African Union and South Africa Set Roadmap to Preserve Six Decades of AU Records

The African Union Commission and South Africa have completed a technical roadmap for a long-discussed archives and repository project, moving the preservation of the Union’s records closer to an implementable programme. Their teams met in Addis Ababa from 7 to 18 September and handed over a final technical report on the project’s scope, implementation approach and indicative financial framework, according to an AU statement released on 18 September.

The announcement is a milestone, but it is not the opening of a finished digital archive. The report sets out a route toward implementation. Funding and approvals must still move through the required processes, and a draft memorandum of understanding between the AU Commission and South Africa is to be revised. Readers should distinguish the work of designing a programme from the much larger work of conserving, describing and making records usable.

The stakes extend beyond institutional housekeeping. Since the Organisation of African Unity was established in 1963, it and its successor, the AU, have accumulated documentary, photographic and audiovisual records of diplomacy, integration and collective action. Those materials are a record of how African governments argued, negotiated and acted over six decades. Their preservation affects researchers, educators, policymakers and citizens seeking to understand the continent’s recent history.

What the mission actually delivered

The September mission brought South African and AU specialists into the Commission’s existing archival environment. The teams reviewed the AU Central Archives, photographic and audiovisual collections, the AU Library, repository systems and knowledge-management arrangements. They also discussed preservation, metadata, security, digital infrastructure, conservation and institutional capacity.

That site-based assessment matters because a repository cannot be designed reliably from a list of hardware purchases. Records may exist on paper, film, tape, disk or already-digital systems. Each format has different risks and requires different skills. A plan that ignores the condition of the collections or the way AU departments produce records could generate an expensive platform with little enduring value.

The AU says the final report identifies four interconnected workstreams: an audit and discovery of knowledge assets; governance, policy and institutional sustainability; a digital core with systems integration; and digitisation of legacy material alongside risk reduction. The teams agreed these should be implemented as one programme rather than isolated projects.

The report’s indicative financial framework has not been published in the AU announcement, so there is no confirmed project budget to report. South African representative Brian Sebola said the necessary funding and approval processes must now be undertaken. The public milestone is a scoped, time-bound framework, not a funded construction contract or an announced launch date for a public portal.

Why scanning is only one part of preservation

Digitisation can protect access to fragile material, but a scan without a reliable description can become nearly impossible to find. Metadata should tell future users what a record is, when and by whom it was created, which institution holds it, and whether access is restricted. Consistent descriptions also allow records from separate AU bodies to be found together without erasing their origin.

Digital files have their own preservation needs. Storage media fail, file formats age, and an accidental change can corrupt a record without being immediately visible. A durable system requires multiple copies, integrity checks, migration plans and clear responsibility for maintenance. The AU’s decision to include governance and a digital core alongside legacy digitisation is therefore more consequential than a simple promise to scan documents.

Audiovisual holdings add urgency. Photographs, sound recordings and moving images can be vulnerable to physical deterioration or dependence on obsolete playback equipment. Prioritising at-risk formats is a sensible part of the project’s risk-mitigation workstream. It should be guided by an inventory of what exists, what is in the worst condition and what expertise is needed to transfer it safely.

The project’s scope also reaches beyond the archive store. The AU’s 18 September statement frames it as part of a broader knowledge-management programme that would connect records with institutional learning and decision-making. That could help officials recover the history of earlier commitments and avoid rebuilding work that already exists. It also raises the importance of knowing which version of a document is authoritative.

Access must be designed with protection

An AU repository will face a central tension: many historical records should be discoverable, while some documents contain personal, confidential or diplomatically sensitive information. The next memorandum of understanding is expected to address the treatment of sensitive records. That issue cannot be postponed until a platform goes live.

Clear access rules should explain who can see what, when a restriction expires, and how decisions can be reviewed. Researchers need predictable procedures, not ad hoc permission requests that change with personnel. At the same time, protecting private information and legitimate confidentiality is part of trustworthy stewardship.

Access is not only a security question. Search tools, language choices, low-bandwidth usability and stable citations determine whether people outside the AU headquarters can use a repository. The project’s success would be limited if digital copies existed but could not be discovered by African universities, journalists and the public. The AU has not yet specified a public-access model, making that an important decision to watch.

Questions of ownership and provenance also deserve care. Preserving the institutional history of the OAU and AU means documenting where records came from and how they were created, even when a later digital system makes them searchable across departments. A central platform should connect collections without flattening the context that gives them evidentiary value.

South Africa’s role and the next steps

South Africa has supported the initiative through the African Renaissance and International Cooperation Fund. At the start of the September mission, its delegation was tasked with clarifying repository requirements, equipment, staffing, training and phased costs. The final report reflects that technical work. The next step, the AU says, is to update the draft cooperation agreement with roles, funding modalities, sensitive-records treatment, monitoring and implementation phases.

This is a practical test of continuity. A repository requires staff and recurrent maintenance long after equipment is installed. It also needs a policy for new records, not just a rescue operation for old ones. Budgeting for training, quality control and future formats will determine whether the investment remains useful beyond its first years.

The AU and South Africa have now made the project more concrete than a general aspiration to save historical documents. What remains is to publish enough of the roadmap for stakeholders to assess its priorities, secure the necessary approvals, and show a phased path from asset discovery to preservation and access. The goal is not merely a larger digital collection. It is a reliable, usable record of African institution-building that future generations can still examine.