HISTORICALLY AND in CONTEMPORARY TIMES, Africa has been an attractive continent. Since the end of slave trade, attention has been turned to Africa’s rich natural resources. The foreign direct rulers, otherwise known as colonisers, had the opportunity of knowing how rich Africa was and had chosen to adopt means and methods of sustaining their hold on the continent, even after the official end of colonial rule. It is ironic that Africans still drift toward the countries and continents to which Africa’s natural resources are shipped, especially with the recent upsurge in the wave of migrations. Now is the time to pinpoint Africa’s main problem. A wide variety of distracting arguments have been put forward, leaving the central issue untouched despite a constellation of proven evidence to justify its centrality. Leadership has been the bane of Africa’s development challenges ever since.
Why have many leaders who had great ideas for Africa been cut down in their prime while those who turned around to become despots and oppressors have been having free rein and have remained so long in office?
Why were there many assassination attempts on many past African leaders while some of them were actually killed? These questions need fresh interrogation in the context of African leadership and remote influences on their governments. Back in the 1960s, there was a wave of assassinations of African political leaders in power. It is time to review the circumstances behind such killings and the motives behind them. Although attention has been mostly focused on the direct actors, it looks like the manipulators’ hands behind the scenes are often ignored or disregarded, whereas that should be of utmost concern.
The mystery behind the cruel death, on January 17, 1961, of Patrice Lumumba, DR Congo’s first post-independence Prime Minister and the toppling of his regime in a CIA-backed coup remain yet to be fully solved as it took place by firing squad, under Belgian supervision. Twice before Sylvanus Olympio, Togo’s first president, was assassinated on January 13, 1963, assassins had tried unsuccessfully to kill him. Shortly after midnight Olympio and his wife were awakened by members of the military breaking into their house. Before dawn, Olympio’s body was discovered by the U.S. Ambassador Leon B. Poullada three feet from the door to the U.S. Embassy. Attempts on the life of Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, were made for no fewer than four times. Luckily, he escaped, even when five shots were fired at him from close range. One of such attempts was on January 2, 1964. However, Nkrumah died on April 27 1972, in Bucharest, the capital of Romania. While the examples of these four may suffice for mentioning, is anyone curious about the assassinations of Lumumba, Olympio and the 1964 failed assassination of Nkrumah in January?
And why were the successors of many of those killed in those periods of assassinations allowed to remain in office for so long? Joseph Mobutu, who later adopted the name Mobutu Sese Seko as leader and the name of DR Congo was changed to Zaire under him, took power on November 25, 1965, assuming power as military dictator. His rise had to do with his becoming army chief of staff following a coup against Patrice Lumumba. He was not only a brutal dictator, he reportedly amassed so much wealth and became one of the world’s wealthiest foreign leaders, with holdings not only in prime real estate but also in Swiss bank accounts. Estimates of his personal wealth range from $50 million to $5 billion, amassed through corruption and nepotism during his 32-year rule. His own was the biggest kleptocracy in Africa as his wealth was surmised as being higher than his country’s GDP, meaning that a man was richer than his country. This man stayed so long in power with a stable government. But he left behind a power vacuum that plunged his country into years of civil war.
Félix Houphouët-Boigny governed Côte d’Ivoire from independence on November 3, 1960 to December 7, 1993; that was for 33 years. He was elected in 1990 to his seventh five-year term as president before he eventually died in office, leaving behind a divided Côte d’Ivoire that was rocked by years of war. Question is, what was responsible for the stability of his government for so long? And, how was Togo’s Gnassingbé Eyadema able to stay in power since he became president on April 14, 1967, after participating in two successful military coups, in January 1963, when he shot Olympio dead, and January 1967? What merit and performance qualified Eyadema to remain in office for 42 years till he died in 2005? And how comfortable have his supporters been, especially by allowing his son Faure to take over power after his death, remaining as president of Togo since 2005, thus turning the country’s administration to a type of monarchical government?
To find a clue, a look at a similar monarchical rule emerging in Chad could help. Idris Déby Itno seized power in December 1990 and was killed in 2021, after which his son took over.
Except that, recently, Mahamat, the military officer who took over from his father — the late President Idris Déby Itno — and recently turned civilian president had chosen a different diplomatic path, Chad was well within the whims of France. Lately, Mahamat Déby sent a strong message about ending the military pact with France, a move that could be the beginning of more diplomatic standoffs to come. France, a former coloniser, did not seem to see anything wrong in Mahamat, a military officer, succeeding his father as president. Allasane Ouattara who became an elected president of Côte d’Ivoire did not receive a pushback from France while running for a third term in office. In October this year, he is expected to contest for a fourth term in office. Yet, France has not openly condemned such a move. It is getting clearer that those who stay long in power in many African countries, particularly with the preponderance of francophone countries, do so in fulfilment of certain vested interests.
