(6) Why Does Africa Continue to Export So Many Raw Materials Instead of Processing More of Them Locally?

 

Why Does Africa Continue to Export So Many Raw Materials Instead of Processing More of Them Locally?

AFRICA'S INDUSTRIAL FUTURE | RAW MATERIALS, VALUE ADDITION AND ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY

The central question

Africa possesses enormous quantities of natural resources. It produces oil, natural gas, gold, copper, cobalt, lithium, bauxite, manganese, uranium, cocoa, coffee, timber and numerous other commodities.

Yet much of this wealth leaves the continent in relatively unprocessed or minimally processed forms.

The materials are subsequently refined, transformed into industrial components, manufactured into finished products and sold internationally at substantially different stages of the value chain.

This raises a fundamental economic question:

Why does a continent with so much of the world's raw-material wealth still struggle to capture a larger share of the industrial value generated from those resources?

Consider the cocoa industry.

A cocoa-producing country may export cocoa beans, while processing, chocolate manufacturing, branding, distribution and much of the final commercial value take place elsewhere.

The same structural question applies to minerals.

A country can export copper concentrate or lithium-bearing material while importing more sophisticated products made from those resources.

The problem is not simply that Africa exports raw materials.

International commodity trade is normal and can be economically beneficial.

The deeper problem is that Africa frequently captures too little of the additional value, technology, industrial employment and intellectual property created after extraction.

This is a question about the structure of African economies, the organisation of international trade, industrial capacity and economic bargaining power.

The historical origins: Africa inherited an extractive economic structure

One important explanation lies in the historical development of African economies.

During colonial rule, many African territories were organised around the extraction and export of commodities needed by industrial economies elsewhere.

Infrastructure such as railways, ports and transport corridors was frequently developed to connect mines and plantations to export terminals.

This created economic structures in which:

• Minerals were extracted for international markets.

• Agricultural commodities were produced for export.

• Processing industries were concentrated elsewhere.

• Local manufacturing developed unevenly.

• Transport infrastructure often prioritised export routes over domestic industrial integration.

After independence, many countries inherited economies heavily dependent on a limited number of commodity exports.

Political independence did not automatically transform those production structures.

However, colonial history is not the entire explanation. Post-independence policy decisions, institutional weaknesses, investment choices, international market conditions and domestic political interests also influenced the outcome.

The important question is why many countries have struggled to change these inherited structures despite decades of independence.

The economics: Why don't African countries simply build processing factories?

This is where the problem becomes more complicated.

It is tempting to assume that if a country possesses minerals or agricultural commodities, it should automatically process them domestically.

But processing requires substantial investment, technology, energy, skills, infrastructure and access to buyers.

Consider a copper-processing facility.

A company considering investment must evaluate:

• Is electricity sufficiently reliable and affordable?

• Is there enough copper supply to keep the facility operating?

• Is water available?

• Are qualified metallurgical engineers available?

• Can processed copper compete with established international producers?

• Are transport and export arrangements reliable?

• Can investors recover their capital over a reasonable period?

If the answers are unfavourable, an investor may prefer to process the material elsewhere.

The International Energy Agency identifies unreliable electricity, infrastructure weaknesses, shortages of skilled workers, political risks and currency risks as important barriers to developing African mineral value chains.

This is an important distinction: Africa's processing challenge is not simply a failure of political will. It is also a problem of industrial economics.

Six structural reasons Africa exports so many raw materials

A. Insufficient electricity and industrial infrastructure

Mineral processing can be extremely energy-intensive.

Aluminium smelting, for example, requires enormous quantities of dependable electricity.

A country may possess substantial bauxite reserves but lack the affordable electricity, infrastructure and industrial ecosystem necessary to compete in aluminium production.

Similarly, mineral processing requires transport, water, storage, chemicals and reliable logistics.

UNCTAD's 2024 Economic Development in Africa Report identifies infrastructure gaps as a major source of African trade costs, with transport, energy and connectivity constraints undermining regional production networks.

The consequence: Exporting the unprocessed material can be commercially easier than building an entire industrial ecosystem around it.

B. Limited access to long-term industrial finance

A modern refinery, smelter, chemical-processing facility or food-processing complex can require hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars.

Investors must finance construction, equipment, engineering, technology, environmental compliance and operating expenses.

But many African economies face:

• High borrowing costs.

• Currency instability.

• Limited domestic capital markets.

• Government debt pressures.

• Uncertainty about long-term industrial policy.

• Limited availability of patient investment capital.

Mining companies may find extraction projects easier to finance because the commodity can be exported relatively quickly.

A processing facility may require a much longer investment horizon.

The IMF's 2024 analysis of critical minerals in sub-Saharan Africa identifies financing constraints as a major barrier, alongside technological and infrastructure limitations.

C. Foreign companies often control the most valuable stages of production

Ownership and control matter.

A country may possess the mineral deposits, but international companies can control important elements of the value chain:

• Exploration technology.

• Mining equipment.

• Processing technology.

• Financing.

• Commodity trading.

• International logistics.

• Refining and manufacturing relationships.

This does not mean every foreign investor deliberately prevents African industrialisation.

Foreign investment can provide capital, expertise, technology and market access.

The problem arises when the relationship remains limited to extraction and export, without sufficiently developing domestic suppliers, engineers, technology and processing capacity.

UNCTAD's 2026 Trade and Development Report emphasises that export earnings alone do not guarantee development gains; local ownership, capabilities and access to higher-value activities matter.

D. African countries frequently negotiate separately

Consider a region containing several countries with deposits of related minerals.

One country produces cobalt, another copper, another lithium and another manganese.

Together, they could potentially support a larger industrial ecosystem.

But if each country negotiates separately, pursues competing investment incentives and attempts to build isolated processing facilities, opportunities for economies of scale can be lost.

The OECD's recent research on African critical minerals identifies fragmented national strategies, trade restrictions and insufficient regional coordination as barriers to competitive processing.

It argues that regional processing hubs can be more viable than requiring every producing country to establish its own facilities.

E. Skills and technological capabilities remain insufficient in some sectors

Extraction and processing require different technical capabilities.

Mining requires geological expertise, heavy equipment, drilling and extraction engineering.

Processing can require:

• Chemical engineering.

• Metallurgy.

• Industrial chemistry.

• Materials science.

• Automation.

• Advanced quality control.

• Environmental engineering.

