
African Union's dependence on donor funding is a legacy of rampant colonial plunder
Ibrahim criticised the African Union's (AU's) 70% dependence on external financing during his conversation with the former AU commission chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat: 'You call them colonisers, but when they give us money, they're partners… This is a farce; either you're serious, or you forget it.'
He was ostensibly championing African sovereignty. However, this perspective, while nominally highlighting a crucial contradiction, suffers from a fundamental conceptual flaw in its assessment of such financial assistance.
These contributions, regardless of their framing as development partnerships, are not benevolent donations from the West; they are, in essence, a protracted form of restitution for centuries of systemic exploitation.
The historical timeline of Africa's subjugation dates back to 1415, with Portugal's occupation of Ceuta, Morocco, initiating a predatory colonial expansion that culminated in the infamous 'Scramble for Africa' in the 19th century. The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 formalised the partition of the continent among European powers, heedless of existing cultural, ethnic, or social boundaries.
This exploitation, which extended well into the latter half of the 20th century, left indelible scars and profound economic dislocations that continue to plague the continent.
Slave trade
The transatlantic slave trade, a particularly brutal manifestation of Western colonialism from the 15th to 19th centuries, forcibly transported more than 12.5 million Africans to the Americas between 1501 and 1866.
This inhumane trade was not merely economic exploitation; it was underpinned by an intellectual scaffolding designed to rationalise the subjugation of black people as inherently inferior, solidifying the notion of white racial supremacy.
This deliberate construction of racial hierarchy created a cohesive ideological framework that justified domination and exclusion based on race, becoming an integral part of the modern global system, permeating international relations, economics, politics and culture, with repercussions still felt today.
These were not isolated historical events but systematic processes that birthed modern racism as an ideology and institutional practice. The colonial project relied on these conceptions not only to legitimise human trafficking, but also to solidify a global structure in which Africa occupied a subordinate position.
The scale of this historical plunder is staggering. One conservative estimate suggests that the British Empire alone had extracted more than £35-trillion (in current terms) from its various colonies across the world, alongside an abundance of cheap or completely unpaid labour and vast quantities of commodities such as rubber, sugar and oil.
Continuing extractive dynamic
The outflow of wealth from Africa persists even after the end of direct colonial rule. A modern study revealed that between 1970 and 2010, $814-billion (in 2010 US dollars) flowed out of sub-Saharan Africa through capital flight, illicit financial flows, resource mispricing, and debt servicing. This figure significantly surpasses both official development aid and foreign direct investment to the region, underscoring a continuing extractive dynamic.
Beyond direct financial losses, colonialism inflicted immense opportunity costs, impeding Africa's natural development. While Europe's net foreign assets reached 70% of its GDP by 1914, Africa suffered a lost annual growth rate of 0.9% to 1.3% during the colonial era.
This is in addition to the destruction of indigenous economic systems, land ownership structures, impeding industrial development, enforcing monoculture economies, fragmentation of trade zones by creating artificial political and economic boundaries, and the suppression of independent scientific, economic and intellectual advancement.
Furthermore, the pattern of European colonial exploitation versus developmental investment was not uniform. Britain, the largest colonial power, allocated a mere 16.9% of its capital exports to all its colonies (excluding Canada, Australia and New Zealand), which is less than the 20.5% directed to the United States alone.
Any claim about a beneficial contribution of colonial powers in the development of their African colonies is, at best, a fallacy.
Even anthropometric studies indicate a decline in the height of African people by at least 1.1cm during colonisation, signalling worsened health and nutrition due to land grabbing, forced labour and disease, reflecting a decline in the biological standard of living with long-term economic implications.
Furthermore, European colonialism arrested the natural evolution of African social and political systems. African societies were denied the gradual development necessary for the maturity of stable governing institutions and the internal construction of political and social legitimacy.
Colonial powers deliberately dismantled traditional structures and local governance systems, replacing them with authoritarian, externally imposed authorities serving colonial interests.
