cited Ibrahim’s view that responsibility ultimately rests with those in power. The index and the commentary point to different parts of the governance debate: measured changes in economic opportunity, human development and security, and arguments over who is accountable for institutional performance.