A country may have experienced mining engineers but lack sufficient specialists to operate a sophisticated refinery or advanced materials plant.

This is why industrialisation must include universities, technical colleges, research institutions and private-sector training.

F. The global market is already competitive

China has developed enormous industrial processing capacity in several strategic supply chains.

Its advantages include established infrastructure, large industrial markets, experienced manufacturers, technology ecosystems and interconnected suppliers.

African processing companies entering these markets must compete against established international operations.

The challenge is therefore not merely to build a factory.

It is to build one that can operate efficiently, obtain reliable inputs, meet international standards and sell its products competitively.

This explains why indiscriminate export bans or compulsory domestic processing requirements can sometimes backfire.

A country that prohibits raw exports before building viable processing capacity may discourage investment, reduce export earnings or simply redirect production elsewhere.

The OECD specifically warns that fragmented export restrictions can undermine regional value chains and create uncompetitive processing facilities.

Five African industries that reveal the problem

The raw-material challenge becomes clearer when examined through actual industries.

Case study 1: Cobalt — Democratic Republic of the Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is central to global cobalt production.

Cobalt is used in various battery chemistries, industrial applications and other technologies.

Yet extracting cobalt is not the same as controlling the battery industry.

The value chain includes:

1. Mining cobalt-bearing ores.

2. Concentrating and refining minerals.

3. Producing battery-grade chemicals.

4. Manufacturing cathode materials.

5. Manufacturing battery cells.

6. Producing battery packs and energy-storage systems.

7. Manufacturing electric vehicles and other products.

The IMF's April 2024 analysis reported that approximately 74% of global cobalt mining occurred in the DRC at the time, while 97% of its cobalt exports by value went to China, mostly in unprocessed form. These figures describe the period analysed, not a verified 2026 market share.

The investigative question: Why should a country with such an important position in cobalt extraction capture so little of the wider battery manufacturing opportunity?

Case study 2: Cocoa — Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire

Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire are major global cocoa producers.

Yet producing cocoa beans and controlling the international chocolate industry are two different economic activities.

The value chain includes:

• Cocoa cultivation.

• Fermentation and drying.

• Grinding and processing.

• Cocoa butter and cocoa powder production.

• Chocolate manufacturing.

• Packaging and branding.

• International distribution and retail.

African countries have developed some processing capacity, but they still have opportunities to expand into higher-value manufacturing, branding and commercial distribution.

The investigative question: Why should countries producing the agricultural raw material capture only a limited share of the profits generated by finished consumer products?

Case study 3: Lithium — Zimbabwe and other African producers

Lithium has become strategically important because of its use in rechargeable batteries.

But lithium mining does not automatically create a battery manufacturing industry.

The value chain includes mineral extraction, concentration, chemical conversion, battery-material production, cell manufacturing and battery-pack assembly.

Zimbabwe has pursued greater domestic processing of lithium, but the country still faces questions about energy, capital, technology, market access and industrial scale.

The important lesson is that requiring domestic processing is only part of the strategy. The country must also create commercially viable downstream industries.

Case study 4: Bauxite — Guinea

Guinea possesses substantial bauxite resources, the principal ore used to produce alumina and subsequently aluminium.

But the value chain is much longer than mining.

It requires:

• Bauxite extraction.

• Alumina refining.

• Aluminium smelting.

• Fabrication of aluminium products.

• Manufacturing of components and finished goods.

Aluminium smelting is particularly electricity-intensive.

This makes affordable energy, industrial infrastructure and financing central to the question of domestic value addition.

The investigative question: Can Guinea transform its bauxite wealth into an aluminium industrial ecosystem, or will it remain predominantly an exporter of mineral resources?

Case study 5: Copper — Zambia and the DRC

Copper is essential for electrical infrastructure, power transmission, renewable energy systems and industrial equipment.

Zambia and the DRC already have important copper-processing activities.

The African Development Bank's 2025 critical-minerals study notes that much of the continent's copper and nickel is refined within Africa, demonstrating that the continent is not starting from zero. It also highlights existing cross-border mineral processing between the DRC and Zambia.

African Development Bank

The next challenge is to develop further stages of the value chain, including electrical cables, transformers, motors, wiring systems and industrial components.

The investigative question: Why should Africa export copper while importing so many of the industrial products manufactured from copper?

 Is foreign investment helping Africa industrialise or reinforcing extraction?

This is one of the most sensitive questions in the entire investigation.

Foreign investment is not inherently harmful.

International mining and manufacturing companies can provide:

• Capital.

• Technology.

• Engineering expertise.

• Employment.

• Access to international markets.

• Industrial management experience.

• Infrastructure investment.

However, the developmental outcome depends on the structure of the investment agreement.

Compare two arrangements:

Extraction-led investment	Industrial-development investment
Extracts and exports raw materials	Includes commercially viable local processing
Imports most equipment and services	Develops qualified domestic suppliers
Employs limited specialised local personnel	Invests in technical workforce development
Maintains limited domestic research	Develops local research partnerships
Generates mainly extraction-related revenue	Develops wider manufacturing linkages
Limited domestic technology learning	Includes measurable technology and skills development

These are contrasting ideal types, not descriptions of every foreign investment.

The African policy challenge is to negotiate investment agreements that generate durable domestic capabilities without imposing unrealistic requirements that make commercially viable projects impossible.

The World Bank identifies infrastructure, human capital, geological information, investment financing and regional economic corridors as important conditions for mining-led value addition.

The international dimension: Who benefits from Africa's resources?

Africa's raw-material exports are connected to an international production system.

Consider the electric vehicle industry.

African countries supply some of the minerals required for batteries and electrical components.

Other countries control substantial portions of the processing, technology, manufacturing, financing and distribution activities.

This creates a question about the international division of economic value.

Countries that control sophisticated industrial processes often capture additional benefits through:

• Manufacturing profits.

• Intellectual property.

• Technology licensing.

• Industrial employment.

• Research and development.

• Control of supply chains.

• Financial services and international distribution.

This is not necessarily evidence of a coordinated international effort to prevent African industrialisation. It reflects differences in accumulated industrial capabilities, capital, technology, market access and bargaining power.

Nevertheless, the consequences are important.

The UNCTAD 2026 Trade and Development Report highlights the very small share of value retained in Africa from certain green supply chains, including cobalt-related supply chains.

The question is whether Africa can negotiate a more valuable position in the international economy rather than remaining concentrated at the extraction stage.

