Periodic harvest of death through mindless killing of innocent men, women and children by bandits which have unfortunately become regular feature of the Middle Belt region especially the Benue/Plateau axis, according to Governor Caleb Mutfwang occurred  again last week resulting in the massacre of over 50 people in Bokkos.

But, as common with Middle Belt region leaders who got integrated into the power structure through either marriage, business or politics by the hegemonic power in the north, self-preservation is often the first law. This was why the governor was going to play the ostrich so as not to rock the boat until Channel TV’s Seun Okinbaloye’s probing question left him no room for equivocation. He was forced to declare – “as I speak to you there are not less than 64 communities taken over, renamed and people are living there on land they push people away from”. Writhing his hands in helplessness like his predecessors in office, he attributed the nightmare of his people to “genocide sponsored by terrorist from somewhere” and “proliferation of sophisticated arms”.

Mutfwang cannot out of desire for self-preservation suppress facts about the killings in the Middle Belt and those behind the killings. It is on record that no less than 1,000 persons were killed in Jos and its environs as a result of ethno-religious conflagrations in n 2001, about 700 killed due to communal clashes in Yelwa, southern Plateau, in 2004; Scores in Jos in January 2010 as a result of sectarian clashes including the killing of nearly 150 Muslims in Kan Karama while December 2010’s Christmas eve explosions in two Christian neighbourhoods in Jos, followed by several days of sectarian violence, left at least 107 persons dead.

We have also been told that the number of renamed communities in 2020 was about 102 while as at July 2023, we have  an estimated 18,751 internally displaced persons, many of them  condemned to IDP camps where they face hunger diseases and uncertain future .( Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation).

The governor was hesitant when it came to disclosing the identities of those assailants sacking communities, confiscating land and sending victims to IDP camps. He can keep his peace as credible Fulani voices like Sheik Gumi, Nasir El Rufai, Aminu Masari and Abdullahi Ganduje have already identified them as disgruntled immigrant Fulani herders who want recognition and compensation after their heinous crimes. The tragedy of besieged people of Benue and Plateau is that they have continued to be betrayed by their leaders.

For fear of antagonizing the hegemonic power in the north, the Justice Nikki Tobi Commission report that came out during Obasanjo’s presidency was for instance never implemented; Joshua Dariye’s introduction of vigilante groups- The Rainbow Boys – was not allowed to operate just as Jonah Jang’s anti-land grabbing and anti-kidnapping bills were never passed by the state House of Assembly.

It was for the same reason successive leaders of the Middle Belt region who for a long time opposed state and community policing could not replicate the Southwest Amotekun security architecture model. It was the same reason they would rather listen to Shehu Garba’s criticism of community policing than the timely advice by Theophilus Danjuma, the late crusader for Middle Belt self-actualization to the effect that those facing threat of genocide can defend themselves by procuring guns from where their tormentors got their own if government refused to give them licence to officially buy guns to protect themselves.

The people of the Middle Belt have not changed. They remain the same people whose land was never conquered, the same brave warriors Uthman Dan Fodio hired as mercenaries to prosecute his wars and the same people who staged an insurrection immediately after independence to press their demand for self-actualisation. What changed are leaders driven more by consideration for self-preservation than patriotic zeal to serve their people.

The nightmare of the people of Middle Belt region started with the death of Joseph Tarka, and Chief Obafemi Awolowo the greatest advocate for the creation of the Middle Belt Region. Awolowo remained the last man standing during the 1957 London constitutional debate following betrayal by Ahmadu Bello, the NPC leader and Nnamdi Azikiwe the NCNC leader, both of whom were driven by greed to corner land belonging to various Nigerian ethnic nationalities for the exclusive use of their own people.

A brief journey through history will show how both shared a common philosophy of how to manage Nigerian land spaces.

Ahmadu Bello and the hegemonic power in the north saw Nigeria as a land ordained by God for the stateless Fulani across West Africa with his great grandfathers capturing of Hausa land over which he imposed 13 of his kinsmen and one Hausa as Emirs. On his part, Zik who believed Igbo race had been ordained  by God to lead the children of Africa, was also convinced that everywhere in Nigeria and elsewhere in Africa should be home to his industrious and entrepreneurial Igbo people.

It is therefore not difficult to see why Zik and his supporters did not see any contradiction in recommending a unitary system for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural Nigeria or attempting to take over Yoruba nation in 1952 in the name of fake nationalism using his West African Pilot as tool of propaganda.

And if further reasons are needed, Emeka Ojukwu’s strategy for the civil war which started as a war between the north and the east also said it all. For instance, instead of confronting the northern soldiers that attacked the Eastern Region from Makurdi, the Biafra Army overran Midwest, appointed an Igbo administrator and was on the way to Lagos before they were stopped at Ore, in Ondo State. But that was not before his insolent letter to Victor Banjo stating that he Ojukwu would decide who the administrator of Lagos would be after the pacification of Yoruba land.

