Abdul Mahmud Critiques Africa’s Economic Sovereignty and the Paradox of Internal Collaboration

Human rights attorney Abdul Mahmud analyzes Aliko Dangote’s critique of foreign interests, arguing that African elites share responsibility for the continent's underdevelopment.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 21, 2026, 3:51 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from Peoples Gazette

Interrogating Dangote’s Anti-Imperialist Rhetoric

In his latest essay, Abdul Mahmud examines the recent assertions by Aliko Dangote that foreign interests are deliberately engineering Africa’s underdevelopment. Mahmud situates Dangote’s perspective within a historical lineage of anti-imperialist thought, referencing seminal works by Frantz Fanon and Walter Rodney. He notes that the argument—that Africa is integrated into a global system designed to serve the Western metropolis—remains a persuasive explanation for persistent trade patterns that favor raw material exports over industrialization. However, Mahmud cautions that this narrative can often become a convenient shield, absolving African leadership of their own administrative failures and policy inconsistencies.

The Concept of the "Local Collaborator"

Mahmud introduces a critical analytical framework involving the role of internal actors in maintaining unequal global relationships. Drawing on the scholarship of Ronald Robinson and Andre Gunder Frank, he argues that foreign control survives not through force alone, but through strategic alliances with local elites who find personal advantage in global capitalist structures. He highlights the phenomenon of "rent-seeking" among political classes, where short-term gains are prioritized over long-term national planning. This "agbero capitalism," as Mahmud describes it, thrives when African rulers align their interests with external actors, often at the expense of their own citizens’ welfare.

Fanon’s Warning of the National Exploiter Class

The essay revisits Frantz Fanon’s warning about the emergence of a post-colonial bourgeoisie that inherits the colonial state only to reproduce its logic. Mahmud suggests that this class often lacks productive capacity and acts merely as an intermediary for wealth extraction. He provides a contemporary illustration of this dynamic by citing Chinese mining interests that operate in concert with local actors to exploit mineral wealth with minimal oversight. In this context, Mahmud poses a difficult question: whether industry leaders like Dangote, who rely on international capital and state protections, are truly outside the system they criticize or are themselves functional participants in it.