What should African governments actually do?

I would propose eight practical priorities.

Priority	Proposed action
1. Energy	Develop reliable, affordable industrial electricity
2. Financing	Expand long-term industrial development finance
3. Processing	Establish commercially viable refineries and processing plants
4. Skills	Train engineers, technicians and industrial specialists
5. Technology	Negotiate technology partnerships and domestic learning
6. Regional trade	Develop cross-border industrial supply chains
7. Ownership	Expand African participation in industrial enterprises
8. Accountability	Publish contracts, revenue arrangements and local-content results

A particularly important proposal: Regional processing hubs

Africa should reconsider the assumption that every resource-producing country must process every mineral independently.

For example:

• The DRC and Zambia could deepen their copper and battery-material industrial cooperation.

• Guinea and neighbouring West African economies could explore complementary mineral-processing and aluminium-related industries.

• South Africa could contribute established metallurgical and advanced manufacturing capabilities to regional supply chains.

• Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire could expand regional cocoa processing and finished-product manufacturing.

The objective would be to create industrial clusters that are economically viable across national borders.

The OECD's 2026 research on critical minerals specifically identifies regional processing hubs as a potentially more competitive approach than fragmented national facilities.

Africa's Green Minerals Strategy: Is the continent beginning to change direction?

An important development is the African Union's Africa Green Minerals Strategy.

Published in March 2025, it seeks to connect Africa's mineral resources with:

• Local beneficiation.

• Regional industrialisation.

• Energy security.

• Battery value chains.

• Job creation.

• Economic diversification.

• Climate-resilient development.

It recognises that Africa should use its mineral resources to develop more sophisticated industrial activities rather than simply supplying international markets with raw materials.

African Union

This is an important policy direction.

However, the real test will be implementation.

Will governments build the infrastructure, financing arrangements, research capabilities and regional partnerships necessary to make the strategy commercially viable?

Or will it become another ambitious continental policy document without sufficient industrial execution?

Final assessment: From resource wealth to productive wealth

Africa's problem is not that it exports raw materials. Countries everywhere participate in international commodity trade.

The problem is excessive dependence on low-value stages of production without sufficiently developing the capabilities required to move further along the value chain.

There are five fundamental transitions Africa needs to pursue:

• From extraction towards processing.

• From processing towards manufacturing.

• From importing technology towards developing technological capabilities.

• From isolated national industries towards regional production networks.

• From resource ownership on paper towards greater participation in the economic value generated by those resources.

But this transformation must be commercially grounded. Not every mineral should be processed in every country, and not every export restriction creates industrial development.

The objective is to identify viable opportunities, develop the necessary capabilities and negotiate partnerships that increase domestic and regional value retention.

THE BIG QUESTION-

If Africa supplies the raw materials that power global industrialisation, why should it remain largely outside the industries that transform those materials into finished products?

The next generation of African development must examine not simply how much the continent extracts, but how much it processes, manufactures, owns, innovates and retains.

Recommended next investigation- 

Who Really Controls Africa's Minerals? China, Western Corporations, African Governments and the New Global Resource Competition.

Investigate the respective roles of China, the United States, European companies, Gulf investors, multinational mining corporations and African governments.

Examine ownership, mining concessions, financing, commodity trading, refining capacity, technology transfer and geopolitical competition.

The central question:

Is the global competition for Africa's resources helping African countries industrialise, or is it primarily helping powerful economies secure the raw materials they need for their own industrial futures?

By Jugo Ikeji Uju

Content Sponsorship available-

With links on ubuntusafa.com

Contact admin:

sappertekinc@gmail.com

admin@ubuntusafa.com

 

THE NEW DIGITAL INEQUALITY: PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS AND THE EXCLUDED. 

The world is becoming more connected, but are the economic benefits of technology reaching everyone?

The digital revolution promised to make the world more equal.

A person with a smartphone could access information previously available only in universities, research institutions and major libraries. A small business could reach international customers without opening offices in foreign countries. An independent journalist could publish to a global audience without owning a television station or newspaper.

Artificial intelligence has taken this transformation further.

Individuals can now access tools capable of analysing information, generating content, translating languages, supporting research and automating certain professional tasks.

But beneath this apparent democratisation of technology lies a more complicated reality.

Not everyone participates in the digital economy in the same way.

Some people own the platforms, develop the software, manufacture the hardware and control the infrastructure. Others use these systems to earn income, build businesses and create products. Millions more are primarily consumers of digital services. And many remain excluded because they lack reliable electricity, affordable connectivity, digital skills, financial resources or access to appropriate technology.

A new form of economic inequality is emerging.

It is not simply the difference between people who own smartphones and those who do not.

It is the difference between those who own productive digital assets, those who can use technology to generate income, those who pay to access it and those who are increasingly left outside the system.

The world may be becoming digitally connected without becoming economically equal.

THE THREE ECONOMIC CLASSES OF THE DIGITAL AGE

The digital economy can be examined through three broad categories.

A. THE PRODUCERS — Those Who Build and Own the Digital Economy

These include:

• Semiconductor manufacturers.

• AI developers and technology companies.

• Cloud infrastructure providers.

• Software developers.

• Telecommunications companies.

• Digital platform owners.

• Data-centre operators.

• Robotics and automation manufacturers.

• Owners of intellectual property and digital infrastructure.

They create, own or control important parts of the systems on which the digital economy operates.

Their economic advantage comes not only from producing goods and services but also from owning assets that can generate recurring revenue.

A software company can sell subscriptions to millions of customers. A cloud provider can supply computing infrastructure to thousands of businesses. An AI developer can license access to a model across multiple industries.

The producer may earn revenue every time another business or individual uses its technology.

B. THE CONSUMERS — Those Who Use and Pay for Digital Services

This group includes individuals, households, businesses and institutions that depend on technology.

They purchase smartphones, subscribe to software, use AI platforms, access digital marketplaces and pay for cloud services.

Consumers benefit enormously from technological progress.

However, using technology is not the same as owning it.

A small business may depend on an online marketplace without controlling its algorithms, customer access or transaction fees. A content creator may build an audience on a social platform without owning the distribution system. A professional may depend on an AI service without controlling the underlying model.

Consumers can gain productivity and convenience while remaining economically dependent on external providers.

C. THE EXCLUDED — Those Who Cannot Participate Fully

This category is often overlooked.

