The continent that gave rise to humanity, endured the horrors of the transatlantic slave trade, and survived centuries of colonial exploitation now faces a more insidious form of recolonization. This time, the tools of domination are not gunboats and governors, but loans, lectures, and digital control. Led by the United States, the European Union, and financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank, the Western world is rebranding domination as development and neocolonialism as benevolence. Once, this diplomatic maneuvering occurred behind closed doors with a facade of subtlety; today, it plays out shamelessly in public, marked by overt ultimatums and unapologetic demands. Africa must recognize this for what it is: a strategy to entrap the continent in perpetual dependency. The only remedy is unity—a strong, pan-African solidarity to reclaim economic sovereignty, cultural autonomy, and true freedom. Let’s be clear. Western engagement with Africa today poses as partnership but echoes the Berlin Conference of 1884, where Europe divided the continent for its own gain. Then, it was land and labor that were coveted, seized through covert deals and quiet invasions. Now, the targets are resources, data, and markets, captured through sophisticated mechanisms that bind nations without violence—or pretense. The new scramble is no longer hidden behind diplomatic niceties; it unfolds openly with public shaming through social media campaigns, threats of sanctions tweeted into the ether, and livestreamed lectures from platforms like Davos. Consider debt, the modern shackle. The IMF and World Bank, claiming to be neutral lenders, impose structural adjustment programs that demand austerity, privatization, and deregulation in exchange for bailouts. Look at Ethiopia, Zambia, or Ghana, and you’ll find economies ravaged by these so-called “rescues.” Public services are cut, state assets sold to Western multinationals at bargain prices, and currencies devalued to make exports cheap for foreign buyers. Zambia’s copper, the DRC’s cobalt, Nigeria’s oil—these resources flow to the West while locals struggle for basic necessities. The debt trap ensures compliance; default, and vultures like Elliott Management swoop in for sovereign assets. It’s recolonization by balance sheet, announced through press releases instead of whispered treaties. Trade regimes exacerbate the pressure. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) offers duty-free access to U.S. markets, but with conditions: rules of origin that force African manufacturers to source inputs from America, undermining local industries. The EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) inundate markets with subsidized European goods, crippling fledgling factories from Nairobi to Lagos. Meanwhile, Western tariffs shield their farmers while African agriculture suffers. It’s mercantilism reborn: Africa as a supplier of raw materials, the West as a monopolist of finished goods—boldly proclaimed at trade summits, with no apologies given. Then there’s the green recolonization, cloaked in climate virtue. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), set to take effect in 2026, imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports like cement and steel from Africa. While it appears noble, it is predatory in practice, ignoring that Europe offshored its dirty industries to Africa decades ago. Western NGOs and funds advocate for “sustainable” mining, but the terms favor multinationals like Glencore, which extract lithium and rare earths for electric vehicle batteries while locals suffer from polluted waterways. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) promise billions but instead offer debt-for-carbon swaps, entrapping nations in repayments for Western guilt. Africa, which boasts 60% of the world’s best solar potential, is lectured on net-zero targets by coal-dependent Germany. This is not hypocrisy; it is strategy, broadcasted daily by green influencers. Technology wields a powerful influence. Starlink and Western satellites provide internet access while collecting valuable data—Africa’s new oil. Although Huawei’s 5G technology faces sanctions, American companies like Palantir embed themselves in governments, profiling citizens under the guise of “security aid.” Digital IDs, promoted by the World Bank, promise inclusion but facilitate surveillance states that appeal to foreign donors. Crypto bans safeguard fiat currency dominance, while Big Tech’s AI trains on African languages and images without compensating creators. This represents a cognitive empire: control the code, control the continent—a sentiment proudly expressed at Silicon Valley conferences. Cultural neocolonialism further complicates the landscape. Hollywood, Netflix, and TikTok inundate audiences with consumerism, undermining communal values. USAID and Soros-funded NGOs advocate for “democracy” that aligns with Western interests, often toppling leaders like Burkina Faso’s Traoré who prioritize sovereignty. While gender and LGBTQ agendas may be progressive elsewhere, they often arrive in conservative societies as Trojan horses, disrupting social cohesion. Media outlets like the BBC and CNN portray Africa as a perpetual victim or failed state, justifying interventions that are amplified across 24-hour news cycles. What drives this renewed scramble for Africa? The continent’s moment has arrived. It possesses 30% of the global minerals essential for the energy transition, 60% of uncultivated arable land, and a projected youth population of 1.2 billion by 2050. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) offers a $3.4 trillion market. China’s Belt and Road Initiative constructs infrastructure without imposing conditions, while Russia provides security partnerships without demanding regime change. The West is alarmed: a united, self-reliant Africa threatens its dominance. Where once they plotted in embassy backrooms, they now openly mobilize through G7 summits and social media. The response is a modern strategy of divide and conquer. Sanctions target “problem” states like Mali, propaganda labels leaders as “authoritarian,” and incentives are offered to compliant elites. The CFA franc ties 14 nations to French monetary control. Reforms in the African Union are “supported”—until they challenge Western NGOs. Africa must unite. Pan-Africanism is not a relic; it is essential for survival. First, debt sovereignty: conduct collective audits through AfCFTA, reject odious loans, and demand fair debt restructurings without IMF impositions. Jubilee 2000 forgave billions; why not African-led jubilees today? Second, trade unity: rigorously enforce AfCFTA, reject Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), and develop intra-African value chains. Process lithium in the Democratic Republic of Congo, not Nevada. Roast Ethiopian coffee in Addis Ababa, not Rotterdam. Third, tech independence: invest in African satellites, promote open-source software, and localize data. Collaborate with BRICS for 5G technology to bypass Western chokepoints. Fourth, resource nationalism: nationalize strategic minerals where extraction harms development. Norway’s oil fund benefits its citizens; Africa’s cobalt should do the same. Fifth, cultural fortress: foster indigenous education, establish Swahili and Amharic media empires, and supercharge Nollywood. Reject external morality wars and define progress on African terms. Institutions are crucial. Empower the AU with binding sanctions authority. Create an African Monetary Fund to counter the Bretton Woods system. Form a BRICS-Africa bloc for technology and finance. The West’s strategy is outdated: divide through tribalism and coups, extract wealth through debt and resources, and dictate through aid conditions. Africa’s response must be innovative: unity, creativity, and defiance. Leaders must choose: become comprador puppets or pan-African lions. The 21st century belongs to the Global South. Africa, the cradle of humanity, must rise—not as a supplicant but as a sovereign power. Recolonization is openly looming; resistance begins with solidarity. Stand together, or fall divided. The choice is ours.
Tsedey Bank officially appoints Yohannes Ayalew as President
Tsedey Bank, one of Ethiopia’s youngest commercial banks, has officially appointed Yohannes Ayalew (PhD) as its new President, effective February 9, 2026, pending approval from the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE).
The appointment comes at a critical juncture as the bank grapples with a staggering 2.13 billion Birr net loss recorded in the 2024/25 fiscal year. Yohannes, a seasoned economist with extensive experience in the Ethiopian financial sector, succeeds the bank’s founding CEO, Mekonnen Yelewumwossen, who resigned in January 2026.
Following Mekonnen’s departure, the bank has been under the interim leadership of Yeshimebet Teffera. However, the Board of Directors—chaired by Derese Hailu, Vice President of the Amhara Region—opted to appoint a permanent leader with the expertise to steer the institution through its current financial turbulence.
Industry observers describe Yohannes’s appointment as a strategic “rescue mission,” citing his proven record of revitalizing struggling financial institutions and guiding them toward stability and growth.
Dr. Yohannes most recently served as CEO of Amhara Bank, where he earned recognition for reversing the institution’s early losses and leading it to achieve a net profit of approximately 655 million Birr. Following his departure, Amhara Bank is reportedly seeking a successor capable of sustaining the growth trajectory he established.
Before joining the private banking sector, Yohannes left a lasting impact at the Development Bank of Ethiopia (DBE). When he assumed leadership, the DBE was weighed down by non-performing loans and faced a severe liquidity crisis. Through comprehensive structural reforms and revised lending strategies, he successfully transformed the DBE into one of Ethiopia’s most profitable and reliable state-owned financial institutions.