Political instability
This severed the organic interaction between society and the state, a vital foundation for long-term political stability. The direct consequences are evident in the recurrent civil wars, coups and political instability that have plagued African nations throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, leaving a legacy of autocratic institutions dominated by military or ethnic elites.
In contrast, Europe itself was not immune to internal strife and political fragmentation during its own political development. The continent endured centuries of religious conflicts and devastating wars, such as the Thirty Years' War in the 17th century and the two world wars in the 20th century, before forging formulas for political and social consensus, including constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
The crucial distinction, however, lies in Europe's ability to undergo these transformations from within its own societal and political fabric, accumulating historical experiences organically.
Africa, conversely, was deprived of this process by colonial subjugation imposed through force and domination, rather than internal interaction or social and political negotiation.
This distortion warped the paths of state-building, leading to the reproduction of oppressive structures post-independence, often under national guises but with fundamentally colonial tools.
Although development aid is typically not classified as reparations, for the purpose of Mo Ibrahim's argument, let us regard it as such.
Astronomical figures
In 1999, the African World Reparations and Repatriation Truth Commission called for the West to pay $777-trillion, a figure equivalent to approximately $1.34-quadrillion in 2023.
More recently, the Brattle Group, an international consultancy firm, quantified the cost of the transatlantic chattel slavery at $100-trillion to $131-trillion. Taking the most conservative estimate of $100-trillion as the cost of colonialism in Africa, the scale of redress required is astronomical.
If external partners were to pay the entire AU annual budget of $650-million, it would take approximately 153,000 years to compensate for the colonial plundering.
Even if we assume that all developmental and humanitarian aid to Africa, currently estimated at a maximum of $3.5-billion annually (disregarding the political and economic conditionalities that often ensure donors gain $2.15 for every $1 disbursed in aid) constitutes reparations, Europe would still need more than 28,500 years of sustained payments to compensate for the $100-trillion in colonial losses, assuming no inflation or interest.
It's possible — only just possible — that the clamour kicked up by Ibrahim springs from the AU's move to designate 2025 the 'Year of Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations'.
No one genuinely expects Europe, or any former colonial power, to cough up reparations that could ever truly right the wrongs of colonialism's devastation. Those wounds run too deep, carved by centuries of fire, bullets, and blood — no sum could balance that ledger.
Yet, the claims stand, unyielding, timeless and just.
However, the mere whisper of reparations seems enough to rattle European investors, and Europe-based investors especially, as the global economy stumbles. Their reflex? To polish the meagre scraps of aid they toss our way, dressing them up as some grand atonement for a past they'd rather we forget.
Ibrahim's comments were made in dialogue during his good governance event with the departing chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat, whose tenure from March 2017 to February 2025 was marked by significant controversy.
While Ibrahim is keen to criticise the AU's sources of funding, he overlooked the widespread characterisation of his guest as a ' disaster ' for the organisation. AU staff accused Faki of corruption, cronyism and leadership failures, alleging a mafia-style cartel that operates with impunity within the AU.
The greater problem for the AU, and the source of its ineffectiveness, lies not solely in its funding sources but fundamentally in the calibre of leadership exemplified by politicians like Faki.
Profoundly problematic
Perhaps Ibrahim was correct in one regard: his derision of the slogan 'African solutions for African problems'. This slogan is, indeed, profoundly problematic.
Africa does not suffer from 'African problems' with a specific racial nationality or phenotypic characteristic. Rather, it confronts political, economic and social challenges within the context of an ongoing geopolitical exploitation — another reality that the 'wise men' convening in Marrakesh often conveniently avoid acknowledging, lest it affect their direct economic interests and investments.
The Emirati role in the Sudanese conflict serves as a prominent case in point. Former colonisers, those whom Ibrahim disdains calling such, played a significant role in creating these problems.
These problems require solutions commensurate with their nature: political, economic and social solutions made by policies tailored to address them.
