Together, they take a powerful look at Africa’s journey — from the continent’s deeply woven histories of struggle and resilience to its ongoing efforts to reclaim its cultural, political, and economic independence. This dialogue delves into the legacy of colonialism, the power of collective identity, and the crucial role of Africa’s youth in driving a new era of leadership and innovation.

As Africa stands at the crossroads of transformation, this conversation challenges us to reimagine what true freedom and continental solidarity mean in the 21st century — and how unity can serve as the foundation for a prosperous and sovereign Africa.

On her arrival, Yvonne interviewed one of the members of the “Famous Four,” a group celebrated for their groundbreaking work in African ancestry and heritage research.

Watch part of their inspiring conversation below:

The “Famous Four” includes pioneering organizations such as African Ancestry, the leading Black-owned ancestry company specializing in tracing African maternal and paternal lineages, and the non-profit Our Black Ancestry, which provides genealogical resources and a vibrant community for African American heritage research.

In addition to this interview, Yvonne also spoke with delegates who traveled from various countries including the United States to attend the ADDI Conference. These attendees shared their hopes for deeper diaspora connections, collaboration opportunities, and investment in Africa’s development.

The event reflects ADDI’s mission to unite Africans on the continent and in the diaspora through shared identity, economic empowerment, and cultural reconnection.

In an eye-opening and deeply reflective interview, Pan-Africanist and former African Union Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, sat down with news Analyst Yvonne Katsande to explore Africa’s path toward true independence politically, economically, and intellectually.

The interview, now available exclusively on our platform, dives into the heart of Africa’s developmental struggle, with a powerful emphasis on economic freedom, decolonizing education, and the underrecognized legacy of African women.

Watch the full interview below.

 “Africa Must Write Her Own Story”

Dr. Chihombori was candid about the ongoing challenges Africa faces post-independence, particularly the lingering effects of colonial structures that continue to influence governance, education, and economics.

A major point of discussion was the African education system, which Dr. Chihombori argues must be decolonized to reflect African values, history, and innovation. She stressed that economic development must be built from within through industry, intra-African trade, and policy alignment not dependence on the West.

 African Women: Erased From the Record?

In a poignant moment, the conversation shifted to the invisible contributions of African women in the liberation struggle and in governance.

Dr. Chihombori and Katsande raised examples of Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, funmilayo Ransome-Kuti, and liberation fighters across Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique, whose stories remain suppressed or distorted.

“Winnie Mandela didn’t just stand beside a man; she stood against an entire system of oppression. Lies were fabricated to silence her. Just like mine,” said Dr. Chihombori, referencing her controversial removal from her post as AU ambassador a move she says was fueled by politics and misinformation.

She emphasized that reclaiming women’s narratives is crucial for African identity and future leadership.

 “The Developments from ICAD 2025”. To begin with, I’d like to make reference to a panel discussion moderated by LN24 International’s Yvonne Katsande. She was joined by Ambassador Dr Arikana, the former AU ambassador to the US, as well as Professor Patrick Lumumba, who is a lawyer and advocate, as well as the former director of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission. And right at the commencement of the panel discussion, Yvone Katsande poses a question that addresses one of the most critical focuses for the African continent, which is the subject of extrication from detrimental treaties and organisations. In responding to the question on how African countries can accomplish this, Ambassador Dr Arikana brought to mind something quite important. She states that we first need to have an accurate understanding of why international organisations like the UN, IMF and WB were created, and why that does not align with the best interests of Africa. She states that these institutions were formed after WWII when the Western World had destroyed itself again, and they needed systematised ways to justify plunder.

This immediately brought to mind what Professor Patrick Lumumba highlighted in his keynote address before the panel discussion, which is that neo-colonialism poses a threat far greater than colonisation itself, because this time around the colonial actors are faced with desperation – which we highlighted is due to the fact that Europe is spent – they do not have an abundance of resources that offer them a comparative advantage in global trade. And so, in the post colonial and post WWII era, neocolonists created international organisations that technically respect the provisions of laws and treaties that demand a respect for human rights and sovereignty in Africa, BUT that simultaneously create a legal justification for plunder.