Yohannes’s foundation in monetary policy and regulation stems from his nine-year tenure at the National Bank of Ethiopia, where he served as Vice Governor and Chief Economist. His deep understanding of the country’s financial regulatory framework and macroeconomic environment is expected to be a key advantage in aligning Tsedey Bank with the NBE’s stringent directives.
Analysts attribute Tsedey Bank’s loss largely to the bank’s transition from a micro-lending model to full-scale commercial banking, compounded by regional instability and tight monetary policy.
The Horizon Fiber Initiative: Regional Backbone for a Digital Horn of Africa
#Advertorial
On February 4, 2026, Ethio Telecom, Djibouti Telecom, and Sudatel Group signed the Horizon Fiber tripartite agreement in Djibouti, marking yet another infrastructure milestone in a region familiar with ribbon-cutting ceremonies. However, beneath this ceremonial announcement lies a significant shift in how the Horn of Africa perceives connectivity, sovereignty, and regional integration. Horizon Fiber is not merely a cable; it represents a pivotal test of whether African operators can collaboratively design strategic digital corridors on their own terms, linking them to continental initiatives like the AfCFTA.
This feature explores Horizon Fiber as a landmark in regional infrastructure, focusing on five key dimensions: the terrestrial connectivity corridor, its role as a geopolitical and economic catalyst, the partnership paradigm, digital sovereignty considerations, and its alignment with Ethio Telecom’s “Next Horizon: Digital & Beyond 2028” strategy.
From Water to Land: A Terrestrial Connectivity Corridor
For the past two decades, East Africa’s international bandwidth narrative has primarily unfolded offshore, with undersea cables landing in Djibouti, Mombasa, and Port Sudan, supplying national backbones further inland. The Horizon Fiber Initiative signifies a deliberate shift from exclusive reliance on submarine routes to a high-capacity terrestrial corridor that connects these landing stations across borders: Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Sudan.
Strategically, this terrestrial corridor achieves three key objectives:
First, it reduces vulnerability at the Red Sea chokepoint, where security incidents, anchor cuts, and geopolitical tensions have highlighted the fragility of depending solely on subsea routes. By establishing a multi-terabit, low-latency land path between Red Sea gateways, Horizon Fiber provides redundancy for traffic between the Horn, the Gulf, and onward to Europe and Asia.
Second, it transforms Ethiopia from a “dead end” into a transit state. Historically, Ethiopia’s connectivity has been heavily reliant on Djibouti’s landing stations. Horizon repositions Ethiopia as a bridge rather than just a destination, facilitating traffic flow between Sudan and Djibouti and, by extension, connecting Central and East Africa to the global backbone.
Third, it enables multi-route engineering. Operators, hyperscalers, and content delivery networks increasingly require diverse terrestrial paths to optimize latency, resilience, and cost. A robust Djibouti–Addis–Khartoum corridor allows traffic to be dynamically rerouted around disruptions, whether in the Red Sea, Suez, or within any national network.
In technical terms, Horizon serves as a backbone. In strategic terms, it functions as a corridor—physical infrastructure capable of transporting not just data packets, but also trade, investment, and influence.
Geopolitical and Economic Catalyst for AfCFTA
The logic of Horizon Fiber aligns closely with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), where a single market necessitates not only roads and customs unions but also digital highways that minimize the costs and friction associated with cross-border commerce.
A terrestrial corridor of this nature can catalyze the AfCFTA in several ways:
Lowering regional Internet transit costs. By interconnecting the infrastructures of three incumbent operators, Horizon can create competitive wholesale routes compared to single-country backbones that resell international capacity at a premium. If the project is priced and regulated with transparency, ISPs and data-intensive enterprises in the region could access cheaper and more reliable transit options, essential for facilitating digital trade.
Supporting cross-border platforms. Cloud services, fintech, e-commerce, and content distribution networks rely on predictable, low-latency connections across markets. A resilient Horn corridor provides regional platforms—from payment processors to data centers—a robust backbone for scaling operations across Djibouti, Ethiopia, Sudan, and further into landlocked markets.
Strengthening bargaining power. Collective ownership of a strategic route empowers African operators to negotiate with hyperscalers and global carriers from a stronger position, offering them access to multiple hinterlands through a single, African-controlled gateway instead of fragmented national deals.
