MORE than six decades after the wave of African independence swept across the continent, an uncomfortable question continues to linger in political discourse: did colonial domination truly end, or did it merely assume a different form? For many critics, the old chains did not disappear; they were simply reforged in subtler ways. The flags changed, colonial administrators departed, and national anthems rose, but structures of dependency — economic, political, and psychological — remained. What some once called colonial rule is now described by many scholars as neo-colonialism.
The late Ghanaian thinker, Kwame Nkrumah, warned that a nation could be politically independent while remaining economically controlled from outside. His caution still resonates because many African states continue to operate within global arrangements that critics argue favour external powers while constraining local autonomy. Yet, the more difficult question is whether these structures endure only because of foreign interests, or because African leaders themselves, intentionally or not, have helped sustain them.
The same criticism is even more forceful in the health sector. Public healthcare systems in many countries struggle under enormous pressure, yet rather than serving as champions of reform through personal commitment, many political elites seek treatment abroad. Critics have often pointed to a symbolic pattern: leaders from former British colonies looking to London, those from former French territories turning to Paris, others toward Madrid, Lisbon, Brussels, and more recently India or Dubai. Whether generalised or not, the symbolism carries weight. If leaders and even health officials do not trust domestic hospitals for themselves or their families, what confidence can ordinary citizens be expected to have?
This critique begins with governance. At independence, many African states inherited colonial institutions designed more for administration and control than for participatory development. Rather than fundamentally transforming these structures, critics argue, some post-colonial leaders adapted them to preserve power. Centralised authority, patronage networks, and weak accountability often survived independence. In this reading, the problem is not only the residue of colonialism but the reproduction of its logic by domestic elites.
ALSO READ: Abubakar Sokoto Mohammed: The Passage Of A Committed Comrade; By Jibrin Ibrahim
Economics offers another powerful illustration. Much of Africa remains tied to a familiar pattern: exporting raw materials while importing manufactured goods. Oil, gold, cocoa, cobalt, and other resources leave the continent in abundance, yet industrial transformation often remains limited. This pattern has long concerned scholars such as Walter Rodney, who argued that underdevelopment was linked not simply to internal weakness but to structures of extraction. For critics today, the tragedy is that some African elites participate in, and benefit from, these arrangements, even as ordinary citizens remain excluded from the wealth beneath their soil.
The result is a paradox repeatedly invoked in debates about Africa: extraordinary natural wealth existing alongside widespread poverty. In such a context, dependency appears not merely imposed from outside but reproduced from within.
That sense of dependency extends beyond economics into social institutions, where the gap between official rhetoric and elite practice often becomes glaring. Education, for instance, is frequently proclaimed the foundation of development. Governments announce free primary education, universal schooling, and reform agendas meant to expand opportunity. Yet many public systems remain plagued by overcrowding, inadequate facilities, and declining standards.
ALSO READ: Borno: Empathy, Resilience And Zulum’s Enduring Spirit; By Zainab Suleiman Okino
Tinubu Presidency: Governance Is About Truth And Explanations, Not Propaganda; By Owei Lakemfa
What sharpens criticism is the perception that political elites themselves often place little trust in the systems they oversee. While praising public education, many send their own children to expensive private academies or foreign schools. For critics, this reveals not simply inequality but a deeper contradiction: leaders asking citizens to rely on institutions they themselves avoid.
The same criticism is even more forceful in the health sector. Public healthcare systems in many countries struggle under enormous pressure, yet rather than serving as champions of reform through personal commitment, many political elites seek treatment abroad. Critics have often pointed to a symbolic pattern: leaders from former British colonies looking to London, those from former French territories turning to Paris, others toward Madrid, Lisbon, Brussels, and more recently India or Dubai. Whether generalised or not, the symbolism carries weight. If leaders and even health officials do not trust domestic hospitals for themselves or their families, what confidence can ordinary citizens be expected to have?
But history is not fixed. These chains can be broken. They can be broken when political elites commit to strengthening the institutions they themselves rely upon. They can be broken when resource wealth is transformed into productive development rather than private accumulation. They can be broken when sovereignty moves beyond symbolism into lived reality.
For many observers, this dependence is not only institutional but psychological. It reflects a lingering assumption that solutions lie elsewhere. Kenyan writer, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o, has often argued that decolonisation is not complete until the mind itself is liberated from inherited hierarchies of dependence. Some extend that argument to governance, asking whether political sovereignty can be genuine when so much confidence remains directed outward.
ALSO READ: Not Experience, But Integrity; The Case For Peter Obi; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
The Insecurity Triad: Money, Land, And Mind — A Definitive Articulation; By Max Amuchie
Yet dependency is not sustained only through social sectors. Security arrangements also reveal tensions. Many African states continue relying on foreign military support, external security partnerships, or outside mediation in domestic crises. Critics question what sovereignty means when fundamental security often depends on actors beyond national control. In some regions, resource conflicts, external rivalries, and arms flows have deepened the impression that independence has not fully translated into self-determination.
Still, reducing Africa’s challenges to a simple story of elite complicity would be incomplete. History, global inequality, and structural constraints matter. Some leaders have pursued serious reforms under difficult conditions, and parts of the continent have seen democratic gains, technological innovation, and new forms of regional cooperation. Africa is not merely a victim of old systems; it is also a site of contestation and renewal.
Indeed, there are signs of awakening. Youth movements increasingly challenge entrenched power. Civic actors demand accountability. Debates over industrial policy, regional integration, and economic sovereignty are growing. Institutions such as the African Union and the African Continental Free Trade Area represent efforts, however imperfect, to redefine Africa’s place in the global order.
ALSO READ: The Insecurity Triad: Money, Land, And Mind — A Definitive Articulation
Yet the central question persists. Can neo-colonial patterns truly be broken while economies remain largely extractive, institutions fragile, and elites often detached from the public systems they govern?
For many critics, political independence without economic autonomy and institutional trust remains incomplete freedom. Sovereignty, in this view, is not measured only by borders or flags but by whether nations can educate their children through schools leaders believe in, heal their citizens through hospitals leaders themselves use, and govern through institutions accountable to the public rather than dependent on external patronage.
This is why some argue that the anti-colonial struggle remains unfinished. The old chains may no longer be forged solely in imperial capitals. They may survive through debt structures, unequal trade, institutional dependence, and, some would argue, through choices made by African leadership itself.
But history is not fixed. These chains can be broken. They can be broken when political elites commit to strengthening the institutions they themselves rely upon. They can be broken when resource wealth is transformed into productive development rather than private accumulation. They can be broken when sovereignty moves beyond symbolism into lived reality.
The question is whether African leadership will help sever these chains or continue sustaining them. In that question lies one of the defining political debates of Africa’s future.
Comrade Danlami popularly known as Baba Lawan writes from Haliru Umar Street, Dorayi Karamar Unguwar Yamma, Gwale LGA, Kano State, Nigeria. He can be reached via email: lawanmusa363@gmail.com