It includes people and communities without reliable electricity, affordable internet, suitable devices, digital literacy, accessible financial services or relevant language support.

It also includes people who are technically connected but lack the skills, capital or opportunities to turn digital access into economic advancement.

The excluded are not necessarily disconnected from the internet.

Some are connected but unable to participate meaningfully in the productive digital economy.

This distinction is essential.

A person can spend several hours online every day and still have little access to digital employment, business ownership, education or technological decision-making.

THE CONNECTIVITY ILLUSION: DOES INTERNET ACCESS MEAN ECONOMIC INCLUSION?

Governments frequently measure digital development through internet penetration, smartphone ownership and network coverage.

These indicators matter, but they do not tell the entire story.

Consider two people with smartphones and internet access.

The first uses technology to operate an online business, manage international customers, develop software and generate income.

The second uses the internet mainly for entertainment, social media and communication, with limited access to economic opportunities.

Both are connected.

But their economic positions are different.

Digital inclusion must therefore be measured through more than connectivity.

It should include:

• Access to affordable and reliable infrastructure.

• Quality of digital education.

• Ability to generate income through technology.

• Access to financial services and digital markets.

• Ability to own or control productive digital assets.

• Protection of personal data and digital rights.

• Opportunities to develop technological skills.

• Participation in decisions governing digital infrastructure.

The central question is:

Are governments creating digitally connected populations, or economically empowered digital citizens?

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE NEW DIVIDE BETWEEN USERS AND OWNERS

AI is lowering the cost of performing certain intellectual and administrative tasks.

A small business can use AI for marketing, customer support, research, translation and basic financial analysis.

Students can access personalised explanations. Journalists can analyse large documents. Developers can accelerate parts of software production.

These are important opportunities.

However, the AI economy has its own ownership structure.

A relatively small group of companies controls significant portions of advanced computing infrastructure, proprietary AI models, cloud platforms and specialised semiconductor technologies.

Millions of people may use these systems without owning the underlying assets.

This creates a distinction between:

AI owners: Those who control models, computing infrastructure, intellectual property and commercial platforms.

AI developers and producers: Those who build applications, train systems, develop specialised services and create new products.

AI-enabled workers and entrepreneurs: Those who use AI to increase productivity and generate income.

AI consumers: Those who primarily purchase or use AI-powered services.

AI-excluded populations: Those without sufficient access, affordability, skills or institutional support.

These categories overlap, but they reveal an important economic divide.

The future may reward people who know how to use AI productively, while concentrating significant recurring revenue among those who own the infrastructure.

The issue is not whether everybody should become an AI developer.

It is whether ordinary people can use AI to improve their economic position rather than becoming permanently dependent consumers of systems owned elsewhere.

THE NEW DIGITAL WORKING CLASS: WHO CREATES VALUE AND WHO COLLECTS THE PROFITS?

The digital economy depends on human labour more than its automated image sometimes suggests.

Behind the apparent convenience of digital services are people who:

• Label and review data.

• Moderate online content.

• Maintain digital infrastructure.

• Manufacture electronic components.

• Deliver goods ordered through platforms.

• Produce online content.

• Provide customer support.

• Train and evaluate AI systems.

• Perform remote professional services.

Some of these workers are highly paid specialists. Others work in insecure, poorly paid or informal conditions.

Platform economies have also created new forms of employment.

Drivers, delivery workers, online freelancers, content creators and digital service providers may depend on algorithms to obtain customers and earn income.

But who determines their visibility, pricing and access to work?

A platform can change its commission structure or ranking system. A freelancer can lose access to customers when an account is suspended. A creator can see their audience disappear after an algorithm change.

The worker may produce value while the platform controls distribution.

This is one of the central tensions of the digital economy.

If workers and creators generate economic value, how much control should they have over the systems through which they earn their living?

THE GEOGRAPHY OF DIGITAL INEQUALITY

The digital economy is global, but its infrastructure and productive capabilities are unevenly distributed.

The United States has major strengths in cloud computing, AI development, software, venture capital and semiconductor design.

China has developed substantial industrial capacity, digital platforms, telecommunications technology, electronics manufacturing and AI capabilities.

Japan and South Korea have important strengths in advanced manufacturing, robotics, semiconductor materials, electronics and industrial technology.

Europe retains major scientific, industrial and engineering capabilities, while pursuing its own regulatory and technological strategies.

Other countries participate in the digital economy primarily through consumption, outsourcing, raw-material supply, manufacturing, data services or specialised technology sectors.

These differences do not mean that every country must replicate Silicon Valley or build a complete semiconductor supply chain.

But they raise an important development question.

Will the next technological revolution create new centres of global economic production, or reinforce existing centres of technological ownership?

Countries that lack digital infrastructure, research capacity, skilled labour and access to investment may find themselves increasingly dependent on imported technologies.

The challenge is to move from technological consumption towards meaningful participation in technological production.

AFRICA: CONNECTED TO THE WORLD, BUT WHO OWNS THE DIGITAL ECONOMY?

Africa has enormous opportunities in the digital economy.

Its young population, expanding mobile markets, entrepreneurial communities and growing digital services create a foundation for technological development.

Mobile financial services have demonstrated that African innovation can solve problems in ways that influence global thinking.

But important structural challenges remain.

The infrastructure problem

Reliable electricity, broadband, fibre networks, affordable devices and computing infrastructure are essential for digital participation.

Without these foundations, access to advanced AI and other technologies remains uneven.

The ownership problem

African users and businesses frequently depend on foreign-owned operating systems, cloud services, digital platforms and software.

International partnerships can be beneficial, but countries need the capability to negotiate favourable terms and develop local alternatives where economically viable.

The education problem

Digital literacy is not enough.

Africa needs more engineers, software developers, cybersecurity specialists, semiconductor professionals, data scientists, robotics technicians and technology entrepreneurs.

The capital problem

A promising African technology startup may struggle to obtain financing, scale internationally or compete with companies that have access to much deeper pools of investment.

The industrialisation problem

Digital technology should not exist separately from the real economy.

AI and automation must be connected to agriculture, mining, manufacturing, logistics, healthcare, energy and education.

The objective should be to create productive industries, not simply increase the number of people using foreign digital platforms.

Africa must become a producer of valuable digital services and technologies, not only a growing market for them.

THE DIGITAL DIVIDE WITHIN COUNTRIES

Digital inequality is not exclusively a difference between rich and poor countries.