In a region where geopolitics often revolves around port access and military bases, a shared digital corridor introduces a new form of leverage: the ability to route global data flows through African-managed infrastructure, with significant regulatory, economic, and security implications.
From Competition to Innovation Partnerships
One of the most significant aspects of Horizon Fiber is not the fiber itself, but the language used by its architects to describe their collaboration. Ethio Telecom’s CEO, Frehiwot Tamru, characterized the project as “a shared digital future,” emphasizing that by combining infrastructure assets and technical expertise, African operators can “solve real connectivity challenges and unlock new value” for customers and hyperscalers. Djibouti Telecom’s CEO, Mohamed Assoweh Bouh, focused on “shared prosperity” and digital sovereignty, while Sudatel’s CEO, Magdi M. Abdalla Taha, referred to Horizon as “a living model of innovative partnership” and “a replicable benchmark” for the continent.
This rhetoric signals a paradigm shift from pure market competition to “innovation partnerships” in at least three ways:
Asset pooling instead of duplication. Rather than each operator constructing parallel, competing corridors with limited usage, Horizon proposes a collaboratively designed route that utilizes existing ducts, rights-of-way, and national backbones. This could enhance asset efficiency and reduce the long-term unit cost of capacity.
Shared risk in a high-capital environment. Terrestrial cross-border fiber is capital-intensive and politically sensitive. By sharing risk and capital expenditures, the three state-linked incumbents can undertake a project that might be individually prohibitive, especially given foreign exchange constraints and domestic investment priorities.
Signaling to regulators and financiers. The partnership model communicates to multilateral lenders, development finance institutions, and private investors that African incumbents can coordinate on regional public goods, not just local markets. This could facilitate the blending of concessional finance, vendor credit, and commercial capital into similar corridors elsewhere.
The risk, however, is that such alliances could solidify into regional cartels, limiting access for smaller players. The extent to which Horizon evolves into an open, neutral platform—or a closed club—will determine whether it fosters competition or merely consolidates the power of incumbents.
Digital Sovereignty Through Co-Ownership
Horizon Fiber is also part of a broader discussion about digital sovereignty: the capacity of states and regions to control critical digital infrastructure, standards, and data flows rather than ceding them entirely to foreign carriers and platforms.
By co-owning a strategic corridor that connects them directly to global cable systems, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Sudan gain several sovereignty advantages:
Control over routing and redundancy. They can prioritize resilience for their own markets during disruptions, rather than relying solely on the commercial decisions of foreign carriers.
Regulatory jurisdiction. Traffic transiting the corridor falls under the regulatory and legal frameworks of the three states, which is significant for data protection, lawful interception, and cybersecurity policy.
Strategic autonomy in vendor choices. A jointly engineered corridor may mitigate vendor risk if the partners consciously avoid single-vendor lock-in, although this will depend on procurement decisions that have not yet been fully revealed.
However, digital sovereignty is not absolute. Submarine cables landing in Djibouti and Port Sudan remain critical chokepoints often financed or controlled by non-African consortia. Major content and cloud providers continue to operate on global architectures and may insist on their own routing preferences. Thus, Horizon Fiber should be viewed as incremental sovereignty: an important step toward African agency in infrastructure, but one that still functions within a global ecosystem dominated by external capital and technology.
Ethio Telecom’s “Next Horizon” and the Regional Pivot
For Ethio Telecom, Horizon Fiber is explicitly positioned as a cornerstone of its “Next Horizon: Digital & Beyond 2028” strategy. This roadmap aims to transform the company from a domestic incumbent into “a globally competitive, regionally diversified, and digitally empowered enterprise” that extends beyond connectivity into platforms, ecosystems, and regional solutions.
The Horizon corridor advances this vision along several key dimensions:
Transit Hub Status. By facilitating international traffic between Sudan and Djibouti and consolidating demand from landlocked neighbors, Ethiopia can establish itself as a regional transit hub. Ethio Telecom will serve as a wholesaler and platform operator, moving beyond the role of a national telecom provider.
