Julius Malema and the Route to African Development: A Preliminary Analysis of the Wider Issues

By Hassan A. Salihu

Julius Malema, 44, a human rights activist, humanist, and Africanist, as well as a maverick activist, returned to Nigeria in August 2025 with an urgent message on African unity and integration. He is the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, a thorn in the flesh of the ANC’s government in South Africa, who has some charges bordering on hate speech levied against him. Malema was a guest of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) in August 2025 and delivered a keynote speech at an NBA conference held in Enugu, where he shared his thoughts on topical and current issues affecting Africa and the world.

Malema mounted the rostrum on August 24 to deliver the trending news of calling for African rebirth, condemned xenophobic attacks taking place in his country and in other places against other Africans, and punctuated his speech with adulations for Nigeria for its support of his country during its darkest days of apartheid. He concluded, as Nkrumah did some decades ago, by urgently calling on African countries to unite in turning the tide against the West for its exploitative tendencies and its controlled institutions, which have a proclivity to be parasitic, thereby harming the African economy. He placed the responsibility of leading Africa out of the depressing Western control on Nigeria and South Africa, the two giant nations on the continent

Ordinarily, every African would be home with his homily with nostalgia and assurance that the land is not entirely occupied by impotence alone; here is a revolutionary man spilling fire both home and abroad. So much was packed into the speech, including external debt, international trade, loans, Western control of the world and its implications, Nigeria-South African relations, and other critical issues, which have become talking points across Africa and beyond. However, the current preliminary analysis is limited to appraising his call, which translates to a movement to one government and one destiny for Africa.

Since the attainment of independence by African nations predominantly in the 1960s and 1970s, and following the neocolonialism that ensued afterwards, there have been discussions on the pathway to African development, given its gloomy economic outlook, despite its enormous potential. One of these schools of thought is represented by those who hold the fatalistic idea that the continent cannot develop without Western ideas and economic theories playing a significant role in its liberation. This perspective has been challenged by some Afrocentric writers who have shared the perspective that waiting for Western nations to bring development to Africa will be a forlorn hope, as the relationship between them and the Western world is ideological and driven by economic determinism; whatever they do is to project capitalism and make it possible to drive economic development for the benefit of their home countries.

Some years ago, at a time when the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was transitioning to the African Union, the concept of African Renaissance was floated and championed by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Olusegun Obasanjo, although with differing depths of thought and pragmatism. Undoubtedly, awareness of the need for reconnaissance was created among a critical mass on the continent by them, but minor achievements were recorded by the leaders in the process. The ideals of Pan-Africanism, encapsulated in the African Renaissance, are currently being promoted by the AMANDLA Institute, which is owned by Dr. Kayode Fayemi and his wife.

Ever since, a more concerning dimension has emerged, particularly after the return of democracy to many African countries. It is worth noting that the continent trades more with outsiders than among its own members, with the balance of trade tilted against the continent. Much as they do in attracting foreign direct investment, the people involved have noted higher returns on investment elsewhere and have been moving there due to two factors: lower purchasing power and a more depressing governance environment on the continent.

It was in the midst of these gloomy economic pictures that Julius Malema entered the debate with a kind of Nkrumah’s sermon on Africa’s salvation. He thundered to the effect that: ‘Africa must reject any shackle of oppression from the West, including their offspring, the Bretton Woods institutions, for their documented parasitic disposition.’ He, in return, challenged African leaders to shed the toga of being servants to the Western world, recalibrating Fidel Castro’s thoughts on capitalism. He suggested that they should trade more among themselves and borrow more from within the continent than from outside it. In this new reawakening, he charges both South Africa and Nigeria to provide the leadership, promising a future of prosperity and self-reliance for Africa.

