Africa

Brice Oligui Nguema elected president of Gabon in landmark post-coup election

By Muhammad Abubakar

Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema has been elected president of Gabon, securing more than 90% of the vote in the country’s first election since the 2023 military coup that brought him to power.

General Oligui Nguema, who led the ousting of longtime leader Ali Bongo Ondimba in August 2023, had been serving as transitional president. His victory marks a significant milestone in Gabon’s political transition following the end of the Bongo family’s 56-year rule.

The provisional results, announced by electoral authorities, indicate overwhelming support for Oligui Nguema, though opposition figures have raised concerns about the fairness of the process.

The election is seen as a pivotal moment for the central African nation as it seeks to restore democratic governance and stability.

Brice Oligui Nguema poised to win Gabon election after coup

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Gabonese voters head to the polls Saturday in a pivotal election expected to cement army officer Brice Clotaire Oligui Nguema’s grip on power. Nguema, who led a coup last year ousting long-time ruler Ali Bongo, is widely popular for ending the Bongo family’s decades-long rule.

Unlike many juntas across Africa, Nguema has allowed relatively free elections and avoided harsh crackdowns. However, concerns remain about his democratic intentions.

A new constitution passed in November boosts presidential powers, and Nguema—though promising to step down from the military—has yet to do so formally.

International observers are watching closely, hoping Gabon can buck the trend of prolonged military rule seen in parts of West and Central Africa.

The outcome of this election may shape the country’s democratic future and signal whether Nguema intends to truly hand power back to civilians.

United States’ withdrawal from WHO and Africa’s looming health crisis

By Lawal Dahiru Mamman

Some Nigerians with the wrong intention to mock believe that sick individuals, particularly those living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Africa, especially Nigeria, are now an “endangered species” due to the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th President of the United States, marking his return to the White House after defeating the Democratic candidate in a fierce election battle. As the world looked on to see how he would start fulfilling his promise to make “America great again,” he wasted no time signing executive orders that sent shockwaves around the globe.

One of his most controversial directives came just days into his presidency: the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, an organization of which it had been a founding member since 1948. This move was not entirely unexpected, as Trump had previously attempted to exit the WHO in 2020 before his decision was overturned by President Joe Biden in 2021.

To the delight of his supporters and the disappointment of his critics, Trump successfully achieved the withdrawal in early 2025. In February, he made further decisions, including cutting funding to certain organizations such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

WHO leadership bemoaned the decision for obvious reasons. According to financing data, the U.S. contributed an estimated $988 million between January and November 2024, marking approximately 14% of WHO’s $6.9 billion budget. The organization further noted that U.S. funding provides the backbone for many large-scale emergency operations to combat diseases globally.

Citing an example, the WHO stated, “U.S. funding covers 95% of the WHO’s tuberculosis program in Europe, along with 60% of the agency’s TB efforts in Africa, the Western Pacific, and headquarters in Geneva.”

The African Union (AU) also expressed deep concern over the development as events continued to unfold. In a statement, AU Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat emphasized the crucial role the U.S. has played in shaping global health standards over the past seven decades. He noted that the U.S. was a key supporter in establishing the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), which works closely with WHO to tackle global health challenges, including those on the African continent.

This concern, coupled with comments such as those in the opening paragraph of this piece, should not be taken at face value or dismissed as mere press statements. It warrants careful consideration. Although the latter’s comment may be seen as a reaction to unfolding events or an attempt to mock Nigeria and Africa jokingly, more is at stake if the lives of millions of Africans solely depend on that funding.

Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, a 2009 book written by Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, comes to mind. It earnestly challenged the traditional approach to foreign aid in Africa.

Moyo argues that foreign aid has failed to lift Africa out of poverty and has instead fostered a culture of dependency, corruption, and stagnation. She claims that aid has weakened Africa’s incentive to develop its own economic and political systems. Consequently, it has hindered the growth of Africa’s health sector.

It is a universal truth that no nation can survive in isolation; however, countries should be able to provide for their basic survival needs. The concern raised by the AU may validate Moyo’s hypothesis, as Africa remains dependent on aid from foreign entities like the WHO, despite having a continent-wide centre for disease control.