Not much has changed since the beginning of the Fourth Republic. The new campaign is no more unitarism but citizenship as the answer to the national question. In this regard, there is currently a bill in the National Assembly by Hon Benjamin Okezie Kalu which will legitimise immigrants’ takeover of ancestral home of host communities, a superior alternative to the ongoing bandits’ mindless killings in the Middle Belt region.

The Fulani leaders never pretended about what they wanted out of Nigeria. With Uthman Dan Fodio’s subjugation of Hausa and sharing of their land among his siblings, his grandchildren believe Nigeria is a land ordained for stateless Fulani across West Africa. Ilorin was later to be seized through the help of Afonja, the Oyo Are Ona Kanakafo stationed in Ilorin. Oyo was later sacked by Fulani invaders who were stopped at Osogbo by the Ibadan army.

What the Fulani leader could not get through war, they got through British colonial power. At the 1950 Ibadan constitutional conference, they insisted and secured 50% of membership of the Nigerian legislative house as condition for remaining part of post independent Nigeria.

For the Fulani, like their Igbo rivals, not much have changed. It is still the same sense of entitlement over land that is fuelling the crisis in The Middle Belt and elsewhere in the country. Abubakar Malami, former Attorney General of the Federation once insisted that armed immigrant Fulani herders have right to occupy Ondo forest reserve. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi publicly encouraged Fulani herders to disobey Benue State’s anti-open grazing laws. Bauchi State governor, Bala Mohammed not too long ago passed a ‘fatwa’ through Channels TV, declaring any Fulani from any part of Africa, a Nigerian. Leaders of the herders wrote a 70-page letter to Muhammadu Buhari as president insisting open grazing is part of Fulani culture and threatened to make the country ungovernable if restricted from grazing in any part of the country.

And their strategy for managing power has not changed. Tafawa Balewa, a minority from southern Bauchi was picked as prime minister in the first republic. He did everything Ahmadu Bello wanted including ‘doing nothing’ because of self-preservation even as the West burned.

Gowon was installed Head of State after the 1966 July military vengeance coup over his seniors in breach of military protocol.  It was not a surprise that when the rivalry between the Igbo and Fulani ended in a civil war, Gowon and other notable Middle Belt military officers including Danjuma who has today become a leading voice of resistance, fought like slaves because of self-preservation.

Chiefs Solomon Lar, Barnabas Gemade, Audu Ogbe, Ahmadu Ali, Kawu Baraje were for 16 years chairmen of the then ruling PDP. But they all pretended not to see the daily harvest of death from their home. David Mark and Bukola Saraki jointly occupied the senate presidency, the third most powerful office for 12 years. But fear of Fulani hegemonic power blinded them to the daily misery of their people.

For all Middle Belt politicians, it is always the law of self-preservation. 

In slamming Mexico with a high reciprocal tariff—which has now been suspended for 90 days—the President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, did not take into consideration the provisions in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which precludes member countries from being levied tariffs on certain products.

Upon discovering the breach, Mexico pointed it out to the US, and promptly, the concern was addressed with the USMCA exemption recognized and the aberration corrected.

Like the USMCA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced in 2000 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, grants African countries exemptions from paying tariffs on some items exported to the US.

With the 10% across-the-board tariff that the US has imposed on all her trading partners worldwide—and the reciprocal tariffs (currently paused for three months) that raised tariffs on Nigerian goods to 14%, and up to 50% for a small African country like Lesotho—the US may have breached the AGOA pact with Africa.

So, the question is: has Africa, like Mexico, approached the US to inform her that the AGOA arrangement has been breached, so that an adjustment can be made accordingly, in the same manner that a similar breach of USMCA was addressed when it was brought to the US’s attention?

That task squarely falls within the purview of the African Union (AU); it is a responsibility that rests directly on its shoulders.

If peradventure, Africa has not yet made that move via the AU, the 90-day pause announced by President Trump is a veritable window for the pan-African organization to engage with the relevant authorities in the US to resolve the matter.

That said, at this juncture, it is appropriate that we take a look at Africa’s uninspiring place in the world order and try to figure out how to reposition the continent to become a more active player in the new global trade framework being reshaped by President Trump through his sweeping tariff changes.

In identifying Africa’s place in the new world trade order being unfurled and wrought by President Trump—through trade tariffs that have disrupted global trade in ways that may become unrecognizable to old-school aficionados—it is imperative to put the unfolding scenario in historical context.

As we all would agree, from the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 where Africa was partitioned among European powers, to today’s Africa where the likes of Tony Elumelu, chairman of UBA/Heirs Holdings is promoting Africapitalism (a vision for African entrepreneurs to develop the continent by intentionally investing in its abundant resources to bring prosperity to communities), European exploration and exploitation of Africa has a long and complex history.

For a deep dive into how entrenched the European and other superpowers’ interests in Africa have become, here is a breakdown of key historical milestones:

Going back to the Ancient Era, the Phoenicians—a civilization from the eastern Mediterranean—are believed to have explored North Africa and possibly even circumnavigated the African continent around 600 BC. It is believed they established colonies, with Carthage being the most notable.

In the Medieval Period, during the Viking expeditions of the 9th century, North African Mediterranean coastal towns were also raided.

