The secrecy surrounding the health of African leaders is a topic that has repeatedly drawn attention, especially when rumors about their well-being become widespread. In the last few weeks, speculation about the health of two African presidents—Paul Biya of Cameroon and Lazarus Chakwera of Malawi—has reignited debate on why leaders choose to conceal their physical condition from the public. These incidents reflect a broader trend across the continent where the health of political leaders is often shrouded in mystery.
Paul Biya, Cameroon’s president since 1982, is now 91 years old. Recent rumors suggested that his health was deteriorating, yet his ministers were quick to dismiss these claims, asserting that Biya was in “excellent health.” To further control the narrative, the Cameroonian government even banned media outlets from reporting on the matter, maintaining the usual secrecy that often accompanies leaders of his generation.
On the other hand, Malawi’s President Lazarus Chakwera took a different approach when rumors of his ill health surfaced. In an attempt to quell the gossip, videos were posted showing him jogging and performing push-ups in the capital, Lilongwe. The message was clear: the president was in good health, and any talk of illness was unfounded.
Though Biya and Chakwera employed contrasting methods, their responses were driven by the same goal: to project an image of strength and vitality. This strategy is not unique to them. It is deeply rooted in a cultural and political context where showing vulnerability is considered a weakness.
The expectation that leaders, particularly male ones, must project strength and invulnerability has shaped how many African heads of state handle rumors about their health. Oxford University’s African politics expert, Prof. Miles Tendi, explains that politics is often a “performance of masculinity,” especially in Africa. Leaders are expected to dominate the political landscape, and showing any signs of frailty could be seen as an invitation for rivals to take advantage of the situation.
This demand for strength is not just about personal image—it’s about maintaining political stability. In countries where political institutions are fragile, any sign of weakness in leadership could spark a power struggle or even a coup. For leaders like Biya, whose rule has been marked by an authoritarian grip on power, rumors of ill health could embolden opposition groups or lead to public unrest.
**Historical PThe secrecy surrounding the health of African leaders is not a new phenomenon. One of the most extreme examples is that of Nigeria’s President Umaru Yar’Adua, who vanished from public life for five months in 2010. His administration repeatedly assured the public that he was “getting better,” even as rumors circulated that he was brain-dead. It wasn’t until May of that year that his death was officially announced.
Similarly, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s former president, Laurent-Désiré Kabila, was assassinated in 2001, yet the government pretended that he was sent abroad for medical treatment. His death was only admitted later, allowing time for his inexperienced son, Joseph Kabila, to be installed as his successor.In other cases, leaders have openly denied being ill, only for their deaths to be announced shortly after. Tanzania’s President John Magufuli, for instance, dismissed rumors about his health, only for the truth to emerge after he passed away. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe famously condemned health speculations as “naked lies,” maintaining a facade of strength until his downfall.
The reluctance of leaders to disclose their health status is often tied to the fear of destabilizing their country. According to a Zimbabwean security expert, the health of a president can significantly influence a nation’s economy, markets, and political climate. In countries where succession protocols are weak, any sign of frailty in the leader can trigger a leadership vacuum or power struggle, leading to unrest.
This was the case in Malawi when President Bingu wa Mutharika died in 2012. There was a delay in announcing his death, fueling speculation that the government was attempting to block Vice-President Joyce Banda from assuming power.In contrast, some African nations, like Zambia and Ghana, have managed smooth political transitions despite the deaths of sitting presidents. The constitutional frameworks in these countries have helped mitigate the risk of political instability during such times.
As Africa’s younger generation becomes more engaged in politics, there are growing calls for greater transparency when it comes to the health of national leaders. Many argue that citizens have a right to know the physical condition of the individuals in charge of their country’s future, especially when it can affect national stability.
While some leaders, like Nigeria’s Muhammadu Buhari, have occasionally broken with tradition by acknowledging their ill health, this level of openness remains the exception, not the rule.Ultimately, the secrecy around the health of African leaders reflects a deeper issue: the intertwining of personal power with national stability. In a true democracy, transparency about a leader’s health would be expected. However, in many parts of Africa, where elections are often contested, and political institutions are weak, revealing vulnerabilities can be politically dangerous.
The health of African leaders has long been treated as a state secret, with the intent of preserving their image of strength and protecting political stability. Yet, as African nations continue to evolve and develop stronger institutions, there is a growing demand for transparency. The health of a leader is not just a private matter but one that can shape the fate of an entire country. Leaders owe it to their citizens to be open about their well-being, particularly as the continent’s younger generation seeks greater accountability in governance.