It exists within wealthy societies too.

A student in a well-funded school may have access to advanced AI tools, high-speed internet and professional guidance.

Another student in the same country may have limited connectivity and outdated equipment.

A large corporation can employ AI specialists, purchase premium software and build customised systems.

A small local business may struggle to afford subscriptions and technical support.

An urban professional may work remotely for international clients.

A rural worker may have little access to reliable connectivity or digital employment.

This means digital inequality can reproduce existing inequalities of income, geography, education and social opportunity.

The technology may be available in the same country, but the ability to benefit from it is not equally distributed.

THE LANGUAGE BARRIER: WHOSE KNOWLEDGE DOES AI UNDERSTAND?

Technology is often presented as universal.

But the usefulness of AI depends partly on the data, languages, cultural contexts and information systems on which it is developed.

Major international languages and well-represented datasets may receive greater technological attention.

Smaller languages, local dialects and underrepresented communities can receive less support.

This has consequences for education, public services, healthcare and economic participation.

If an AI system works effectively in English but poorly in local African languages, it may reproduce an existing knowledge inequality.

If educational tools are designed primarily around wealthy countries' curricula, students elsewhere may receive less relevant support.

If local communities are unable to develop or influence the datasets used to represent them, their knowledge and experiences may remain underrepresented.

The issue is not merely translation.

It is whether communities can participate in developing the technological systems that interpret their histories, languages and economic realities.

THE SUBSCRIPTION ECONOMY: WILL FUTURE GENERATIONS OWN LESS AND RENT MORE?

A growing number of digital services operate through subscriptions.

People pay monthly fees for software, cloud storage, entertainment, AI services, professional tools and online platforms.

This model provides convenience and continuous access to updated services.

It can also create permanent dependence.

A household may own its devices but rent access to essential software.

A business may operate its entire infrastructure through external subscriptions.

A creator may pay for multiple platforms simply to produce and distribute content.

A student may need several paid digital tools to remain competitive.

The economic question is whether access is replacing ownership across an increasing number of important activities.

There is nothing inherently wrong with subscription services.

The concern is the accumulation of recurring costs, provider dependence, limited portability and the loss of alternatives.

If essential digital capabilities become available only through continuing payments, what happens to people who cannot afford them?

Could access to technological productivity become a new measure of economic class?

THE EXCLUDED MAY BECOME THE NEW GLOBAL UNDERCLASS

The most serious consequence of digital inequality may not be the difference between people who own technology and those who consume it.

It may be the emergence of people who cannot compete effectively in an economy increasingly organised around digital capabilities.

Consider a worker whose occupation changes through automation but who cannot afford retraining.

Consider a small business unable to compete with digital competitors using advanced AI.

Consider a student without reliable internet access.

Consider an older person unable to navigate essential digital public services.

Consider a community whose language is poorly supported by mainstream technology.

These are different problems, but they point towards a common danger.

Technological transformation may create opportunities faster than institutions can distribute them.

If education, employment, public services and financial systems increasingly depend on digital capability, exclusion can become cumulative.

People who lack access today may find it harder to catch up tomorrow.

The appropriate response is not to oppose automation or restrict technological progress indiscriminately.

It is to build institutions that allow people to adapt, acquire new skills and participate in the changing economy.

CAN GOVERNMENTS REDUCE DIGITAL INEQUALITY?

Governments have several important responsibilities.

Affordable connectivity: Reliable broadband and mobile access should be treated as foundational infrastructure.

Digital education: Schools and vocational institutions must teach not only how to use technology, but also how to understand, evaluate and create it.

AI access: Public-interest education, research and small-business programmes can improve access to useful AI tools.

Competition policy: Regulators should examine platform dominance, restrictive practices and barriers that prevent smaller businesses from competing.

Worker protection: Employment policies should address algorithmic management, worker surveillance, job displacement and access to retraining.

Data protection: Citizens should have meaningful rights and protections over their personal information.

Local innovation: Public procurement, research funding and investment programmes can support domestic technology industries.

Digital accessibility: Technology should be designed to include people with disabilities, older populations and communities with limited digital literacy.

But government intervention must also be accountable.

Digital inclusion cannot become an excuse for political surveillance, censorship or the collection of excessive personal information.

The challenge is to expand participation while protecting freedom and privacy.

WHAT WOULD A MORE INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY LOOK LIKE?

A fairer digital economy would not require every person to become a technology owner or software engineer.

It would provide multiple pathways to economic participation.

A farmer could use digital tools to reach markets and improve productivity.

A student could access quality educational technology regardless of family income.

A small business could compete internationally without being trapped by restrictive platforms.

A worker could retrain when technology changes their occupation.

A local technology company could develop products for domestic and international markets.

A community could protect its data and participate in decisions about how it is used.

A country could benefit from international technology while developing its own technical skills and productive capacity.

The measure of digital progress should therefore include not only how many people are connected, but how many can create value, earn income, develop capabilities and exercise meaningful control over their digital lives.

THREE POSSIBLE FUTURES

FUTURE A — THE TWO-TIER DIGITAL WORLD

A relatively small group of technology owners, investors and highly skilled professionals capture a large share of the economic benefits.

A much larger population uses digital services but has limited ownership and bargaining power. People without connectivity, education and capital face growing exclusion.

FUTURE B — THE DISTRIBUTED DIGITAL ECONOMY

Affordable infrastructure, accessible AI, digital education, competition and investment allow more people and businesses to participate productively.

Technology becomes a tool for entrepreneurship, education and broader economic opportunity.

FUTURE C — THE GOVERNED DIGITAL ECONOMY

Governments introduce stronger competition rules, data protections, digital education programmes and public-interest infrastructure.

Private enterprise continues to drive innovation, but the state takes a more active role in ensuring that technological progress benefits wider society.

These scenarios are not mutually exclusive. Different countries may combine elements of all three.

CONNECTING THE WORLD IS NOT THE SAME AS EMPOWERING HUMANITY

The digital revolution has connected people across continents.

It has opened doors to information, education, entrepreneurship and communication that previous generations could hardly imagine.

But connectivity alone does not eliminate inequality.

A person who owns the platform occupies a different economic position from someone who pays to use it.

A business that controls its data and intellectual property occupies a different position from one dependent on external systems.

A country that develops its own technological capabilities occupies a different position from one that imports almost everything it needs.