Then came the Portuguese explorers in the 13th–14th centuries. Genoese navigators such as Vandino and Ugolino Vivaldi attempted to find a sea route to India around Africa in 1291. Thereafter, Jaume Ferrer sailed down the West African coast in search of the legendary “River of Gold” in 1346.

That expedition was followed by the Age of Discovery explorations in the 15th century when the Portuguese—led by Prince Henry the Navigator—pioneered maritime exploration. That was when explorers like Bartolomeu Dias reached the Cape of Good Hope in 1488, and Vasco da Gama successfully navigated to India via Africa in 1498. All of the above is what many of us learned in European history classes during our formative years in school, right? One is going down memory lane because to truly understand the marginalization of Africa in the scheme of things by the rest of the world, we must recall and place these historical realities in perspective.

It was not until much later that other European powers such as the Dutch, English, French, and others soon followed, establishing trading posts and colonies along the African coast.

In light of the above and based on historical records, European exploration of Africa’s interior did not gain momentum until the 19th century, with explorers like David Livingstone and Henry Morton Stanley mapping the continent’s geography and “discovering” new regions.

For this discourse, we will stay focused on the exploitation of the African continent by foreign invaders since the time of Livingstone et al.

Following the arrival of European explorers in Africa in the 19th century, and especially after World War I, the continent has been actively and continuously pillaged by fortune seekers from other continents—particularly Europe, North and South America, and Asia.

Specifically, Africa’s exclusion from productive trade was entrenched as far back as 1884/85, when then-German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck hosted the Berlin Conference, during which European powers carved up Africa without inviting a single African representative to the table.

After the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade—which occurred between the 16th and 19th centuries, during which roughly 10–12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas in a trading system where African slaves were exchanged by Europeans for American products such as coffee and sugar, which were then shipped back to Europe—these Western powers transitioned from being slave traders to colonizers.

Unsurprisingly, the European colonizers lingered to further extract solid and rare earth minerals abundant in Africa—an unfair trade practice that remains in play to this day.

Unlike the countries in the Southern Hemisphere, which the Europeans were also scrambling to colonize but which were fortunate enough to benefit from the ‘Big Brother’ protection of the Monroe Doctrine—a U.S. foreign policy enacted in 1823, wherein then-President James Monroe prohibited further European colonization of countries in the Western Hemisphere—Africa was left unprotected. As such, the continent remained exposed to the insatiable greed of European powers.

The original version of the Monroe Doctrine also prohibited the marauding Europeans from further colonization of other countries universally including other hemispheres, particularly Africa. 

But it was then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams citing a lack of capacity to enforce the law globally that advised President Monroe to confine the proclamation to the Western hemisphere which was near. Otherwise, perhaps the Europeans would have been discouraged from partitioning and colonizing Africa in 1844/5 in the manner they did, as it occurred over 20 years after the Monroe Doctrine was instituted.

With no ‘big brother’ protecting Africa, the Europeans greedily ravaged Africa and the exploitation has been so overwhelming that countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—blessed with abundant rare earth resources needed for manufacturing high-tech products—owing to unbridled exploitation have remained ground zero for armed conflicts. Even fellow African countries like Rwanda have joined the scramble for Congo’s resources, which have been exploited continuously for at least a century. The scenario described above is a classical case of unfair trade. 

Incidentally, the justification for President Trump’s ongoing tariff war includes not only an effort to stem the illicit drug fentanyl from entering the U.S. but also to correct what he considers unfair trade practices by the rest of the world against the United States. So, with its economic and military clout as the world’s global hegemon, and under the leadership of a bold and unorthodox President Trump—who was voted into power based on his reputation as a change agent, although a political outsider—the U.S. is using tariffs to fight for balanced trade with its partners.

But from the narrative about trade between Africa and other continents, as earlier highlighted, it is disheartening and disappointing that Africa has been a perennial and perpetual victim of unfair trade. Sadly, the continent lacks the clout to fight for itself, as the U.S. is currently doing.

Operating in an unstructured—and some may say ungoverned—environment, where six (6) countries (Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Mali, and Sudan), mostly located in the Sahel region, have reverted from democratic governance to military dictatorships, forging a common front to assert herself as a unified continent has remained a mirage since the time of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)—Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, among others—who convened in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963.

Although the OAU was later renamed the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa in 2002—likely inspired by the somewhat successful European Union (EU)—the change was largely nominal. The continental body has never been able to transform Africa into a powerful trading bloc like the EU.

Instead, the continent has remained a mere source of raw materials and not a producer of value-added products that could have engendered prosperity for its people when it becomes the new manufacturing hub for the US.

Perhaps the recently formed African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) will make a difference by triggering the desired positive change.

In a previous article titled “What If President Trump Wants to Shift From Aid to Trade?”, I explored the possibility that Trump might replace aid to Africa—which he has begun to roll back—with trade. I argued that Africa needs trade, not aid.