And before we delve into manifestations of this legal justification for plunder, let’s revisit the moment where the President of Loveworld Incorporated highlighted the reality of Africa being the new world, where new resources are being discovered even now, while Europe is spent.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS: A NEOCOLONIAL MODEL FOR LEGALLY JUSTIFIED PLUNDER

So, let’s talk about international organisations as a neo-colonial model for legally justified plunder; and we ought to begin with the Bretton Woods institutions: being the WB and the IMF – in light of Structural adjustment policies. Now, structural adjustment policies were developed by two of the IMF and the World Bank. After the run on the dollar of 1979–80, the United States adjusted its monetary policy and instituted other measures so it could begin competing aggressively for capital on a global scale. This was successful, as can be seen from the current account of the country’s balance of payments. Enormous capital flows to the United States had the corollary of dramatically depleting the availability of capital to poor and middling countries. Giovanni Arrighi has observed that this scarcity of capital, which was heralded by the Mexican default of 1982, created a propitious environment for the counterrevolution in development thought and practise that the neoliberal Washington Consensus began advocating at about the same time. Taking advantage of the financial straits of many low- and middle-income countries, the agencies of the consensus foisted on them measures of “structural adjustment” that did nothing to improve their position in the global hierarchy of wealth but greatly facilitated the redirection of capital flows toward sustaining the revival of US wealth and power.

Structural adjustment policies, as they are known today, originated due to a series of global economic disasters during the late 1970s: the oil crisis, debt crisis, multiple economic depressions, and stagflation. These fiscal disasters led policy makers to decide that deeper intervention was necessary to improve a country’s overall well-being – this was a big mistake.

Now, Mexico was the first country to implement structural adjustment in exchange for loans. During the 1980s the IMF and World Bank created loan packages for the majority of countries in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa as they experienced economic crises. To this day, economists can point to few, if any, examples of substantial economic growth among the LDCs under SAPs. Moreover, very few of the loans have been paid off. Hence, pressure mounts to forgive these debts, some of which demand substantial portions of government expenditures to service. In addition, there are multiple criticisms that focus on different elements of SAPs. There are many examples of structural adjustments failing. In Africa, instead of making economies grow fast, structural adjustment actually had a contractive impact in most countries. Economic growth in African countries in the 1980s and 1990s fell below the rates of previous decades. Agriculture suffered as state support was radically withdrawn. After the independence of African countries in the 1960s, industrialization had begun in some places, but it was now wiped out. In any case, let’s look at these criticisms in greater detail.

THE APT CRITICISMS OF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT PROGRAMMES

First is the undermining of national sovereignty. More specifically, critics claim that SAPs threaten the sovereignty of national economies because an outside organisation is dictating a nation’s economic policy. One of the core problems with conventional structural-adjustment programs in this respect is the subsequent disproportionate cutting of social spending that is then mandated by structural adjustment programmes. When public budgets are slashed, the primary victims are disadvantaged communities who typically are not well organised. An almost classic criticism of structural adjustment is pointing out the dramatic cuts in the education and health sectors. In many cases, governments ended up spending less money on these essential services than on servicing international debts.

The second criticism is concerns Neo-colonialism and neo-imperialism. Concerning this, SAPS are viewed by some postcolonialists as the modern procedure of colonisation. By minimising a government’s ability to organise and regulate its internal economy, pathways are created for multinational companies to enter states and extract their resources. Upon independence from colonial rule, many nations that took on foreign debt were unable to repay it, limited as they were to production and exportation of cash crops, and restricted from control of their own more valuable natural resources (oil, minerals) by SAP free-trade and low-regulation requirements. In order to repay interest, these postcolonial countries are forced to acquire further foreign debt, in order to pay off previous interests, resulting in an endless cycle of financial subjugation.

Furthermore, Osterhammel’s The Dictionary of Human Geography defines colonialism as the “enduring relationship of domination and mode of dispossession, usually (or at least initially) between an indigenous (or enslaved) majority and a minority of interlopers (colonisers), who are convinced of their own superiority, pursue their own interests, and exercise power through a mixture of coercion, persuasion, conflict and collaboration”. The definition adopted by The Dictionary of Human Geography suggests (correctly so) that Washington Consensus SAPs resemble modern, financial colonisation!