In 2001, African leaders signed the Abuja Declaration, promising to increase budgetary allocation for health, eradicate HIV/AIDS, and strengthen the health sector through improved infrastructure, human resources, and access to essential medicines.

Two decades later, we are lamenting a single nation’s withdrawal from the WHO because we have failed to uphold the promises we made to ourselves. What will happen if other “powerful” countries choose to leave? Will our already poor health metrics deteriorate? This should serve as a wake-up call.

All hope is not lost, as some progress has been made. In Nigeria, there was a breakthrough in November 2024. Doctors at Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), in collaboration with the Sickle Cell Foundation, successfully carried out a bone marrow transplant on two patients. This procedure once thought impossible in Nigeria, was described as “a significant step forward in the treatment of sickle cell disease—the first of its kind in West Africa.”

Also, in February 2025, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH) joined the ranks of medical facilities that have successfully performed kidney transplants.

Nigeria can build upon and enhance these developments, attracting patients from other regions for treatment. This influx will generate revenue and may elevate us to a point where we no longer depend on funding from external organizations.

Nigeria and other African nations can leverage their existing resources to generate revenue while investing further in research to discover cures or treatments for diseases for which we have traditionally relied on palliatives.

Lawal Dahiru Mamman writes from Abuja and can be reached at dahirulawal90@gmail.com.

US visa waiver programme: African nations, UK left out

By Anas Abbas

The United States has unveiled its list of countries eligible for the 2025 Visa Waiver Programme (VWP), notably excluding all African nations except the United Kingdom. 

While the UK retains eligibility under certain conditions, countries like Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa are excluded from this visa-free travel initiative.

Among the updates, Romania has been welcomed as a new participant in the 2025 VWP, which largely maintains the existing roster of eligible nations. The US government has focused on enhanced security measures and prioritized countries that demonstrate strong diplomatic relationships and robust border security practices in its selection criteria.

The Visa Waiver Programme, as outlined by the US Bureau of Consular Affairs, allows citizens from participating countries to visit the United States for tourism or business purposes for stays of up to 90 days without needing a visa. 

However, travellers must first secure a valid Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) prior to their journey and meet all other stipulated requirements. Those who prefer to have a visitor visa can still apply for one.

The 2025 programme introduces several policy updates regarding eligibility, adjustments to the list of participating countries, and new travel regulations to streamline visa-free entry for millions of travellers globally.

The list of 40 countries whose citizens can travel to the US without a visa under the 2025 VWP includes: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Romania.

Youssouf elected new AU commission chairperson after intense election battle

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

Mahamoud Ali Youssouf of Djibouti has been elected as the new Chairperson of the African Union (AU) Commission, following a hard-fought election that took five rounds of voting.

Youssouf emerged victorious after defeating Kenya’s Odinga Odinga in the fourth round, which marked the end of a competitive race that had observers initially predicting Odinga’s win.

Youssouf’s election means he will succeed Moussa Faki Mahamat of Chad, who completed two terms at the helm of the AU Commission. Mahamat’s tenure, which lasted eight years, was marked by significant efforts to push for deeper integration across the African continent.

The race for the AU Commission’s top post was contentious, with Odinga, widely considered the favorite, leading early on in the first round of voting.

However, the momentum shifted as the election progressed. Despite a strong start, Odinga saw his support wane in later rounds, even after the third candidate, from Madagascar, dropped out of the race.

The turning point came when Odinga, during his speech, spent a significant portion of his allotted time—three minutes out of the five allowed—detailing the history of Pan-Africanism and African solidarity.

This left him with little time to present his vision for the AU, and the electronic timer cut him off before he could finish.

In contrast, Youssouf delivered a more concise and convincing vision, which ultimately swayed the voters in his favor.

Khaby Lame visits Senegalese President to promote youth empowerment

By Maryam Ahmad

Senegalese-born TikTok star Khaby Lame, the most-followed personality on the platform, recently met with Senegal’s President, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, in Dakar. The visit focused on youth empowerment and using social media for positive change.