That prospect is not far-fetched. The continent is increasingly being seen by forward-thinking investors as the next frontier for development. But with trade between industrialized nations now restricted by Trump’s tariffs, one wonders:

Will Africa become the dumping ground for goods that advanced economies can no longer trade among themselves?

If so, would this not further hinder industrialization on the continent? On the flip side, could this trade standoff prompt the U.S. and others to manufacture in Africa instead of relying on China and Vietnam—countries hit by the heaviest tariffs?

Given Africa’s closer proximity to the U.S. via the Atlantic Ocean (compared to Asia via the Pacific), the continent—especially Nigeria—could become a strategic manufacturing base. This possibility gains weight with the U.S. currently building its largest embassy in the world at Eko Atlantic, located on the shores of Bar Beach–Atlantic Ocean in Victoria Island, Lagos.

Signs of a Strategic Shift

The recent appointment of Mr. Massad Boulos, former Group Managing Director of SCOA Nigeria Plc, as Senior Special Adviser to President Trump on Africa affirms growing optimism that Africa will be a focal point for U.S. economic cooperation.

My self being a board member of SCOA Plc and chairman of its Audit Committee since 2012, I can guarantee that Mr. Boulos is a veritable asset to the U.S. and will make a great and positive impact for the benefit of both the U.S. and Africa. He knows the continent inside out, having worked with the SCOA Group—an organization that has existed for nearly a century with a massive Africa-wide footprint.

Already, Mr. Boulos has initiated meetings with the Presidents of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, Uganda, and Nigeria to promote peace in conflict zones and foster mutually beneficial economic partnerships.

For too long, as earlier stated, Africa has been sidelined in global trade value chains—operating on the fringes due to unfair trade practices entrenched during the colonial era, which saw the continent become an extension of European empires.

Even after gaining political independence, beginning in the mid-1950s, Africa has remained marginal in global trade—accounting for less than 3% of global trade volume.

Yet Africa is resource-rich:

 • 30% of the world’s mineral reserves

 • 40% of global gold reserves

 • 90% of global platinum and chromium

 • Over 10% of global oil reserves

 • 65% of the world’s arable land

 • 60% of the world’s uncultivated fertile land

 • A population of 1.539 billion as of March 2025, representing 18.83% of the global population (estimated at 8.1 billion)

If Africa is to thrive in the emerging world order, it must seize this moment not as a threat, but as a strategic opportunity to renegotiate its place in global trade—by adding value, fostering local production, and becoming an active partner in global manufacturing and economic integration.

Using the recently released Forbes list of billionaires for 2025 as a barometer of Africa’s global standing, there are a record 3,028 billionaires on this year’s list. Their combined wealth totals a record $16.1 trillion. Yet, only twenty-three (23) of them are Black. Alhaji Aliko Dangote remains the richest Black man on earth. Other Nigerians on the list include Chief Mike Adenuga, Alhaji Samad Rabiu, and Mr. Femi Otedola—who all reside in Nigeria—while Mr. Bayo Ogunlesi and Mr. Tope Awotona, also Nigerians, live outside the continent.

The 23 Black billionaires account for just 0.8% of the total wealth of the world’s 3,028 billionaires. Effectively, less than 1% of the world’s billionaire wealth is held by Black individuals—and even less by Africans living on the continent.

Based on Forbes figures, these 23 Black billionaires have a combined wealth of only $96.2 billion—less than $100 billion—a mere drop in the ocean compared to the $16.1 trillion owned by the remaining 3,005 billionaires, mostly in industrialized and advanced societies.

Apart from its vast mineral wealth, Africa holds a global comparative advantage in agriculture. However, subsidies provided by industrialized nations to their farmers significantly neutralize any potential gains for African producers. For instance, eggs that were once produced in excess in the U.S. used to be dumped locally or even thrown into the ocean during gluts, rather than being exported to famine-stricken areas in Africa—especially in the Horn of Africa—where people have died from hunger-related diseases. Ironically, the U.S. is now experiencing an egg shortage. Hopefully, when the egg surplus returns, the U.S. will remember to ship excess produce to Africa, where the need is dire. This is especially critical given that the continent is increasingly unable to feed itself due to unfair global trade practices orchestrated by powerful players in the developed world.

Against the backdrop of Trump’s ongoing reciprocal high-tariff upheavals, one might have thought this would be an opportunity to bring Africa more squarely into the global trade framework—especially now, as a new world order seems to be emerging under Trump.

Take, for example, the case of avocados. High tariffs imposed on Mexico—currently the largest supplier of avocados to the U.S.—have created a supply gap. Africa, also a major grower of avocados, could potentially fill that gap under a tariff-free framework such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), introduced by President Bill Clinton in 2000. AGOA significantly boosted trade between the U.S. and Africa’s 54 nations.

Unfortunately, that might no longer be the case. That is because as earlier noted, AGOA which has been in practice for 25 years seems to have been sidelined under the current administration’s reciprocal tariff regime. Unless the seeming breach is rectified.