And a person without access to digital education, reliable infrastructure or economic opportunity may become increasingly marginalised.

The challenge is therefore to move beyond the idea that technological progress automatically produces social progress.

A genuinely inclusive digital economy should enable people not only to consume technology, but also to create, innovate, own businesses, develop skills and participate in the wealth that technology generates.

The future should not be divided between those who own the machines and those who simply pay to use them.

The ultimate measure of the digital revolution should not be how many people technology can connect. It should be how many people technology can empower.

Ubuntu — A Journey Rooted in Humanity.

By Jugo Ikeji Uju

Content Sponsorship available-

With links on ubuntusafa.com

Contact admin:

sappertekinc@gmail.com

admin@ubuntusafa.com

 

CAN COMMUNISM SURVIVE WITHOUT POLITICAL COMPETITION? 

One-party rule, accountability, institutional correction, dissent and the long-term future of governance. 

The central question: Can a political system governed by one Communist Party remain accountable, correct its mistakes and protect the public interest when citizens cannot freely replace the ruling party through competitive national elections?

This question goes beyond communism. It concerns a fundamental problem of political organisation: who holds power accountable when the people who exercise that power also control the institutions responsible for supervising them?

A government may promise equality, social justice, economic development and collective ownership. It may build infrastructure, expand education, improve healthcare and mobilise resources for national industrialisation.

But another question eventually becomes unavoidable:

Who challenges the government when its policies fail?

Who investigates powerful officials when they abuse their authority?

Who protects citizens who disagree with the ruling party?

And what happens when the leadership itself becomes the source of the problem?

The history of communist governments provides several examples of how these questions have been answered. China, the Soviet Union, Vietnam and Cuba have developed different institutional arrangements, but they share an important feature: Communist Party leadership has been central to their political systems.

The purpose of this investigation is not to assume that multiparty democracy automatically produces good government, or that one-party rule necessarily produces administrative failure. It is to examine the mechanisms through which governments receive information, expose mistakes, restrain authority and correct their decisions.

The one-party political model: Who represents the people?

Traditional Marxist theory anticipated a transition away from capitalist class rule towards a society in which workers collectively controlled the means of production.

In Leninist political organisation, however, the revolutionary party assumed a leading role in directing the transition. The argument was that a disciplined political organisation could represent working-class interests, coordinate revolutionary activity and prevent the restoration of capitalist power.

This developed into the one-party model found in several communist states.

Under this arrangement:

• One party holds the dominant position in national political life.

• Political leadership is organised through party institutions.

• The party exercises substantial influence over the state, military and major public institutions.

• Political competition outside the ruling party is restricted or absent.

• Leadership succession and policy direction are largely determined through internal party processes.

The central justification is that national development requires political unity, strategic continuity and protection against competing interests that could undermine the state's objectives.

Supporters of this model may argue that multiparty competition can produce instability, short-term electoral thinking, political fragmentation and excessive influence by wealthy interests.

Critics raise a different concern: when one party controls the political system, it becomes difficult for citizens to challenge its authority through independent institutions.

The essential distinction is between a government claiming to represent the people and a political system giving people effective means to hold that government accountable.

Those two things are not automatically identical.

China: Can a ruling party supervise itself?

China provides one of the most significant modern examples of a one-party system adapting to a market-oriented economy.

Since the reforms initiated under Deng Xiaoping in 1978, China has combined:

• Communist Party political leadership.

• State-owned enterprises in strategic sectors.

• Private businesses and entrepreneurs.

• Domestic and international market competition.

• Central industrial planning.

• Local government experimentation.

• State-directed infrastructure and technology investment.

This arrangement has allowed China to pursue long-term economic programmes while retaining a political system dominated by the Communist Party.

But economic performance and political accountability are separate questions.

China has developed internal mechanisms for supervising officials, including party discipline inspections, cadre evaluations, anti-corruption investigations and central government oversight.

These mechanisms can produce real administrative corrections.

A 2025 study in the Journal of East Asian Studies, for example, examined China's central political inspections and found evidence that they could indirectly improve the provision of certain public goods at municipal level.

However, there is an important distinction between two kinds of accountability:

Vertical accountability: Lower-level officials answer to higher-level authorities.

Horizontal accountability: Independent institutions, competing political organisations, courts, legislatures and media can scrutinise those exercising power.

China has developed extensive mechanisms of vertical party supervision. The more difficult question is how effectively independent horizontal checks can operate when the ruling party retains political supremacy.

Research published in 2024 on Chinese Communist Party internal rules found that the expansion of party discipline mechanisms involved tensions between organisational enforcement, political centralisation and increasingly ambiguous standards of political discipline.

This raises an important investigative question:

If the ruling party determines the standards, conducts the investigations and controls the political environment in which criticism occurs, how independent can accountability become?

The issue is not whether internal discipline exists. It is whether it can reliably investigate failures that involve senior leadership or fundamental policy decisions.

Accountability without political competition: What mechanisms are possible?

Political competition is one way to hold a government accountable, but it is not the only mechanism through which public institutions can be scrutinised.

A one-party system can still establish internal and administrative accountability mechanisms.

Consider the following:

Accountability mechanism	What it can achieve	Potential limitation
Internal party elections	Leadership consultation and selection	Candidates and competition remain within party structures
Anti-corruption investigations	Expose misconduct and punish officials	Investigations may be politically selective or constrained
Independent courts	Review government actions and protect legal rights	Independence may be limited by political authority
Professional civil service	Maintain expertise and administrative continuity	Officials may prioritise political loyalty over professional advice
Public complaints systems	Identify local failures and grievances	Complaints may not reach or influence senior leadership
Independent journalism	Investigate abuses and expose policy failures	Restrictions can limit reporting and scrutiny
Legislative oversight	Question officials and examine public expenditure	Oversight may be weak without institutional independence

The important point is that accountability requires more than punishment. It requires the ability to investigate, question, challenge and correct authority.

A government can punish thousands of corrupt officials and still lack an effective mechanism for challenging a fundamentally mistaken national policy.

This is why the independence of oversight institutions matters.

The Soviet Union: What happens when criticism arrives too late?

The Soviet Union provides a particularly important historical case.

For decades, the Communist Party controlled political life, economic planning and the institutions of the Soviet state.

The system achieved substantial industrialisation, developed a major scientific and military establishment, expanded education and provided extensive public services.

But it also developed serious institutional problems.