Ever since he made the headline submission, every African-centric discussion group has adopted a new tone and raised new discussion points around the issue of African liberation. In fact, Malema is not the author of the idea he shared with passion and strong convictions at the 2025 Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) conference, held in Enugu from August 22 to 28. He has only reiterated the points made by radical post-independence African leaders, and even before then, during the wave of Pan-Africanism. No doubt, the names of Kwame Nkrumah and Julius Nyerere, among others, were louder on the issue during their lifetimes, and their ideas continue to resonate in Malema’s call for African unity.

A critical appraisal of the reawakening would necessitate an examination of the environment to determine if the sermon has any chance of being adopted as a new charter. Undoubtedly, the continent has witnessed increased prosperity. However, the bulk of it benefits neo-colonial interests, of which France is more guilty and notorious through the outright exploitation of the resources of most of its colonies, until the recent rebellion against it in West Africa, which people hope and pray is contagious. Meanwhile, Ibrahim Traore in Burkina Faso has emerged as the poster boy of the resolve and rebellion against Western imperialism. Recently, more mineral resources have been discovered in many countries. However, extra-African powers have invaded the continent with new scramblers emerging, such as India, China, Russia, and Brazil, showing their presence. However, Africans are concerned, given the history of resource exploitation in Africa. This development represents a shift away from a generally accommodating or tolerant approach. These powers are no longer averse to the idea of recolonising the continent for the sake of capital.

This is where Malema needs to be more forthcoming on how to resist the new onslaught on the continent. African leaders, as he has observed, have no attachment to any ideological politics. The philosophers among them are viewed as dangerous and contagious, a band to which Ibrahim Traore belongs and invokes in the young-at-heart Africans. Not too long ago, some African leaders were seen engaging in unspeakable actions in Washington, DC, during a visit to the White House. With that unfortunate turn of events, one of the revolutionary legs or pillars is gone, as an invitation to visit any of the Western capitals is valued more by the leaders, intended to empty the continent of any iota of resentment and resistance to the game being played by dominant capitalist nations.

Another factor that may conspire against the recanted sermon given by Malema is the love that African leaders have for public positions. It will be an uphill task for some of them, particularly those married to the notion of tenure elongation, which Malema has eloquently challenged, would be a significant obstacle to the new sermon on African rebirth. Indeed, some of them appear like ghosts, yet they are in love with the aroma of power. After receiving many years of patronage at the state’s expense, it is inconceivable for them to contemplate living outside of power. This is precisely what Malema wants by asking them to surrender to a supernatural power in order to fast-track Africa’s development.

The youths who are likely to come to the aid of the continent in implementing the agenda appear not yet to be aware of this historical role. Some reorientation may be necessary to keep them in tune for the great job. How far can the proposal survive in view of the difficulties that the European Union is facing in forging ahead with the political Union agenda, and the peculiarly challenging economic environment of the continent, which prompts its youth to migrate to other parts of the world for a better living environment, is a critical challenge. Most African talents prefer to migrate outside the continent and send remittances back to their home countries, rather than staying and contributing to their development. What about the backlash effect of the proposal?

The West would not give up without a fight, having been used to what Castro would call a system of privileges, dancing on the sweat of others. What then happens if that is a reality? The West will fight back at any idea of not making banana pearls no longer available for the goat to feed on. With people experiencing poverty, posted economic statistics on the continent are at the mercy of the advanced capitalist states to manipulate and sow seeds of discord among African countries. Currently, only a few countries can support the Clarion call being made by Malema.

The West has the structure of the international system, favourable to them, with which to form a circle around them. Castro, of blessed memory, once offered advice: ‘Come together to take collective actions against the entrenched system of oppression you have found yourself in. The West will hardly do anything against you. This is because they need you more than you need them.’ In the environment that will follow, this author believes that a fight will definitely arise when men are needed in Africa to give the anti-imperialist struggles a more noticeable push, rather than children, as there will be a fight between the oppressors and the oppressed, with each side suffering a cost. There are men, truly, but the corridors of power in Africa are not giving confidence about their good harvest.