What remains Africa’s biggest handicap in becoming a manufacturing hub for U.S.-bound exports is the lack of infrastructure. This, coupled with financing deficits and debt traps, has made the continent less attractive compared to Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand, which are now thriving manufacturing hubs serving the U.S. market. Vietnam, for instance, has been hit with tariffs as high as 46%.

The industrialization of these countries is the result of a ripple effect—an economic radiance originating in Japan and China, spreading outward to nations like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia. These countries now orbit as stars around the moons of Japan and China within Asia’s industrial ecosystem.

The U.S. could intentionally choose to industrialize Africa. The continent’s lack of industrial capacity underscored by energy insecurity could be mitigated by fixing its chronic electricity shortages. Africa possesses abundant untapped energy potential—from hydropower and solar to wind and biomass—even without considering nuclear power. Elon Musk has already developed battery pack technology capable of powering entire cities, tested successfully in Australia. Why not introduce it to Africa?

While the world is in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Africa missed out on the first two. However, the continent caught up during the third—the telecoms revolution—by skipping telephone landlines and going straight to mobile technology, thanks to GSM. Similarly, Musk’s super battery packs could revolutionize Africa’s power sector in much the same way.

These are ideas worth considering by President Trump, the leader of the world’s most powerful and wealthiest nation, and Elon Musk, the world’s richest man.

During this tariff war, the Director-General of the World Trade Organization, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, made the following remarks at a Commonwealth event in London on March 31:

 “Amidst all this turbulence, what is still good is that there is still $24 trillion of goods trade. The U.S. accounts for 13–16% of world exports, and China 15%. If 75% of trade is still going on outside the U.S. and China, it means there’s a world out there trading within itself, coming together to reaffirm support for the system. So, take a deep breath—let’s preserve what works… But when you throw out retaliation, it just goes back and forth.”

Her non-retaliatory stance appears to be the most pragmatic way forward.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed this sentiment after President Trump announced the new tariffs in the White House Rose Garden, urging affected countries not to engage in tit-for-tat retaliation. The nations that heeded his advice had the tariff paused so it is only China that retaliated with a 125% tariff against the US the 145% has been operationalized.

To lend my voice, I believe EU President Ursula von der Leyen should prioritize dialogue with President Trump and his team—who are intent on remaking the global trade order—instead of adopting a combative stance. The objective should be mutual compromise.

President Trump does have a valid argument when he claims that the U.S. has been exploited through trade imbalances and security expenditures—particularly in its relationships with Europe. The high reciprocal tariffs, according to him, are a correction of those long-standing disparities.

Even Jens Stoltenberg, the immediate past NATO chief, acknowledged that Trump’s tough stance during his first term prompted most NATO members to meet their financial obligations—a clear “Trump effect.”

From a global security perspective, one could argue that the U.S., as the longstanding global hegemon, has carried the burden of maintaining world order—which may have justified its earlier trade concessions. President Trump is now reversing those concessions.

After the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia—the main remnant—has struggled to match U.S. dominance in either economic or military terms. The Cold War, which once divided the world between a communist East and a capitalist West, ended with the U.S.-led West as the undisputed superpower.

Now, China—currently the world’s second-largest economy—is consolidating its regional power. It has reclaimed Hong Kong from the UK, and now eyes Taiwan, which claims independence. One would think China would first solidify control over its region before challenging the U.S. on the global stage. While President Xi Jinping has extended olive branches to neighboring nations like Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia through a “neighborhood diplomacy” initiative, tensions with Taiwan have escalated lately, as evidenced by a recent military maneuver.

Still, against all odds and perhaps out of national pride, China has stated that while it won’t raise tariffs further, it is not afraid and in my view, it appears it remains open to negotiation.

In the meantime, the U.S.—unopposed in its superpower status—continues to shape the world according to its vision. Nevertheless, President Trump has paused his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, ostensibly to allow room for negotiations by the over 60 nations hit with the reciprocal tariffs. While some critics argue he panicked due to the negative bond market and ordinary people's reactions, I believe he’s acting strategically—seeking a win, not a war without an end.

All said and done, the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is originally from South Africa. Morally, he should fight for Africa, leveraging his immense wealth and global influence. Given his concern about land disputes in South Africa, it’s clear Musk cares about the continent. All he needs to do is broaden his scope to include the “rainbow coalition” (black and white people) across Africa—widely recognized as the world’s next frontier.

If Tony Elumelu can commit $100 million in ten years through his foundation, TEF to empower African youth across 54 countries with entrepreneurial skills and start-up seed money, there’s no reason why Musk cannot dedicate $1 billion to provide electricity to Africa—powering industrialization and creating new prosperity on the continent of his birth.

After all, Africa—as economists have confirmed—is not an aid case. It is a land of untapped potential.

The bottom line is this: Africa needs industrialization and trade, not aid. And both President Trump, leader of the world’s most powerful country, and Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man, can make it happen.

Musk has already explored the unknown in space with his SpaceX program. Now it’s time to explore Africa—for real, and for good.

I would like to conclude by restating the fact that, Africa beckons President Trump and Elon Musk.

Magnus Onyibe, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, and author.