Lame, who was born in Senegal before relocating to Italy, expressed his commitment to giving back to his homeland. He underscored the importance of education and digital literacy, highlighting how platforms like TikTok can inspire and educate young people.

President Faye praised Lame for his global influence, noting that his journey from humble beginnings to international fame inspires African youth. The president encouraged young people to leverage digital opportunities for self-development and economic growth.

Beyond meeting with the president, Lame partnered with UNICEF during his stay in Senegal. Over four days, he engaged with children in health, education, and climate change awareness programs. His visit aimed to draw attention to the challenges faced by African youth and promote initiatives that support their growth.

Lame’s visit underscores the power of social media influencers to drive change. His collaboration with government and international organisations highlights the role digital platforms play in shaping the future of young Africans.

Many Nigerian youth are also turning to social media for career opportunities, so Lame’s story motivates content creators and entrepreneurs across the continent. His rise to fame proves that talent, creativity, and persistence can open global doors, regardless of one’s background.

Nigeria Customs Service hosts workshop on capacity building

By Sabiu Abdullahi

The Nigeria Customs Service (NCS) recently hosted a five-day workshop in collaboration with the World Customs Organisation (WCO) and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) that focused on building capacity in African rules of origin.

The workshop, which began on November 28, 2024, brought together representatives from nearly 26 countries to enhance their understanding of rules of origin and facilitate intra-African trade. 

According to Deputy Comptroller-General of Customs Caroline Niagwan, the WCO and JICA have formed an alliance to provide technical assistance and training initiatives to support Customs officers across Africa.

Niagwan emphasized that the EU-WCO Rules of Origin for Africa Programme aims to boost intra-African trade by enhancing the capacity of African countries to implement and apply rules of origin. 

Faith Mathenge, a Rules of Origin expert and facilitator for the EU-WCO Rules of Origin for Africa Programme, reiterated the importance of capacity building in rules of origin for facilitating trade.

Mathenge commended Comptroller-General of Customs Bashir Adewale Adeniyi for prioritising capacity building, stating, “I must commend the CGC for prioritising capacity building, which is the bedrock that will enable his officers to implement procedures that facilitate trade and enhance compliance.” 

The workshop portrayed the significance of collaboration in fostering intra-African trade and strengthening the role of customs officers in implementing rules of origin effectively.

This initiative is part of the WCO’s broader efforts to enhance customs capacity building in Africa, including the WCO/JICA Joint Project, which has supported customs administrations in East, Southern, and West Africa since 2015.

Nigeria and the U.S.: Economic allies or political pawns?

By Haroon Aremu

After fierce contention between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the next occupant of the White House, with the latter emerging victorious, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s congratulatory message to the President-elect reignited intense discussion about the relationship between both nations. 

The president’s eagerness to strengthen ties between Nigeria and the United States raises questions. Has the partnership between both countries truly benefited Nigeria? Or was Mr. President’s call merely another political courtesy? These questions prompt us to examine the nature of Nigeria’s relationship with the U.S., its economic implications, and the broader political dynamics at play.

Nigeria and the U.S. have maintained a long-standing economic relationship. Nigeria is one of America’s top trading partners in Africa. In 2019, bilateral trade between the two nations exceeded $10 billion, and the U.S. remains Nigeria’s largest foreign investor, particularly in the oil and gas sector. 

However, Nigeria’s economy continues to struggle, primarily due to its overreliance on oil. With global shifts toward renewable energy, including in the U.S., Nigeria must diversify its economy to remain competitive and avoid being left behind.

Critics argue that while the U.S.-Nigeria partnership has brought some benefits, these advantages are not felt equally across the population. The wealth generated from trade and investment remains largely concentrated in the oil sector, leaving many Nigerians excluded from broader economic gains. The promise of diversification remains largely unfulfilled, and the average citizen continues to bear the brunt of the country’s dependence on oil.

The political dynamics of the U.S. and Nigeria share striking similarities, particularly in their recent elections. Both the 2020 U.S. election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden and Nigeria’s 2023 election, where Bola Tinubu contested mainly against Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar, were “reportedly” marred by allegations of fraud, electoral manipulation, and identity politics. Just as many Americans questioned the integrity of their electoral process, Nigerians also faced concerns over corruption and electoral malpractice.