Platform for New Services. High-capacity, low-latency regional fiber is essential for data centers, cloud services, content caching, and cross-border fintech. Ethio’s strategy emphasizes investments in cloud infrastructure, modular and hyperscale data centers, and cybersecurity solutions; a regional corridor broadens the reach of these assets.
Revenue Diversification. With domestic average revenue per user (ARPU) under pressure and an increasingly competitive mobile market, wholesale and regional services present Ethio Telecom with new revenue opportunities that are less vulnerable to local price caps and political fluctuations.
Alignment with National and AU Digital Agendas. Ethiopia’s digital transformation strategy and the African Union’s (AU) Digital Transformation Strategy both prioritize cross-border infrastructure, data markets, and innovation ecosystems. Horizon makes these strategies actionable by providing the physical fiber needed to support policy goals.
If Next Horizon represents Ethio Telecom’s effort to evolve from a “national champion” to a “regional platform,” then Horizon Fiber serves as one of its assessments. The successful execution of this initiative will test the company’s ability to manage cross-border projects, complex partnerships, and extensive regional customer relationships.
Is AU willing to become the institution Africa needs?
From an online post, a commentator asked an intriguing question: “If the African Union (AU) cannot create a single currency, a unified military, or a common passport, then what exactly is this union about?”.
The comment section went wild, with some commentators saying that AU no longer serves the interest of the African people, but rather the interests of the West and individual nations with greedy interests in Africa’s resources. Some even said jokingly that it should be renamed “Western Union”.
But seriously, how has a country like France managed to maintain an economic leverage over 14 African states through its CFA Franc system, yet the continent is unable to create its own single currency regime? Why does the continent seem to be comfortable with global powers establishing their military bases throughout its territories yet doesn’t seem interested in establishing its own unified military? Why does the idea of an open borders freak out our leaders, driving them to hide under sovereignty?
These questions interrogate AU’s relevance in the ensuing geopolitics. No doubt, the AU is still relevant as it still speaks on behalf of Africa on global platforms as a symbol of the continent’s unity. But the unease surrounding it is justified because symbolism is no longer enough.
In a continent grappling with persistent conflict, economic fragmentation, and democratic reversals, institutions are judged not by their presence, but by their impact.
From the chat, and several other discussion groups on social media, most Africans are unhappy with the performance of the African Union so far. To many, the organization is out of touch with reality and they are now calling for an immediate reset.
To them, AU is a club of cabals, whose main achievements have been safeguarding fellow felons.
One commentator said, “AU’s main job is to congratulate dictators who kill their citizens to retain power through rigged elections.” Another said, “AU is a bunch of atrophied rulers dancing on the graves of their citizens, looting resources from their people to stash in foreign countries.”
These views may sound harsh, but are a good measure of how people perceive the organization across the continent.
Blurring vision
The African Union, which was established in July 2002 to succeed the OAU, was born out of an ambitious vision of uniting the continent toward self-reliance by driving economic Integration, enhancing peace and security, prompting good governance and, representing the continent on the global stage – following the end of colonialism.
Over time, however, the gap between this vision and the reality on the ground has widened. AU appears helpless to address the growing conflicts across the continent – from unrelenting coups to shambolic elections to external aggressions.
This chronic weakness has slowly eroded public confidence in the organization and as such, AU is being seen as a forum for speeches rather than solutions – just as one commentator puts it, “AU has turned into a farce talk shop that cannot back or bite.”
Call for a new body
The general feeling on the ground is that AU is stagnant and has nothing much to show for the 60+ years of its existence (from the times of OAU). It’s also viewed as toothless and subservient to the whims of its ‘masters’. Some commentators even called for its dissolution and the formation of a new body that would serve the interests of the continent and its people.
This sounds like a no-confidence vote. To regain favour and remain a force for continental good, AU must undertake critical reforms, enhance accountability, and show political courage as a matter of urgency. Without these, it may endure in form while fading in substance.
The question is not whether Africa needs the AU, but whether the AU is willing and ready to become the institution Africa needs – one that is bold enough to initiate a daring move towards a common market, a single currency, a unified military, and a common passport regime. It is possible!
Omuodo is a pan-African Public Relations and Communications expert based in Nairobi, Kenya. He can be reached on mike.omuodo@mediafast.co.ke