Although the rest of Africa seems to have forgotten about the crisis and wars in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), some scholars, intellectuals and thinkers from the continent are continually engrossed in finding the pathways to resolving the perennial problems in the continent’s largest country. Last weekend, they came together to examine the underlying causes of the conflicts and proffer solutions. It was at a webinar organised by The Pan-African Dialogue Institute (TPADI) on the theme ‘’Invasion of DR Congo: Global interests and implications for pan-Africanism’’ TPADI is an international think tank of African academics, professionals, students, civil society and grassroots leaders in different fields of life within Africa and the Diaspora, coming together for the study, practice, and propagation of Pan-Africanism.

The keynote speaker at the webinar, Prof G. Macharia Munene, is a professor of history and international relations at the United States International University Africa (USIU-A). He has taught in several universities in Europe, America and Africa, and published many articles and books. His academic excellence and advocacy have earned him an award as a UN-recognised expert on decolonisation. Prof. Munene gave a historical account of the Congo crisis, tracing it to the Berlin Conference of 1884, and argued that the country is “the source of both Pan-African agony and Pan-African consciousness”, because of being subjected to military, mercenary, commercial, mineral resource looting, and spiritual invasions.

Congo is geographically a big country and there actually seem to be two countries in one, Eastern and Western Congo. Those in Eastern Congo appear to be closer to East African countries than to Western Congo. To them, the zone around Kinshasa in Western Congo is like a foreign country and Eastern Congo is similarly a foreign country to those in Kinshasa. Congo is rich in strategic minerals and other forms of wealth like rubber and timber. He noted that DRC is similarly a source of African contradictions of extreme wealth in the midst of extreme poverty – a place of attraction for colonisers to extract wealth accompanied by the pain of poverty for African victims of colonialism. It attracts extra-continental adventurers and wealth looters.

Participants at the Berlin Conference, Munene reasoned, achieved two things. First, they partitioned the Congo zone so that the French, the British, the Portuguese, and the Germans each got a piece of the Congo zone. The biggest beneficiary of the partitioning was King Leopold of Belgium who acquired the entire DR Congo as his personal property, to be called ‘Leopold’s Congo’. The second achievement was to agree on how to claim other African territories without fighting. But Congo was set on a path of destruction.

The post-independence killing of Lumumba plunged Congo into Cold War chaos and acted as a warning to other African leaders of what could happen. Leaders of the soon-to-be-independent Kenya took note of those happenings and assured the West that all would be well because thugs would not run the government. Nairobi tried to reconcile the Congolese factions in the 1960s but external forces made sure that the reconciliation would not go far. Mobutu was the main man to be protected by the Western powers in the 1970s even as he looted his country dry. He became so rich and ran his country bankrupt, so much so that he could lend money to his country. He tried derailing the events in Angola, sponsoring Holden Roberto. In his private visits to the US, he still received honoured treatment from US President Jimmy Carter.

Mobutu’s ouster was due to both internal weaknesses as well as external pressure. Internally, he had alienated the Congolese so much that he did not have an army to rely on. He instead relied on mercenaries and mercenaries rarely fight when they should. They simply take the money and move elsewhere. Mobutu’s mercenaries abandoned him to his fate. The external factors involved a coalition of Congolese in exile under Laurent Desire Kabila, a purported follower of Lumumba and who was supported by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Zambia. Paul Kagame, initially operating from Uganda, came from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as a saviour. About two million genocide suspects, who escaped to Eastern Congo, endorsed Kabila. And so did Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni and other countries which joined the Kabila bandwagon which swept Mobutu out of office into exile in 1997.

With Kabila finally in Kinshasa as president, he changed the country’s name from Mobutu’s Zaire to Democratic Republic of Congo, DR Congo. He also chased his Ugandan and Rwandan supporters from Kinshasa. His bodyguards assassinated him in January 2001. He was succeeded by his son, Joseph Kabila. In addition, the anti-Mobutu allies started quarrelling as each country leader looked after his country’s national interests.

Some of those interests turned out to be exporting gold and other minerals from Eastern Congo. Some like Rwanda and Uganda, exchanged fire in Eastern Congo or, like Uganda and Zimbabwe, exchanging insults as to who was a lackey of the United States. Kabila transferred power to Felix Tshesekedi in 2019 after an election. Several countries have different excuses for having troops in Eastern Congo ranging from security to supporting Felix Tshesikedi’s government against such rebels as M23.

Congo also attracts extra-continental players who propel conflicts in return for access to different types of minerals. They supply the guns to keep the violence going and offer ‘humanitarian’ assistance for the victims. Among the extra-continental players in DR Congo are the EU, China, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, France, and Russia. Tshesekedi, probably observing Ukrainian indecision on giving minerals to Trump’s America, offered to give Trump access to Congolese minerals in return for security. The meeting with Masaad Boulos, advisor to Trump on Africa and the Middle East, who is also an in-law to Trump, reportedly yielded positive results. It might imply a return to the Mobutu days.