Then there is Austerity. Critics hold SAPs responsible for much of the economic stagnation that has occurred in the borrowing countries. SAPs emphasise maintaining a balanced budget, which forces austerity programs. The casualties of balancing a budget are often social programs. For example, if a government cuts education funding, universality is impaired, and therefore long-term economic growth. Similarly, cuts to health programs have allowed diseases such as AIDS to devastate some areas’ economies by destroying the workforce. A 2009 book by Rick Rowden entitled The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against AIDS claims that the IMF’s monetarist approach towards prioritising price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint (low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing countries from being able to scale up long-term public investment as a percentage of GDP in the underlying public health infrastructure. The book claims the consequences have been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to dilapidated health infrastructure, inadequate numbers of health personnel, and demoralising working conditions that have fueled the “push factors” driving the brain drain of nurses migrating from poor countries to rich ones, all of which has undermined public health systems and the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries!

THE HARMFUL IMPACT OF FOREIGN AID ON RECIPIENT COUNTRIES AND CITIZENS

Let’s also discuss foreign aid. The problem with foreign aid is notable in various contexts and performed by various actors. A high proportion of foreign aid is in the form of loans, which cripple developing countries through the accumulation of debt. Many rich nations receive more in interest payments from recipient countries than they give in “aid”. Especially since the 2008 financial crash, western governments have exploited their ability to borrow money at low rates by setting up aid programmes lending to poor countries at much higher rates, minting money on the backs of the poor. This is not aid, it’s a scandal. However, this problem is embedded in the very nature of humanitarian or foreign aid itself.

DEVELOPING DEMOCRACY: CHARTING AFRICA’S PATHWAY FROM NEOLIBERALISM AND EXPLOITATION

Let’s also talk about democracy, because it is a massive feature at ICAD – particularly, the idea of decolonising democracy. We are often told that democracy is the ideal system, the pinnacle of governance, really. But is it really suitable for every society, especially in Africa? This question becomes even more relevant when we consider how democracy has led to the rise of civilian governments that have been penetrated by neocolonial influences in many African nations, or even has amounted to a system where people vote based on religion or ethnicity rather than policies or capabilities. So, what is a well appropriated and commensurate adoption of democracy in Africa?

In Africa, the practice of a western liberal form of democracy has had its share of challenges. For instance, elections (while being crucial) have also brought  civil unrest – so much so, that people anticipate unrest and violence, often staying home or leaving their towns during voting periods (hence the often concerning percentage of the population that commits to casting a vote). In addition, democracy has not always brought the peace it promises; instead, it has exacerbated divisions, particularly along ethnic and religious lines, as we see that at times, people in Africa vote for someone from their community or religion, not necessarily the most capable person to lead the country.

So, what’s the alternative? I think that there are tenets of democracy that are essential – like elections. But, we need to rethink how we select leaders. And the same way we require education and training to become a doctor or a teacher, there should be a process to vet and prepare individuals who aspire to lead a country. Leaders should have the capability, education, and (more importantly) experience and a track record of good works in leadership, in which they have advanced society.

Second, we need to move away from the idea of multiparty systems, especially in countries as diverse as those in Africa. Multiparty politics often exacerbate divisions rather than unify people. Instead, a single-party system with room for various ideas and solutions could provide a more cohesive structure. It is not practical for citizens to have to choose from 200 or 900 political parties. That is a pre-condition for coalition governance – because of course there will not be a clear majority!

Now, this is not to say that there must be a homogenisation of political parties – absolutely not! We need competition that creates an incentive to be the best at responding to the mandate for citizens. Rather, this is to say that the failure to conglutinate and work as one with people you align with, thus resulting in there being many parties, is an indictment on the political class. In fact, it already proves there is an incapacity to cooperate with others for the advancement of a country, and so, citizens cannot afford to trust you. So, these are some of the things that need to be corrected when it comes to how Africa appropriates democracy.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso

The Focus Areas include Credible Elections, economic Sovereignty, Indigenous Governance Models through developing an “Afro-Democracy” that aligns with African values and realities. Youth and Digital Innovation by Harnessing Africa’s youth potential in the digital space. Key Speakers include Prof. Patrice Lumumba, Former Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Former AU Ambassador to the United States Amb. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, Nigerian Vice President Kashim Shettima and Speaker Tajudeen Abbas just to name a few.