Crafting these solutions demands not merely financial resources but also the genuine exchange of expertise and true investment in developing Africa's human capital to forge them.
There is no foreseeable future where European nations can simply be just 'partners' free from the shadow of their colonial history. African nations need to continue reminding Europe of its ongoing benefits of this historical exploitation.
This historical reality may come as something of a disappointment to Ibrahim, but historical amnesia is a luxury only the beneficiaries can afford.
The tangible and enduring impact of colonialism on our lived present is a stark reality, not merely an abstraction to be dismissed with Ibrahim's sarcasm.
The past is not merely prologue; it is an active force shaping the present and demanding a more nuanced and historically informed understanding of Africa's path forward. DM
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mail & Guardian
8 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Public private partnerships can help close Africa's infrastructure deficit
There is a consensus that Africa can increase economic growth by making significant investments in connecting infrastructure. (Photo by EMMANUEL CROSET / AFP) There is a consensus that Africa can increase economic growth by making significant investments in connecting infrastructure — the physical and digital networks that connect towns, cities and countries, enabling seamless trade and data exchange. This includes transport, communication, energy, as well as water and sanitation, which are vital for the free flow of people, goods and services. When this infrastructure operates optimally it facilitates increased trade, communication, commerce and social development — critical pillars in the objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) in 2023 stated that the Africa infrastructure deficit reduced continental economic growth by 2% annually and reduced productivity by 40%, an alarming state of affairs. To address this infrastructure deficit, the Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (Pida), an African Union initiative, produced the Pida Priority Action Plan (2021-2030) with the support of the United Nations. The plan has a critical list of 69 infrastructure projects to be developed in Africa for about $160 billion. Intra-Africa trade is extremely low at only 15%, compared with 68% in Europe and 59% in Asia. According to the ECA, once fully implemented, the AfCFTA aims to increase intra-Africa trade to 35% by 2040. The objective is to not only increase trade volumes but also promote economic diversification away from reliance on commodity exports towards manufacturing and value-added industries. The changes in the global trade architecture, tariff regimes, aid cancellation, shifting political alliances and elevated geopolitical tensions indicate an urgent need for Africans to increasingly rely on other Africans. This means addressing the critical infrastructure deficits and unlocking intra-African trade is the most important task facing Africa today. Financing connecting infrastructure The technical White Paper, titled Missing Connection: Unlocking Sustainable Infrastructure Financing in Africa and co-published by the Africa-Europe Foundation and African Union Development Agency – NEPAD for the Finance in Common Summit held in Cape Town, South Africa in February 2025, noted the continent needs about $150 billion annually in infrastructure investment to address the infrastructure deficit. Current investment is about $80 billion annually, of which only 40% of this financing comes from governments. About 35% of the financing is from donors and other international partners. The balance of current financing is from the private sector, whose role has taken on increased significance considering the changing donor patterns and decline in China-led financing in recent times. Creating enabling environments for private sector partners to invest in is critical for closing the significant funding gap. Public private partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly viewed as one infrastructure financing modality that should be increasingly considered by African governments. These partnerships are long-term agreements that involve the granting of specific rights to the private sector to build new infrastructure or undertake substantial renovations of existing infrastructure using private financing and at significant private sector risk. In exchange, the private sector investors are granted long-term concessions over the operations of the assets and are remunerated through user charges, government unitary payments, or a blend of the two where revenue viability gaps exist. The assets at the end of the partnership contract are transferred to the state and the state has the option to operate the assets or tender out to the private sector for another contract term. Over the last few years, there has been a huge interest from African governments in using such partnerships to fund their infrastructure deficits. The continent has a low deal flow compared to other regions of the world, but this is set to change if the right policy interventions are applied. McKinsey and Company, in an article titled Solving Africa's Infrastructure Paradox, noted that although Africa has a large pipeline of projects, for example, the Pida Priority Action Plan initiatives, but on average fewer than 10% of these receive funding. There are international funds with an appetite to invest in Africa. So why are so few deals being funded? Some of the reasons for the slow conclusion of public private partnership deals in Africa are: Feasibility studies or business plans are not undertaken in sufficient detail to assess risks or commercial viability. Inadequate enabling legislation, frameworks, and policies tailored for concluding PPP transactions efficiently. The inability of governments to issue guarantees because of weak balance sheets or challenges with credit ratings. A shortage of skilled public servants who possess the necessary experience to conclude PPP contracts. Low liquidity or highly risk averse domestic lenders, thus making foreign lenders the primary option in some markets. Currency fluctuations and other political risk factors discourage investment because of the elevated perceived risks. The African Legal Support Facility (ALSF) based at the African Development Bank undertook a study in 2024 to assess the progress in the development of public private partnership frameworks and supporting legislation. The study, titled Public Private Partnerships, Legal and Institutional Frameworks in Africa: A Comparative Analysis, produced some key findings: Out of 54 countries in Africa, 42 have enacted PPP legislation. Out of the 42 countries, 24 have civil law, 13 have common law and five have mixed legal systems. Western and Central Africa have the highest percentage of economies that have enacted specific PPP laws, with all countries in the region having laws in place, except for Equatorial Guinea and The Gambia. Eastern and Southern Africa have enacted the least specific PPP laws. Among the 12 countries that make up the Southern Africa region, four remain without a specific PPP law: Botswana, eSwatini, Lesotho and South Africa. Annual trends showed that the highest rate of enacted laws was from 2015 to 2017 with 16 laws passed over the three years. The first African country to enact a specific PPP law was Mauritius in 2004, while the most recent is the Republic of Congo in 2022. The restricted tendering method is the most common form of PPP procurement. South Africa had concluded the most public private partnership deals in Africa as of the end of 2024, raising nearly $5 billion, with Nigeria in second place. South Africa appears to have had better success in PPP deal closure because of an advanced financial market, stable economic policy, favourable legal framework and a perceived transparent procurement process according to various studies. The country uses Treasury Regulation 16 under the Public Finance Management Act for national and provincial governments and the Municipal PPP Regulation 309 under the Municipal Finance Management Act for local government. These regulations have been undergoing amendments, with Regulation 16 amendments complete and coming into effect on 1 July 2025 and Regulation 309 amendments still need finalisation. Donor agencies and development finance institutions have directed funding to support the training and institutional building of PPP capabilities in African governments. The Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility, a World Bank programme, has successfully implemented institution-building activities to enhance the capacity of government officials around the world. This technical assistance helps to catalyse the adoption of PPP laws, regulations and guidelines in a streamlined manner to facilitate investments. 2025 and beyond Attracting both domestic and global private sector investors to Africa is a critical part of closing the financing gap and making inroads to closing the infrastructure deficit that prevents Africa from growing at a rate fast enough to create meaningful opportunities, especially for its burgeoning youth population. One of the attractive features of PPPs is the transfer back to the state of the asset at the end of the agreement. We have seen many privatisations of state-owned enterprises, usually accompanied by opposition from political parties or civil society because of the more permanent transfers of state assets to the ownership and control of the private sector. Governments have raised debt capital in private markets or by tapping into pension funds to fund infrastructure — another at times controversial route because of perceived risks to pensioners of the funds being mismanaged. Public private partnerships are, however, not a silver bullet to the funding deficit because of the complex nature of the agreements and the real risk of African governments assuming contingent liability exposures inadvertently because of a shortage of skilled bureaucrats. It is incumbent upon our governments to develop the necessary legal frameworks and innovative de-risking mechanisms that will allow the successful conclusion of private sector investments. Dr Mthandazo Ngwenya is a managing director at Bigen Africa Group and has also served as Africa director of Intellecap Advisory Services.