Prof Munene concluded that the violence in DR Congo is likely to continue partly because it is not in the perceived interests of the forces that control Congo’s resources such as the mining of the minerals. Those forces subject Congo to various types of invasions ranging from military invasion to commercial as well as beliefs that are designed to dehumanise and enslave people into submission. This is not a new challenge but a long-lasting one that has ravaged Congo for more than 140 years.

Another speaker, Prof. Mutombo Nkulu-N’Sengha, a citizen of DRC and a professor of Religion at California State University, Northridge, USA, is the Vice President of TPADI. In his presentation titled, Geopolitical and Pan-African Approach to the DR Congo Tragedy, he noted that foreign powers have vested interests in the Congo due to its vast mineral deposits. Western powers consider Congo, and indeed Africa, as their properties that can be used however they want, and keeping Africa in perpetual conflicts is part of their strategies for continued exploration and exploitation. Prof Mutombo said although many scholars are suggesting that DRC may be divided into two countries – Western Congo and Eastern Congo – just as the North and South Koreas, he is against demarcation of his native country. For him, the division does not necessarily bring a solution and gave the example of Sudan. Eastern Congo has been in the eye of the storm, he argued, because the largest deposits of minerals are found there. He concluded by calling on all Africans, particularly the Congolese, to rise up, and come together to engage the common enemy, the West.

The third speaker, Dr Peter Wafula Wekesa, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya, is a specialist in border community relations, border resources, identity politics, international relations as his main research focus. He is an accomplished academic with many publications to his credit. On DRC, Dr Wekesa believes that border and ethnicity issues may not be unconnected to the instability witnessed in the Congo region. Western Powers, he argues, capitalise on ethnic divisions amongst the Congolese to perpetrate their evil agenda, which is to keep the people under subjugation while they exploit their minerals. He therefore called on Congolese and indeed Africans to talk less about the things that divide them and dialogue more on those things that unite them.

Dr. Francis Khayundi looked at the DRC problems through a legal framework. An Assistant Professor of International Law at the United States International University, Africa, he is also an advocate of the High Court of Kenya. At USIU-Africa, he teaches and researches International Law, International Organisations, Refugee Protection, Human Rights, Governance, Data Protection, and International Relations. According to him, the Berlin Conference and its outcome were related to international law as the Western Powers needed to legitimise their actions in Africa through that conference.

The director of the TPADI Commission on African Politics, Governance and International Relations, Dr. Kakai considered the leadership question and its roles in the DRC crisis. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of History, Archaeology and Political Studies at Kenyatta University, Nairobi. Dr Kakai questions the quality of leadership in DRC and wonders if the invasion was as a result of the abundant mineral resources in the country or a result of the collusion between the government and foreign forces. He however insisted that no matter the level of conflict, the country should not be divided; but remain united and find a lasting solution to their problems.

The International President of The Pan African Dialogue Institute (TPADI), and organisers of the webinar, Dr Effiong Udo, thanked the panellists for giving the best of their scholarship in enlightening participants on the invasion of the Congo. He noted that what happens in the Congo was of paramount interest to the institute and should be of concern to everyone in Africa. ‘’As Pan-Africanists, we believe that an Injustice to one African is a tragedy to all Africans”, he said.

He regretted that the natural resources in Congo have become a curse that has sent millions of Congolese children, women and men to their early graves with no end in sight, stating that every blood spilt in Congo by the M23 militants is either feeding the greed of its leaders or enriching the Western contractors. He encouraged all to embrace dialogue, a peaceful and non-violent approach to this conflict against picking arms. According to him, violence has never solved a conflict. He called on the African Union to assist the leaders and citizens of Congo to resolve this prolonged conflict through dialogue and deep thinking or our people will continue to die like fools.

In the bustling heart of Nollywood, where stories mirror the pulse of the nation, filmmaker Omoni Oboli’s Love in Every Word emerges not merely as a romantic drama but as a profound allegory for Nigeria’s enduring love affair with itself.

The film, which follows Chioma—a Lagos career woman torn between her past and an unexpected romance—unfolds like a parable for the Nigerian condition: a nation grappling with inherited flaws, societal storms, and a love so fierce it borders on obsession. This is not just a tale of two lovers; it is a reflection of Nigeria’s journey to reconcile its contradictions, heal its wounds, and embrace a future where “all will be well,” no matter the tempests.

Chioma’s story begins with resistance. A modern Nigerian woman shaped by ambition and trauma, she cuts ties with a lover who fails her expectations and recoils from a father whose flaws once shattered her family. Her resolve to avoid men who mirror her father’s shortcomings mirrors the disillusionment many Nigerians feel toward their nation. Like Chioma, citizens often wrestle with a love-hate relationship with Nigeria—a country whose potential feels perpetually undermined by systemic failures, corruption, and the ghosts of past betrayals.

The film’s opening scenes—where Chioma demands back the gifts she gave her ex—echo the frustration of a populace weary of investing hope in leaders and systems that yield little return. Her toxic workplace, ruled by a tyrannical boss, mirrors the daily grind of Nigerians navigating a society where merit is stifled, opportunities are hoarded, and survival often depends on gritting one’s teeth through indignities. Yet, like Chioma, Nigerians persist. They show up, they work, they dream—even when the dream feels like a mirage.