Officials had incentives to report successful production rather than expose shortcomings. Economic plans could be politically difficult to challenge. Public criticism of senior leadership was restricted, and the concentration of authority limited independent scrutiny.

This did not mean that the Soviet Union had no internal debates, policy disagreements or reform proposals. It meant that those disagreements operated within a political structure in which the Communist Party retained a monopoly on national political power.

Gorbachev's experiment

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985, he introduced two major reform programmes:

• Perestroika: Economic and institutional restructuring.

• Glasnost: Greater openness and public discussion.

The reforms exposed failures that had previously been difficult to discuss publicly.

Citizens, journalists, intellectuals and political reformers began questioning government decisions and historical events. The Chernobyl disaster, economic stagnation and the history of political repression became subjects of wider public scrutiny.

But reform also destabilised established political arrangements.

The Soviet leadership faced economic pressures, growing nationalist movements, competing political demands and disagreements over the future of the Union.

The Communist Party's authority weakened, and the Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991.

The lesson is not that political competition caused the Soviet collapse. Nor is it that restricting competition would necessarily have preserved the country.

Rather, the Soviet experience demonstrates a difficult institutional problem: when political systems restrict criticism for long periods, opening the system can expose accumulated conflicts that existing institutions are poorly equipped to manage.

Research comparing the Soviet Union and China identifies an important difference: Gorbachev pursued political liberalisation, while Deng Xiaoping preserved the Communist Party's political monopoly while reforming the economy.

The comparison raises a question that remains relevant:

Can a political system gradually introduce meaningful accountability before accumulated institutional problems become a national crisis?

Dissent: Is disagreement a threat to the state or a resource for it?

Every government makes mistakes.

No economic plan, industrial strategy, education policy or national security programme can anticipate every consequence.

The important question is how a government responds when people identify those mistakes.

Dissent can take several forms:

1. Professional dissent: Scientists, economists, engineers and civil servants challenge technical decisions.

2. Public dissent: Citizens protest policies or demand government action.

3. Political dissent: Opposition groups challenge the ruling party's decisions and authority.

4. Institutional dissent: Courts, legislatures, auditors and independent bodies question government actions.

5. Internal dissent: Members of the ruling party challenge their own leadership.

These forms of disagreement can provide governments with information they might otherwise miss.

Consider an agricultural policy that is failing.

Farmers may understand the practical problems before national officials do. Local administrators may know that production targets are unrealistic. Agricultural scientists may identify flaws in the government's assumptions.

If those people fear punishment for reporting inconvenient information, the leadership may receive an inaccurate picture of the situation.

This is not simply a political problem. It is an information problem.

The danger of confusing loyalty with accuracy

A government needs committed public servants. But commitment should not require officials to agree with every decision.

There is a difference between:

• Supporting the country's long-term development.

• Supporting the ruling party's every policy.

• Protecting a particular leader from criticism.

A civil servant can be loyal to the country while challenging a minister. A scientist can support national development while questioning an industrial target. A citizen can respect national institutions while protesting government policy.

When these distinctions become blurred, institutions can begin rewarding agreement rather than accuracy.

The consequence is that leaders may hear what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

Political competition is not automatically good governance

A balanced investigation must also examine the limitations of multiparty systems.

Competitive elections do not automatically produce:

• Honest politicians.

• Competent public administration.

• Economic equality.

• Independent institutions.

• Long-term industrial planning.

• Protection against corruption.

• Freedom from wealthy interest groups.

Some multiparty democracies experience political polarisation, corruption, short-term policy decisions, weak coalitions and institutional paralysis.

A government can win an election while failing to deliver effective public services.

Political competition is therefore not a guarantee of good governance.

Its institutional importance lies in creating mechanisms through which citizens can organise alternatives, challenge incumbents and potentially remove them from office.

The distinction is between a political system that can be corrected internally and one that also allows citizens to replace its national leadership.

These are different forms of accountability, and they need not be mutually exclusive.

The real comparison

Question	One-party political system	Competitive multiparty system
Leadership continuity	Can support long-term policy continuity	Leadership may change after elections
Policy coordination	Can centralise national priorities	Requires negotiation among political actors
Public accountability	Often relies heavily on internal and administrative mechanisms	Includes electoral competition and independent scrutiny where institutions function
Dissent	Can be accommodated within defined limits	Can include organised opposition parties
Policy correction	May occur through internal reviews and leadership decisions	May occur through elections, courts, legislatures and public scrutiny
Main institutional risk	Concentration of authority and weak independent correction	Fragmentation, short-term incentives and capture by powerful interests

Neither column describes every country. Actual outcomes depend on institutional independence, political culture, legal protections, administrative capacity and the distribution of power.

Can a one-party system correct itself?

Vietnam offers another useful case.

Like China, Vietnam combines Communist Party leadership with a market-oriented economy.

Its reforms, commonly associated with Đổi Mới from 1986, expanded private enterprise, agricultural market activity and international economic integration.

Vietnam has also developed internal mechanisms for policy consultation, government supervision and party discipline.

Research comparing China and Vietnam has examined how their accountability institutions operate differently despite both countries being governed by Communist Parties. The study by Regina Abrami, Edmund Malesky and Yu Zheng found that accountability institutions in both systems could contribute to the resilience of one-party rule, while operating through different institutional arrangements.

This is an important distinction.

An accountability mechanism can improve government performance without necessarily creating political competition.

It can help the ruling party maintain legitimacy, discipline officials and respond to public grievances.

But that leaves a further question:

Can internal correction be sufficient when the people responsible for correcting the system are also the people whose authority may need to be challenged?

A one-party system might develop strong internal review procedures, professional administration, public consultation and legal mechanisms. The difficult test is whether these mechanisms can investigate senior officials, challenge major national policies and protect critics without requiring their political loyalty.

A system's ability to correct routine administrative mistakes is not the same as its ability to correct mistakes made at the highest level.

The problem of succession: What happens when leadership changes?

One of the most important tests of any political system is leadership succession.

A system may function effectively under one generation of leaders but experience difficulties when a new generation takes over.

Questions include:

• Are leadership transitions governed by clear and predictable rules?

• Can senior officials challenge a leader without risking their careers?

• Are institutions stronger than individual personalities?

• Can policy continue without depending on the preferences of one person?

• Can a new leadership group reverse damaging decisions?

• Can citizens question the direction of government without being treated as enemies of the state?