The Citizen
9 hours ago
- The Citizen
C20 Summit in Sandton champions inclusive development and African unity
The first day of the Launch and Mid-Term Policy Dialogue opened with strong momentum, marked by broad-based support and inclusive participation. The event, which served as a platform for reflection, collaboration, and advancing shared priorities on social and economic development across Africa, took place from June 22 to 24 at the Capital Hotel in Sandton. Messages of support were received from Youth 20 (Y20) and Labour 20 (L20), affirming the importance of youth and labour voices in shaping transformative policy within the G20 framework. ALSO READ: Joburg Speaker concludes region D1 Summit as locals Demand Services The dialogue also received endorsement from South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), reinforcing the country's commitment to multilateral engagement and African cooperation. Importantly, the event brought together members of civil society from across the continent. Their presence and contributions grounded the discussions in community realities and citizen-driven solutions. Their active engagement helped ensure that the dialogue reflected a diverse range of perspectives and priorities. As delegates from around the world arrived, the hotel's exterior was transformed into a symbol of unity and purpose. The branding around the venue was bold, inclusive, and rich in symbolism. Young pantsula dancers entertained the audience, underscoring the event's commitment to the G20 principles of equality, global partnership, and a sustainable future. This launch marks a significant milestone for the C20's role in influencing global policy, amplifying the voices of civil society, and ensuring that people and the planet remain at the heart of the G20's agenda. ALSO READ: G20 Summit – the ball gets rolling As discussions unfold, the focus remains clear: to foster inclusive dialogue, champion equity across all nations, and steer global development in a direction that leaves no one behind. The Sandton skyline now stands not just as a financial hub, but as a beacon of global cooperation and civic leadership. June 2025 will formally introduce Civil Society South Africa as a collective movement for social justice and policy advocacy. The event also aims to facilitate dialogue on key socioeconomic and governance issues affecting communities, establish strategic partnerships for sustained impact and community engagement, and develop a roadmap for civil society participation in policy and decision-making processes. In his speech, C20 chairperson Thulani Tshefuta emphasised the need for strategic alignment and a long-term vision. He stated that the work at C20 must align with South Africa's National Development Plan, the Medium-Term Strategic Framework, Agenda 2063 of the African Union, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. 'The challenge before us all is to rise above immediate obstacles and focus on these broader, long-term strategic development instruments. Our strategic approach should reflect the fact that while there are 200 of us in this room, many more are following through various other platforms. We must truly act with purpose and unity to advance these shared goals,' said Tshefuta. At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!


The Citizen
10 hours ago
- The Citizen
Refreshed proposal for South Africa name change sparks debate
A YEARS-old proposal to change South Africa's name is back in the spotlight as political parties plan to approach Parliament on the matter. According to media reports, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) is spearheading the proposal, supported by other political parties. ALSO READ: uMhlathuze workers' strike suspended pending negotiations The Republic of Azania is the proposed name change. As quoted in Business Tech, ATM argues that the name South Africa is deeply tied to the country's colonial and oppressive past. 'Before 1652, we were not South Africans. The name 'South Africa' came as a result of the British and the Boers coming together to form what was called the Union of South Africa, a structure designed to further the oppression of indigenous people,' said ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, as quoted by Business Tech. ALSO READ: Join Zululand's own Survivor star and donate blood this Mandela Day 'All formerly colonised nations, like South West Africa, have changed their names. We now know it to be Namibia,' he explained. Not everyone agrees, however, with political analyst Kenneth Mokgatlhe saying 'South Africa' is merely a geographical description. 'Other countries like South Sudan, Central African Republic, North Macedonia, East Timor, and North and South Korea also use geographical identifiers. It's nothing out of the ordinary,' Mokgatlhe told Business Tech. He went so far as to say the name 'Azania' 'lacks authentic historical, cultural, political or linguistic connections to South Africa and its people, reinforcing doubts about its relevance and appropriateness as a national name'. Don't have the ZO app? Download it to your Android or Apple device here: HAVE YOUR SAY Like our Facebook page and follow us on Twitter. For news straight to your phone invite us: WhatsApp – 060 784 2695 Instagram – zululand_observer At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!