ICAD: Reclaiming Africa’s Sovereignty

The pursuit of Africa’s sovereignty is not merely a political aspiration but a radical reimagining of economic, cultural, and political systems to centre African agency, dignity, and self-determination. The legacy of colonialism and the ongoing neocolonial structures—manifested through exploitative trade systems, foreign aid dependency, and Western-dominated financial institutions—have entrenched Africa’s structural dependency, sapping the continent’s ability to chart its own destiny. Reclaiming sovereignty demands dismantling these systems through Afrocentric policies and actions that prioritize African solutions, rooted in the principles of Pan-Africanism, self-reliance, and resistance to globalist agendas that perpetuate Western dominance.

The Roots of Structural Dependency

The Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century, formalized at the 1884 Berlin Conference, carved the continent into artificial boundaries, prioritizing European economic interests over African social and political realities. This colonial framework reorganized African economies to serve as extractive hubs for raw materials, feeding Europe’s Industrial Revolution while dismantling indigenous systems of governance, trade, and cultural cohesion. Post-independence, the promise of liberation was undermined by neocolonial mechanisms—structural adjustment programs (SAPs) imposed by the IMF and World Bank, conditional aid, and trade agreements that locked African nations into exporting primary commodities while importing manufactured goods at unfavourable terms. These policies entrenched a dependency culture, where African economies remained tethered to Western markets and institutions. For instance, the reliance on cash crops and natural resources priced by the West, a colonial legacy, continues to limit economic diversification, leaving nations vulnerable to global price fluctuations. Foreign aid, often tied to political and economic reforms aligned with Western liberal ideologies, has further eroded sovereignty by imposing external governance models that clash with African communal values and realities. This dynamic has fostered a cycle of debt, poverty, and political instability, with 72% of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s population living on less than $1.90 a day in 2018, despite its vast mineral wealth. Zimbabwe-born public speaker Joshua Maponga explains where true power lies: The economy. Without control of it, it would be misguided to claim sovereignty.

Reclaiming Africa’s Sovereignty through Economic Diversification and Industrialization

Reclaiming Africa’s sovereignty requires a paradigm shift toward Reclaiming Africa’s sovereignty requires a paradigm shift toward Afrocentric policies that prioritize local agency, cultural identity, and economic self-sufficiency.  Afrocentricity, as a framework, positions Africans as agents of their own history, rejecting the Eurocentric lens that has long defined development. Key strategies include Economic Diversification and Industrialization: African nations must move beyond primary commodity exports by investing in value-added industries. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), launched in 2018, offers a framework for intra-African trade, reducing reliance on external markets. By fostering regional supply chains and processing raw materials locally, Africa can retain wealth and create jobs.

Reclaiming Africa’s Sovereignty through Repossessing Financial Systems

Western-dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank have imposed neoliberal policies that prioritize market liberalization over African priorities. Establishing African-led financial institutions, such as an expanded African Development Bank (AfDB), can provide funding free from external conditionalities. Additionally, leveraging local capital markets and mobilizing domestic savings can reduce dependence on foreign loans.

Reclaiming Africa’s Sovereignty through Decolonizing Governance

Afrocentric governance models should draw on pre-colonial communal systems, which emphasized collective responsibility and accountability. The Afrocentric school argues that traditional African leaders operated with a communal spirit, minimizing corruption—a stark contrast to the extractive colonial systems that persist in post-colonial governance. Policies must prioritize human-centered development, focusing on basic needs like food security, healthcare, and education, rather than Western-imposed liberal democratic frameworks.

Anti-Colonial and Anti-Globalist Finance

As an anti-globalist finance advocate, I reject the notion that Africa’s development must conform to Western capitalist models. Globalist finance, driven by institutions like the IMF, prioritizes profit over people, perpetuating a system where African resources enrich foreign corporations while local populations languish. For example, China’s growing influence—while less conditional than Western aid—often prioritizes Chinese interests, with $300 billion in trade in 2023 dwarfing U.S.-Africa trade. An anti-colonial financial strategy demands Sovereign Wealth Fund. African nations with resource wealth, like Nigeria or Angola, should establish sovereign wealth funds to reinvest resource revenues into infrastructure, education, and technology, rather than allowing profits to be siphoned offshore. Then rejecting Tied Aid. Conditional aid often serves as a neocolonial tool, dictating policy and undermining sovereignty. African governments must negotiate aid on their terms or reject it outright, prioritizing partnerships that respect territorial integrity. To counter the dominance of Western currencies like the dollar and euro, African nations could explore regional or strengthening their currencies to facilitate intra-African trade and reduce exposure to global financial volatility.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe