Re-Evaluating the African Union's Ezulwini Consensus in the Reform of the United Nations' Security Council 

Owing to the crucial role the United Nations and its Security Council play in preserving world peace and security, critics, scholars and the entire global community continue to X-ray its activities, giving rise to a plethora of literature on the area of study. Recent events in the international system have given more impetus to the Security Council reform debate, covering diverse areas such as increase in membership, the application of the veto power, and the modus operandi of the Security Council. There is a consensus among members of the global body on the need to enlarge the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the need to utilise the "momentum of reform", but opinions have been divergent on the modalities leading to the reform, thereby making the issue deeply divisive and contentious. For this reason, Africa, through the Ezulwini Consensus, has made her stand clear to the world on the need to reform and reorganise the multinational institution. However, scholars believe that Africa's position makes the reform and reorganisation more arduous, thereby necessitating a review of the Consensus. Hence, this paper aimed to identify possible pitfalls in the Ezulwini agreement that has inhibited the reform of the world body. Through textual criticism and thematic content analysis of primary and secondary data, it was discovered that Africa's demand for permanent seats with the veto power has rendered the reform of the UNSC impossible. For this reason, it aligns with the proposal by the G4 (Germany, Japan, Brazil and India) on the need to push for new permanent members without the veto. This will serve as the first step in the journey of a thousand miles.