Enter Obiora, the Igbo entrepreneur whose confidence and persistence disrupt Chioma’s guarded world. Played with magnetic charm by Uzor Arukwe, Obiora is no flawless knight; he carries the cultural baggage Chioma despises—accent, traditions, and a boldness that unnerves her. Yet, he embodies something greater: an unshakable belief in his worth and his right to love her. Here lies the metaphor for Nigeria’s untapped promise.

Obiora’s grand gesture—buying an entire office building to win Chioma’s attention—is audacious, almost reckless. But isn’t this the essence of Nigeria? A nation that, against all odds, continues to bet on itself? From the bustling markets of Onitsha to the tech hubs of Yaba, Nigerians daily perform miracles of resilience. They build empires from nothing, create art in chaos, and innovate where infrastructure falters. Like Obiora, Nigeria may not fit the mold of what the world—or even its people—expects, but it refuses to shrink. It demands to be seen, not for its scars, but for its spirit.

Chioma’s workplace serves as a microcosm of Nigeria’s systemic struggles. Her boss, a symbol of oppressive authority, hoards power and undermines her efforts—a reality familiar to many in a nation where leaders often prioritize self-interest over service. Yet, Chioma’s journey teaches a vital lesson: storms refine us. Her resignation from the job, prompted by a crisis of conscience, mirrors moments in Nigerian history when citizens rise—#EndSARS, voter mobilization, civic activism—to reclaim agency.

The film’s tension lies in Chioma’s internal battle: Will she let past pain dictate her future, or will she rewrite her story? Similarly, Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Generations inherited the traumas of colonialism, civil war, and military rule, but the choice remains: Do we chain ourselves to history, or do we, like Chioma, step into the unknown for a chance at redemption?

In Chioma’s friends, Ify and Ivie, we find the Achalugo—the voices of reason and community that anchor her. They represent Nigeria’s vibrant civil society, its artists, its grassroots movements, and its diaspora, all urging the nation toward self-love. “You’re pushing away a good man because of an accent?” Ify chides, echoing the irony of Nigerians who shun local solutions while romanticizing foreign saviors.

Obiora, the Odogwu Paranran (great warrior), embodies the fearless love required to transform Nigeria. His persistence is the relentless hope of farmers tilling arid land, teachers in crumbling classrooms, and nurses battling epidemics with scant resources. He does not beg for acceptance; he earns it through action. This is the lesson for Nigeria: To win the world’s respect, we must first believe in our worth.

The film’s crescendo is Chioma’s leap of faith—choosing Obiora despite her fears. It is a quiet revolution, akin to Nigeria’s moments of collective courage: the 2015 peaceful transfer of power, the creativity of Burna Boy and Chimamanda claiming global stages, and the resilience of IDPs rebuilding lives. Chioma’s choice whispers, “Love is not the absence of storms, but the courage to dance in the rain.”

Nigeria, too, must choose. Will we cling to cynicism, or embrace the audacity of hope? The “love” here is not naive—it is revolutionary. It is the love of Fela’s music raging against oppression, the love of Wole Soyinka’s pen defying tyranny, the love of market women pooling resources to send a child to school. It is a love that stares down dysfunction and says, “You cannot have my soul.”

Love in Every Word closes not with a fairy-tale ending, but with the promise of growth. Chioma and Obiora’s journey is just beginning—as is Nigeria’s. Our nation, like the film’s protagonists, is a work in progress. But progress demands faith.

To love Nigeria irrevocably is to be a realist and a dreamer. It is to acknowledge the oil spills in the Niger Delta and the ingenuity of startups turning waste into wealth. It is to decry banditry in the North while celebrating the peacemakers bridging divides. It is to groan under the weight of poor governance yet campaign tirelessly for accountability.

This love is not blind; it is visionary—seeing beyond the present chaos to the potential gleaming beneath.

Achalugo, the voices crying out for justice, and Odogwu Paranran, the warriors building a better Nigeria, are not mythical figures. They are the students coding through power cuts, the mothers rallying communities against insecurity, and the artists redefining our global narrative. They are you and I.

Nigeria, like Chioma, is learning to love itself—flaws, accents, and all. Our storms—insecurity, inflation, corruption—are fierce, but so is our resolve. The world whispers, “Break,” but Nigeria bends and rises, again and again, because our love is not a fleeting infatuation. It is an obsession, a covenant, a prayer etched into the soil of our ancestors.

In the words of Chinua Achebe, “Nigeria is what it is because its leaders are not what they should be.” Yet, the inverse is also true: Nigeria will be what it should be when its people—guided by the spirit of Achalugo and Odogwu Paranran—refuse to let go of love. We are Chioma, wrestling with our past. We are Obiora, daring to demand more. And in our collective story, the final act is not written by the storms we face, but by the love that outlasts them, and for me this is a testament to the unyielding faith in the fatherland.

All will be well. E go better. Because to love Nigeria is to believe in miracles–May Nigeria Win!