A political system that relies heavily on individual authority may experience uncertainty when leadership changes.

A system with established institutional constraints can provide alternative channels for resolving disputes.

This issue is not exclusive to communist states. Democracies also face succession crises, executive overreach and the erosion of institutional independence.

However, where national political competition is absent, internal party procedures become especially important because they carry much of the responsibility for leadership selection and transition.

The Chinese question

China's modern political structure demonstrates the significance of this issue.

The Communist Party has retained political supremacy while expanding its economic and administrative responsibilities.

Research on its internal governance has documented the development of increasingly extensive party rules, discipline and inspection mechanisms. Other research has examined the growing centralisation of political authority and the challenges this can create for internal accountability.

The question is not simply whether the Party can maintain political continuity.

It is whether the institutions surrounding leadership succession can ensure that continuity does not become dependence on a particular individual or leadership circle.

The AI era: Can one-party governments govern information without controlling truth?

The development of artificial intelligence, facial recognition, digital identity systems, big data and automated surveillance introduces a new dimension to this debate.

Governments can increasingly use technology to:

• Monitor public infrastructure and improve service delivery.

• Detect financial fraud and corruption.

• Improve transport, healthcare and urban planning.

• Identify security threats.

• Analyse economic performance.

• Monitor public communications and social activity.

These capabilities can improve administrative efficiency.

But the same technologies can also expand government surveillance and make political dissent more difficult.

This creates a new question for communist and non-communist governments alike:

Who controls the technology that monitors the government itself?

If a government uses AI to monitor citizens, what independent institution monitors the government's use of that technology?

Who verifies whether surveillance is lawful?

Can journalists investigate the misuse of public data?

Can citizens challenge automated decisions?

Can AI systems identify government policy failures without political interference?

The challenge is not whether governments should use technology. It is whether technological power is accompanied by transparency, legal safeguards and independent oversight.

A government that possesses extensive information about its citizens but does not permit meaningful scrutiny of its own decisions creates an imbalance of information and authority.

This is becoming an important question for the future of political governance.

What can Africa learn from this debate?

For African countries, this debate has practical significance.

Many African governments face overlapping challenges:

• Weak public institutions.

• Corruption and patronage.

• Inadequate industrialisation.

• Unemployment.

• Infrastructure deficits.

• Dependence on imported technology.

• Limited domestic manufacturing capacity.

• Political instability and public distrust.

Some leaders argue that national development requires political stability and long-term planning.

Others argue that concentrated political power can protect corruption, weaken accountability and prevent citizens from challenging poor governance.

The question should not be reduced to whether Africa needs capitalism, socialism, communism or a mixture.

It should include the institutional arrangements required to make any economic model work.

Five questions for African development

1. Can a government pursue long-term industrialisation without concentrating political authority?

African countries need long-term infrastructure, energy, technology and manufacturing strategies. These should survive changes in government without becoming instruments of permanent political control.

2. Can state-owned enterprises operate without becoming political patronage networks?

Public ownership should be accompanied by professional management, transparent accounts, independent audits and measurable performance.

3. Can private enterprise operate without political connections determining who succeeds?

Entrepreneurs need predictable laws, fair competition, access to finance and protection against arbitrary government interference.

4. Can opposition parties strengthen national development rather than simply compete for political power?

Political competition becomes more productive when parties offer credible economic alternatives, scrutinise public expenditure and protect constitutional institutions.

5. Can citizens challenge government decisions without being treated as enemies of national development?

A country needs citizens who can report failures, expose corruption, organise peacefully and demand improvements.

The larger lesson is that development requires both state capacity and public accountability.

A government may be powerful enough to construct a railway, but is it accountable enough to explain the cost, disclose the contracts and investigate corruption?

That is the institutional question.

The central dilemma: Stability versus correction

The debate can be reduced to two competing institutional priorities.

The case for one-party political continuity

• Consistent national development priorities.

• Central coordination of strategic industries.

• Reduced disruption from frequent changes in political leadership.

• Ability to mobilise resources around long-term programmes.

• Internal party mechanisms for selecting and disciplining officials.

The concerns about restricted political competition

• Limited opportunities to replace national leadership.

• Potential suppression of criticism.

• Weak independent scrutiny of senior officials.

• Risk that political loyalty overrides professional expertise.

• Difficulty correcting policies when the leadership itself resists change.

These are institutional possibilities, not automatic outcomes.

A multiparty system can also become dominated by a political elite. A one-party system can develop effective administrative procedures. Neither political arrangement should be judged solely by its constitutional description.

The critical test is whether institutions can constrain those who exercise power.

A government should be examined not only by what it can achieve, but also by what happens when it fails.

Final analysis: Can communism survive without political competition?

The historical record shows that Communist Party-led systems can survive for extended periods without competitive national multiparty politics. China and Vietnam demonstrate that one-party political leadership can coexist with substantial economic reform, private enterprise, market competition and state-directed industrial development.

Their experiences also show that political survival, economic performance and public accountability are three different measures of governance.

A government may maintain political stability while facing economic problems. It may achieve rapid economic growth while restricting political competition. It may punish corrupt officials while retaining weaknesses in independent oversight.

These distinctions matter.

The question is not whether every government must adopt an identical political model. Nor is it whether elections alone guarantee good leadership.

The deeper question is whether any political system can maintain long-term legitimacy without mechanisms that allow its decisions to be challenged and corrected.

Communism's political future cannot be examined separately from the question of accountability.

If a Communist Party claims to represent workers, citizens and the collective interests of society, how can those people verify that claim?

If the party makes a mistake, who can force a correction?

If the leadership becomes corrupt, who can investigate it independently?

And if citizens lose confidence in the ruling party, what legitimate institutional route exists for changing national leadership?

These questions apply beyond communism. Capitalist democracies face their own problems of corporate influence, political money, inequality, executive power and institutional capture.

The central issue is the relationship between power and accountability.

A government should not be judged only by how much power it possesses or how quickly it can deliver development. It should also be examined by how effectively its people and institutions can challenge that power when it is misused.

The long-term challenge for any political system is to build institutions that can correct the government without destroying the country, protect disagreement without abandoning social order, and pursue development without treating citizens as instruments of political authority.

That is the real test of governance.

By Jugo Ikeji Uju

Content Sponsorship available-

With links on ubuntusafa.com

Contact admin:

sappertekinc@gmail.com

admin@ubuntusafa.com