However, Nigeria can learn from the U.S. by adopting reforms that promote a certain level of transparency, credibility, and inclusiveness in its electoral system, as witnessed in 2024. While the U.S. system has its challenges, its efforts to ensure a fair and free election through checks and balances offer valuable lessons for Nigeria, which must work to eliminate corruption and build public trust in the electoral process. 

These reforms will help create an electoral system that reflects the people’s will and ensures fair participation. 

Transparency, accountability, and the active participation of civil society will be vital to improving Nigeria’s elections and ensuring the people’s will is genuinely reflected in government.

Nigeria’s economy faces pressing challenges, including over 30% inflation and a soaring unemployment rate. The country’s dependence on oil exports makes it vulnerable to global market fluctuations. 

The need for diversification has never been more urgent. Nigeria must expand into agriculture, technology, and manufacturing sectors to create a more sustainable and resilient economy.

While U.S.-Nigeria partnerships in agriculture, technology, and infrastructure development have created some jobs, the benefits are often limited. Without proper policies and management, the economic gains from these partnerships fail to reach those who need them most. Corruption hinders inclusive growth, with the wealth generated by foreign investments rarely benefiting the broader population.

The U.S. has provided substantial aid to Nigeria over the years, including over $125 million in COVID-19 assistance and various health initiatives, such as PEPFAR, which has improved healthcare access. 

Educational programs have also significantly impacted Nigerian schools, providing millions of books and teaching resources. However, critics argue that much of this aid addresses immediate needs without addressing the deeper, systemic issues that hinder long—term development, such as corruption, poor governance, and institutional inefficiency.

Though aid has brought short-term relief, Nigeria must push for real, lasting change. Relying on external assistance alone is not enough without addressing the root causes of poverty, unemployment, and economic instability. 

Development cannot be achieved through aid alone—it requires internal reforms and institutional strengthening.

To President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Nigeria is at a critical juncture. It faces significant economic challenges, including the risk of recession, but the partnership with the United States offers an opportunity to stimulate growth, attract investment, and create jobs. 

While the World Bank acknowledges Nigeria’s efforts through macro-fiscal reforms like unifying exchange rates and phasing out gasoline subsidies, these changes must be carefully managed to minimize short-term negative impacts on vulnerable groups. 

Scaling up social protection programs, investing in critical sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, and promoting economic diversification into areas like agriculture, technology, and manufacturing are essential to reducing reliance on oil and ensuring long-term stability. 

The World Bank’s $2.25 billion funding through the RESET program can enhance revenue mobilization, improve governance, and foster private sector growth.

Nigeria must strengthen its dialogue with the U.S., showcase investment opportunities, and deepen cooperation on security. Moving forward, Nigeria must prioritize real, actionable partnerships that deliver sustainable benefits to its people, avoid actions akin to political fraternization, and focus on inclusive development. 

The world is watching, and now is the time for decisive action to secure Nigeria’s future.

Haroon Aremu Abiodun, author of Youth Service for National Stability: A Corpers’ Chronicle, advocates for national development, has received an award from PRNigeria Center, and is an investigative research journalist. He can be reached at exponentumera@gmail.com.

Can the Mandela Washington Fellowship Conference reshape Africa’s economic development?

By Lawal Dahiru Mamman 

Africa boasts an abundance of resources, with its vast landscapes from north to south and east to west teeming with diverse natural and mineral riches. These treasures have the potential to revolutionise the lives of its citizens. The continent’s human capital is equally impressive, harbouring 18.3%—approximately 1.5 billion—of the global population, making it the world’s second-most populous continent.

In truth, these natural resources gifted to Africa have not been fully harnessed for the benefit of its people. In some cases, resources in regions have ignited conflicts and even war, leaving people in bemoanable poverty and deprived of basic necessities like food and water, which are essential for human survival. This is in sharp contrast to the supposed envious rapid developments cities should be undergoing for urban and economic renaissance.

Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, an enthusiastic advocate for the continent’s unity and independence, captured this problematic state of African nations when he said, “Africa is a paradox,” not without rhyme or reason but because “Her (Africa) earth is rich, yet the products that come from above and below the soil continue to enrich, not Africans predominantly.” 

Considering this age-long reality, leaders have repeatedly converged, deliberated, and mapped out strategies for development. Among many of these, Africa Agenda 2063 – a deliberate framework for socioeconomic transformation adopted by the African Union (AU) in 2015—and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA)—an economic agreement aimed at creating a single unified market for Africa—remain the most talked about in the present. 

Little progress has been made with these well-thought-out agreements for nearly a decade. Recently, the Mandela Washington Fellowship Alumni Association of Nigeria (MWFAAN) announced its intention to host a ‘Pan-African Legacy Conference’ in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. 

The conference will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Mandela Washington Fellowship, a brainchild of former United States President Barack Obama to enhance U.S.–Africa relations, particularly among young people. Since its inception, the fellowship has sent over 7,200 young Africans to the U.S. for six weeks of professional development and cultural exchange. 

Themed “Shaping Africa’s Future through the AfCFTA and Agenda 2063” aims to chart a path for the next 10 years, focusing on economic development in Africa. It will bring young people closer to decision-makers to bridge the gap between the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and youth entrepreneurs. It will also ensure access to trade opportunities across Africa and unite the government, nonprofit sector, and business leaders to create a comprehensive framework for sustainable development.

A ruckus has been raised in the fullness of time for youth to participate actively in governance for Africa’s development. This conference is a deliberate attempt by young people to engage policymakers and industry experts in solving our age-old predicament: failing to cater to our rapidly growing population.

Could this gathering sew the Gordian knot, freeing Africa from the shackles of stagnation and retrogression and guiding her towards prosperity? Tempus Omnia Revelat—the future holds the answer. 

As Kwame Nkuruma astutely observed, “It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided, we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world.”

If the Mandela Washington Fellowship Alumni Pan-African Legacy Conference will be a point of unity that proffers solutions and moves us towards economic liberation, so be it.

Lawal Dahiru Mamman writes from Abuja and can be reached via dahirulawal90@gmail.com.

African debts and the myth of China’s debt-trap diplomacy

By Muhammed U. Hong

Nearly six decades ago, the practice of external borrowing for many developing countries could be linked to two major International Financial Institutions (IFIs): The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). These institutions became the most significant source of finance for many third-world economies, particularly in Africa, where countries owe both institutions a large portion of their external debts. However, towards the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, the IMF experienced a decline in lending activities in the region. 

The institution was becoming almost irrelevant as most countries were reluctant to borrow from it due to its policies and programs, notably the Structural Adjustment Program, which worsened economic and social conditions rather than improving them. As a result, the IMF’s reputation was severely damaged, and countries began to seek alternatives.

In the last two decades, China emerged as a major bilateral lender, gaining prominence for its infrastructure and economic development projects in African countries through three of its most prominent institutions: The China Exim Bank, China Development Bank, and China Agricultural Bank. This led to the rise of many other private sector entities that helped cater to the fiscal needs of developing countries.

Between 2013 – 2022, African countries’ total external public debt stock, as reported by the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA), rose from US$109.63 billion in 2013 to US$223.74 billion in 2022. China disbursed loans over the same ten-year span, increasing from US$24.11 billion in 2013 to US$62.89 billion in 2022. As of March 2022, 34% of Africa’s total external debt was owed to multilateral creditors, such as the World Bank’s IDA and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), while 23% was linked to bilateral creditors, including China and Germany. Private creditors, like Bondholders from the United Kingdom, accounted for the remaining 43%.[1] Only a modest portion of Africa’s total external debt stock is owed to China.

External or foreign borrowing is not inherently negative for countries, including African ones. It is widely understood that virtually no country can sufficiently fund its budget by relying solely on its yearly revenue. Thus, governments resort to public debt to fulfil fiscal obligations, especially when running a deficit or intending to spend more than their revenue. In Africa, external borrowing has served as a necessary tool to fund critical domestic infrastructure projects that aim to generate developmental and social gains.

