Following the judgment of Reparation for Injuries Suffered case, which acknowledgedrnIOs as bearers of right and obligations in the international plane, the debate about IOsrnturned to their accountability in control of their acts. Since ICJ asserted, in the case, IOsrndegree of personality only, the conception that their sphere of activity is strictly limited tornthe provision of their founding instruments has prevailed. This restriction at times hasrnbeen relaxed by the implied powers theory. Even here, IOs acts can, to the most, go tornthose justified by objectives and purposes they pursue. Acts of IOs, thus are required tornbe within their mandate. Control to legality and validity of IO acts has traditionallyrnmanaged by the insertion of the doctrinal limitations such as compÃ©tence dâ€™ attribution,rndomaine reserve, ultra virus etc. however, lately, institutional mechanism are being includedrnwithin structures of IOs. These institutions take either political or judicial form.rnWhichever is preferred, the institution reviews acts of other internal bodies within thernorganization. Seen from this point of view, the present situation of IOs is not uniform. Inrnsome IOs, institutional control is neglected deliberately. In some others the politicalrnmeans is chosen in remaining some others, judicial review is established. This study looksrnat the review system of the African Union. Specifically control system of the unionrnagainst acts of the political organs is investigated. It is evident that starting from the evernof the transformation to AU onwards, the continental organization has reorganized itselfrnto reach the goals it aims to achieve. The study thus discusses the review of the systemrnand argues that from the perspective of the revitalized objectives of the union andrnpresent state of international law, a number of important elements are dropped fromrnbeing incorporated though the existence of the system by itself is very radical to thern(O)AU.