Africans now have reasons to doubt the veracity of claims about interests in democracy by former colonisers. In particular, France has demonstrated enough double standards for Africans to know that its interests lie elsewhere other than in promotion of democracy. The faceoff between Niger Republic and France after the military took over power and ousted President Mohamed Bazoum was particularly instructive. The discovery of Niger’s military rulers that France was allegedly buying uranium from Niger at 80 cent (€0.80) a kilo and selling it at €200 (Euros) was enough a sign of predatory relationship, despite the fact that France suffers from an almost excessive dependence on African sources for the supply of cheap minerals essential to its national use. The reluctance of France to exit Niger and the proxy use of ECOWAS in a failed bid to militarily overthrow the military rulers of Niger can now be better understood. The Alliance of Sahel States (AES) has further compounded the discomfiture of France as three countries have now formed a confederation that has excluded France as well as restricted France’s access to their own resources upon which France has long depended.
The recent wave of acclaim for one of the three AES member-countries’ leaders is both a cause for cheer and concern. A cause for cheer because one spark of fire seems lit in the dark corner of Africa that is capable of igniting others elsewhere, going by recent occurrences. It is a cause for concern as the life of that leader is now evidently in danger. Why would Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso be so endangered since his profile started rising? Traoré reportedly called the bluff of some Western leaders that thought to subdue him. Proving indefatigable, Traoré seems to be doubling down on his determination to free Burkina Faso from the stranglehold of the exploiters, particularly France. In addition to kicking out the French military, Traoré has taken more measures that have estranged France and Burkina Faso.
The Western press, particularly those from France are on a spree to discredit Traoré. If the French government wants Traoré out because he is a military leader, why did it not do the same to Mahamat of Chad before he turned civilian president. Or, why is the current president of Gabon, Brice Oligui Nguema, that took power in a coup on 30 August 2023 from Ali Bongo and was eventually elected to the presidency in the 2025 presidential election, not under their radar? What makes Traoré such a golden fish in Africa’s water today? Within three years of being in power as Burkina Faso’s leader, Ibrahim Traoré has survived 18 assassination attempts and foiled five attempts. So, Traoré becomes a subject of interest.
Analysts and commentators are now asking questions about why Thomas Sankara — who Traoré seemingly tries to mirror — was killed prematurely while his killer and successor in office lasted so long. It is also a reason to ask why Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the president of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea, has been in power for 46 years — arguably the longest serving in Africa. Or why is Paul Biya of Cameroon not called out as a sit-tight despot at 91 years of age and 43 years in office, currently as president without a deputy? Yet, there are rumours that he will run for another term in the next election.
The obsession of the West to remove Traoré became more pronounced, especially as one US Marine Corps General Michael Elliott Langley, in a recent US Senate public hearing, criticised Ibrahim Traoré, accusing him of diverting his country’s gold reserves for personal benefits and to fortify his junta. More worrisome was his subsequent visit on April 24 to 25, 2025, to Côte d’Ivoire to meet with Ivorian leaders and deliver a speech at the opening ceremony of Flintlock (Africa Command’s annual combined special operations exercise) where Langley emphasised that increased AFRICOM presence was crucial in deterring terrorist organisations or activities in the West African region. Langley has reportedly apologised for making a criticism against Traoré in ignorance. Whether that apology was true, genuine or not, it has revealed a flashpoint in Africa’s struggle for sovereignty. This is thus a challenge for Africans to ask critical questions on why foreign countries are more obsessed with Africa than Africans and, in doing so, why their strategies involve bullying rather than discrete diplomacy.
Just while an African country is celebrating its leader for liberating it and bringing in rapid development, discordant voices from outside Africa tend to elicit more genuine suspicion about Western countries’ true motives for their fixation with Africa. On the surface, it has become clear that the rich mineral resources of Africa constitute the leading reasons the West will do anything to keep Africa subjugated through corrupt and inept leaders so that the post-colonial plundering of Africa can continue under their watch. That is the reason why many old guards in power remain untouched while a young patriotic leader becomes the target of foreign powers. But, with the level of awareness already generated on Traoré, it seems like any attempt to get rid of him by external forces will end up producing more Traorés and will create tension between the West and African teeming enlightened populace. Africa needs to be allowed to fashion out its own development trajectory, especially where and when leaders with clear vision and patriotic zeal emerge. They should not be shut out. They should be allowed to thrive. Western nations that need Africa’s mineral resources should be prepared to negotiate on a level playing diplomatic field, not by using bully tactics.
- business a.m. commits to publishing a diversity of views, opinions and comments. It, therefore, welcomes your reaction to this and any of our articles via email: comment@businessamlive.com