However, the criteria for borrowing—such as the type of debt, its purpose, repayment terms, currency of repayment, and borrowing conditions—play a crucial role. One key metric that lenders assess is the Public Debt-to-GDP ratio, which indicates what a country owes in relation to what it produces and thereby reflects its ability to repay the debt. The higher the Debt-to-GDP ratio, the greater the risk of default. The World Bank established that a threshold of 64% for emerging markets (such as African countries) and 77% for developed economies is where public debt may begin to impact economic growth negatively. [2]

Interestingly, some of the world’s leading economies, including Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have the highest public debt-to-GDP ratios—241%, 114%, and 79%, respectively—while African nations such as Cabo Verde, South Africa, and Nigeria have ratios of 117%, 47%, and 20%. [3] This demonstrates that African countries adhere more strictly to their public debt-to-GDP limits than their Western counterparts. Nonetheless, high public debt does not necessarily indicate weak economies, as some countries can rely on other sources of revenue to offset their liabilities.

So, why does Africa find China more attractive as a lender than IFIs? The World Bank and IMF initially offered loans with favourable terms to African countries in need but came with high interest rates and stringent conditions. African governments were often required to implement reforms designed by these institutions, and the loans were subject to strict environmental, social, and governance standards. Not all African countries were willing or able to comply with these requirements, which diminished their appetite for loans from IFIs and increased their interest in China’s concessional loans, which had fewer conditions. Their “no strings attached” model made Chinese loans more accessible and did not require adherence to governance or environmental standards while offering prospects for debt moratoriums.

For example, new data shows that China’s total lending to Zambia stands at $5.05 billion, equivalent to 30% of Zambia’s external debt. About 80% of China’s loans come from low-interest, concessional finance from China’s development banks, like the China Exim Bank, with the remaining $948 million held by commercial entities such as ICBC and Huawei.[4]  However, there are widespread reports of opacity in Chinese lending practices. African governments have been largely silent about whether loans are used for capital or recurrent expenditures, which makes it difficult for citizens to determine the health of their countries’ debt paths.

This lack of transparency raises concerns about inflated project costs, kickbacks, or the financing of white elephant projects ahead of crucial elections. The China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI), a Washington-based team of independent researchers, is one of the few reliable sources for data on Chinese loans, as it gathers information from loan contracts, interviews, and its global network.

Why do some believe Chinese loans are different from IFI loans and are designed to trap low-income countries into surrendering their natural resources? 

Public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements and the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model, in which Chinese firms manage projects without fully taking over, have been common in Chinese contracts. However, African countries have begun to default on their loan commitments, leading China to adopt the more controversial resource-backed lending model. This model has been used in Africa as a fundamental way to finance many economic and social infrastructure projects like railways, telecoms, mining, construction, power, etc. 

The principle behind the resource-backed lending or resource-financed infrastructure (RFI) model, as they call it, is to allow the borrower country to commit its future revenues derived from the sale of its natural resources to pay for loans provided by the Chinese creditors. Under the RFI model, Chinese lenders have financed an average of 71 projects per year in Africa, at an average value of US$ 180 million since 2010. Between 2000 and 2019, only 26 per cent of Chinese lending in Africa has been tied to the future revenue from natural resources, with Angola taking a sizeable portion of 18 per cent alone. The remaining 8 per cent is evident in loan commitments of US$ 500 million made to Nigeria for its Abuja light rail project in 2012 and 2011 to finance new phases of its airport projects and the Lekki Port’s Free Trade Zone. Others have been used for the US$ 475 million loan in 2011 for the Addis-Ababa light rail project, and in Egypt, for a US$ 1.2 billion loan for their light rail projects.[5] The primary risk of the RFI model is that commodity prices are volatile, which could undermine debt sustainability. 

According to CARI, in 2019, Chinese borrowings to African governments began classifying the countries that were perceived as ‘less risky’ due to concerns about debt sustainability. This is because most countries borrowing heavily from China have been identified to have histories of IMF bailouts, making new such borrowings from China unsustainable. CARI examined the situation in 17 African countries that are either in debt distress or at high risk of debt distress due to the high lending volume, which has forced China to address the issue of debt sustainability. 

Countries like Ethiopia, Mozambique, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Djibouti were all denied fresh loans in 2019. Others like Kenya, Cameroon and Zambia were given relatively small loans. Angola, the continent’s largest borrower of Chinese loans, with an average of US$ 4 billion per year between 2010 – 2018, experienced a decline to about US$106 million in 2019. This is despite securitising Angola’s future revenue from its oil exports. Nigeria, which surpasses as the continent’s largest crude oil exporter with a history of debt sustainability since 2000, had only been granted a loan commitment of around US$500 million. [6]

The issue of debt sustainability gained further attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to widespread calls for debt relief. China responded by offering debt relief packages (debt cancellation) and an (undisclosed) deferment of interest payments due to the pandemic. In 2020, China joined the G20 to create the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI) framework to alleviate the economic suffering imposed by the Coronavirus pandemic on African countries. By the following year, China was reported to have suspended debt worth over US$1.3 billion for 23 countries, out of which 16 are African countries.[7] In a similar vein to tackling the Coronavirus pandemic, the IMF was also reported to have approved $500 million to cancel six months of debt payments for 25 countries, with 19 of them in Africa – which is almost one-third of what China had been able to offer to African governments.[8]

According to Jubilee Debt Campaign UK, now referred to as Debt Justice, a UK campaign organisation to end exploitation of debt by more affluent countries, China remains the largest suspender of debt with a whopping $5.7 billion in debt repayment). [9] The China Development Bank – which is a major lender to African countries – had also since 2021 provided US$1.168 billion in debt relief to these countries as a way of cushioning the impact of the pandemic.[10]

What makes China engage in “debt-trap diplomacy” with its African borrowers? — An allegation that Chinese firms intentionally lend to financially irresponsible governments that will be unable to repay loans to take possession of assets.

Many unsubstantiated claims about the Chinese takeover of major state assets in developing countries exist. The most cited case for reference is the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan government secured 2007 finance from China’s Export-Import (EXIM) Bank to develop the port. In 2015, however, Sri Lanka had to arrange a bailout from the IMF even though the Chinese loans only accounted for some 10% of the debt. The government sought to raise cash by privatising state-owned assets, including a significant stake in Hambantota port. Then, a Chinese company got wind of it and successfully bided and bought 70% of the shares. The Sri Lankan government used the proceeds to pay for Chinese loans and other debt services. [11] However, no definitive evidence suggests a similar practice is prevalent in Africa.[12]

Ultimately, it is hard to think that Chinese loans to Africa are meant to inextricably trap them for their rich oil and other natural resources. Over the past decades, Africa’s growing need for infrastructure has led China to fill the void created by Western financial institutions, offering easier access to capital with fewer stipulations. 

Although the African continent has managed its debt well, there are still significant risks and challenges associated with Chinese loans, particularly in governance and transparency. It is also true that China’s approach to lending has evolved from being more lenient to becoming more cautious, especially in response to concerns about debt sustainability. This is why it tries to mitigate the risk of defaulting by primarily resorting to the resource-backed financing model, and this has only been linked to a meagre percentage of all its loan commitments to the continent– with the exception of Angola. While resource-backed lending seems pragmatic, it is not necessarily predatory or equate to an intent to exploit or trap countries, especially given China’s history of debt relief. China’s participation in debt relief efforts is consistent with its broader strategy of maintaining long-term relationships with African countries rather than exploiting them.

Africa must halt the practice of raising money at the Eurobond markets—where a range of investors trade bonds—because these bonds come at steep commercial rates and are subject to the dictates of the international financial markets. African countries must also be discouraged from seeking bailouts from financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank to offset existing loans, which excessively pile up debts that lead to unsustainable liabilities. 

African governments must ensure prudent financial management while refraining from depleting their foreign currency reserves to pay high interest on those loans. The utilisation of these loans for their intended purposes, whether in infrastructure, social or economic, is crucial for Africa to foster sustainable development, bolster its revenue growth, and improve the quality of life for its citizens. Loans that yield commensurate economic benefits.

Muhammed U. Kong wrote via muhammedu.hong@gmail.com.