Africa’s average overall-governance score edged higher over the past decade, but the 2026 Ibrahim Index of African Governance found that security, rule of law and participation deteriorated. The index’s results point to a split in the continent’s performance: gains in economic opportunity and human development have not been matched by progress in several areas of governance.
The Mo Ibrahim Foundation’s index recorded a 0.8-point increase in the continental average overall score, to 50.1 out of 100, between 2016 and 2025. Over the same period, its measure of foundations for economic opportunity rose 3.7 points and human development increased 2.5 points. Security and rule of law fell 1.7 points, while participation, rights and inclusion declined by 1 point.
A decade of uneven performance
The continental average masks substantial differences among countries. The Guardian’s account of the index says overall governance improved in 30 countries, declined in 23 and was unchanged in one. It also reports that corruption indicators worsened in 28 countries, which together are home to nearly 60% of Africa’s population.
Those findings describe changes in the index’s measures, not a uniform account of people’s experiences across the continent. A higher overall score can coexist with setbacks in particular categories, and regional averages do not mean that every country followed the same path.
The findings were presented at the index’s 2026 launch in Cairo. The American University in Cairo confirmed that it hosted the event at its Tahrir Square campus. The Foundation’s report is dated 31 October 2026, while the Guardian article about the findings was published on 11 November.
What the index measures
The 2026 IIAG covers all 54 African countries over the ten years from 2016 to 2025. The Foundation says it draws on 96 indicators from 51 independent external sources, organized into four categories. It is designed to assess government policy outputs and outcomes, rather than to serve as a direct measure of every aspect of daily life.
The Foundation also revises the index biennially. That makes the current dataset and methodology important when comparing scores over time: the figures should be read as results produced by the index’s present framework, rather than as an unchanging measurement system.
The Foundation describes the IIAG as an African-led effort to assess governance. That is the institution’s stated positioning. The description does not, on its own, remove the need to consider how the index defines governance, selects indicators and interprets changes in its scores.
Independent accounts support the basic context and broad pattern. The American University in Cairo describes the index as a measure of government performance across the continent, and Al-Ahram Weekly separately summarized the results as slight overall progress driven by economic and human-development gains alongside continuing concerns over security and rights. The detailed scores remain findings attributed to the index and the Guardian’s reporting.
Progress does not settle questions of responsibility
The index’s figures provide a basis for discussing government performance, but they do not by themselves establish why particular measures rose or fell. The argument that colonial-era extraction and institutional design continue to shape present-day governance is historical interpretation, not a conclusion demonstrated by the index.
In the Guardian article, Mo Ibrahim also argues that governments since independence must accept responsibility for their decisions. That is an attributed judgment about political accountability, distinct from the dataset’s measured trends. Keeping those claims separate matters: the index can show a change in scores, while explanations for that change require additional evidence and argument.
The article also cites Ibrahim’s estimate that illicit financial flows remove about $90bn from Africa each year. The figure should be treated as his cited estimate, rather than as a finding established by the governance index.
The 2026 results therefore present neither an unqualified account of decline nor one of broad-based improvement. The overall score rose slightly, with the strongest reported gains in economic opportunity and human development. At the same time, the index recorded weaker security and rule-of-law scores and a decline in participation, rights and inclusion.