Evidently, the continent has become more dependent over the years. This tendency was displayed by the late president of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, who, without diplomatic finesse, accused America of prolonging the fight against boko haram in Nigeria because it refused to sell weapons to the country, hiding under a specific law in America. Although a rebuttal was later launched by Femi Adesina, the president’s media aide, the point had been made by President Buhari in July 2015 during a thank-you visit to the White House. The observation may have had some merit, but what was of much greater concern to this piece was the desperation and the entitlement mentality that undergirded it. The takeaway from the referenced case is that there is a sense and probably a feeling that the Western world must, of necessity, come to rescue the continent. While the ideological dimension of this entitlement stance is not lost on this author, I take the liberty to follow the position of Prof. Adeniran that the continent is unlucky to be raped by both external and internal forces, making it desperate for a solution. The point being made is that the level of vulnerability and susceptibility suffered by African countries surpasses that of earlier times in the continent’s history, which requires more effort to understand and appreciate in all its dimensions. For instance, it is not conceivable for these countries to think outside the box in overcoming terrorism, the root and seed of which has been traced to some notable Western countries. The continent’s leaders currently hope that the resolution of the conflict will come from the same Western powers.

Consequently, the statistical perspective is alarming in this regard of deepening dependence on the West. For instance, twenty countries that are at risk of carrying a significant portion of the debt burden are located in Africa. Already, four of them —Zambia, Chad, Ethiopia, and one other country — are at the departure lounge of defaulters. The level of intra-African trade, at around 10% or 12%, remains low compared to intra-Asian trade, which averages around 60%. The significant impact of this is that the continent’s acceleration towards economic integration, which often provides a basis for political integration, is at a low level. The hypothesis about the role of poverty in slowing down integration has been tested positively, especially in Africa, where the Southern African Development Community (SADC) appears to be ahead in this regard, questioning and confirming the hypothesis. Nigeria, a notable country to reckon with in terms of debt, employment, and poverty issues, is also a notable example. The country, another notable nation in Africa, has its machines contributing to the worsening of statistics on leading economic indicators, notably in high debt servicing, which accounted for 29% of its national budget last year, despite a gradual decline in food prices across the country. Again, the statistics on economic performance, such as the volume of debt, external reserves, and inflation, are no longer as alarming as they were over two years ago for the country. However, from the practical reality of street economics, there is no cheering news to the masses on the streets of Nigeria.

Some are inclined and have offered the BRICS platform as a credible alternative to the hegemonic control of the West, especially that of the US. Concerns have been expressed about the formation of the BRICS by pioneering member states, as well as the effects of global reliance on the US dollar as the dominant international currency. Although the leading nations, such as China and Russia, are currently within the orbit of the organisation, concerns have been raised about its ability to cause a fundamental disruption to the existing global system. If that is the case, those African countries that are now members may be emboldened to ask the question that Daniel Bach once criticised Nigeria for failing to ask when some elements of power knocked at the nation’s door in the 1970s, shifting global attention to the country.

Given the allusion earlier made to the declining standard of governance on the continent, I do not see any staying power other than the power of ideology, which is now, at best, non-existent. Meanwhile, while one can say that African people seem more united, judging by the volume of unofficial transactions that take place among them and other traditional ties, their various governments are not penetrative beyond the official façade of diplomatic relations, which often appears decorative and at best corrosive, while not efficiently prioritising the multifaceted human dimension to diplomatic relations.

It is inevitable to conclude that the call made by Malema, judging by the submissions made in these preliminary remarks, was remarkable, as it represented a call for collective actions in changing the narratives about Africa and its place in the global political economy. No informed African will quarrel with the call. Where arguments are likely to ensue is the practicality of the call, given the deepening level of the crisis in Africa, with the fast-disappearing philosophers as political leaders, and the advancement in capitalism that makes itself manifest and survives in most areas. The task before Africans and their allies is to move beyond rhetoric and come forward with concrete plans to actualise the submission of ‘one continent, one destiny, one government.’ For now, it is a daunting task but doable in the long run.

Prof. Hassan A. Saliu, is of Department of Political Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin – Nigeria

August 31, 2025