My dear Aproko people, I bring small gist for the day, because some of you will hear John Mahama talk about AfCFTA, colonial trade routes and “shipping tea from Kenya to Ghana via the UK” and start shouting, “See, these leaders are just talking!” 😂
Let me add context small.
What Mahama actually said (and what he meant)
President John Dramani Mahama of Ghana has repeatedly pointed out a simple but painful truth: Africa’s transport and logistics systems were built to serve colonial economies, not African neighbours.
In his own words:
“It’s been easier to ship items from Ghana to Liverpool than it is to ship the same items from Ghana to Kenya.”
He has also explained that:
- Roads, railways and ports were designed to move raw materials from the interior to the coast for export to Europe.
- There are few good roads or rail lines directly linking African countries to each other.
- Logistics for moving goods between African countries remain weak, expensive and slow.
So when he talks about “ordering two containers of tea from Kenya” and the goods first going to the UK before coming back to Ghana, he is using a vivid example to describe a real pattern: many African trade routes still run through former colonial hubs in Europe, instead of moving directly between African countries.
Yes, that sounds ridiculous. But it is not just tea.
Did you know this is how African trade has been moving?
Did you know that intra-African trade as a share of total African trade is still only around 10–12%, compared to about 60–70% in Europe and Asia?
Did you know that at independence in the late 1950s, intra-African trade was as low as 3% of total African trade, and even today it hovers around 12–17% depending on how you measure it?
Did you know that in the colonial era, over 70% of African exports went to Western Europe, while less than 7% of African exports were traded within the continent?
And did you know that many of these patterns have not fully disappeared, even after “independence”?
Historic trade routes still predominantly link African countries to seaports on the coast, from where goods are shipped to Europe, the US and Asia. Infrastructure linking African neighbours remains poor. Goods still largely follow these old routes.
So yes, it is entirely possible for:
- Ghanaian goods to go to Europe first, then to another African country.
- Kenyan goods to be transshipped through European hubs like Algeciras, Antwerp or Las Palmas before reaching West Africa.
- Two African countries to have better shipping frequency and lower costs to London, Paris or Rotterdam than to each other.
This is not conspiracy. This is colonial logistics still shaping modern economics.
Same story with phone calls
As recently as the early 2000s, studies found that around 90% of calls between African countries were routed by satellite through Europe or North America, at huge cost.
There are documented cases where:
- A call from Brazzaville (Republic of Congo) to Kinshasa (DRC), two capitals almost facing each other across the river, was routed through Paris and Brussels.
- International services for several African states were provided mainly via undersea cables linking them directly with Europe, rather than with each other.
Telecoms infrastructure in Africa was originally laid to connect out-stationed colonial administrators to their motherlands, not to connect African populations to each other.
So when you dial a number in another African country and your call bounces through a European switching centre, that is not an accident. That is history still breathing.
Same story with air travel (even though this is slowly changing)
Less than 20% of African airline traffic flies on intra-African routes, compared to roughly 60% within Europe.
Many African airlines still operate using outdated models centred on European hubs like Paris, Frankfurt, Istanbul or London. Flying through these hubs can be easier, cheaper or more frequent than accessing a direct intra-African route.
As a result:
- Intra-African airfares are, on average, 30–50% higher than global averages for similar distances.
- There are fewer direct flights between African capitals than there are between African capitals and European ones.
- Business travellers and cargo operators often find it more convenient to connect via Europe than via another African city.
Yes, things are improving. The African Union and regional bodies have been pushing the Single African Air Transport Market and open-skies agreements. But the colonial skeleton is still visible in today’s route maps.
AfCFTA, AU chairmanship and the “toothless” question
Now, about Mahama assuming the chairmanship of the African Union and talking about fixing these problems while the AU is called “mostly pro-colonial, toothless and ineffective.”
Two things.
First, the AU is not a world government. It is an intergovernmental organisation made up of 55 member states, each with its own interests, donors, debts and dependencies. It moves at the speed of the slowest and most cautious member. That does not make it automatically a colonial tool, but it does make it slow, political and often frustrating.
Second, Mahama’s core point is not about grand Pan-African rhetoric. It is practical:
- Build roads and railways that connect African countries to each other, not just mines and farms to ports.
- Improve logistics so that a container can move from Mombasa to Tema without detouring through Europe.
- Lower the cost and increase the frequency of intra-African flights and telecoms links.
- Use AfCFTA as a framework to justify and fund that infrastructure, not just as a signing ceremony.
That is less glamorous than “we must unite Africa now,” but it is the boring work that actually changes trade patterns.
“He’s either a genuine rebel or a tool” — let’s pause small
Someone said:
“John Mahama says all the right things and his body language checks out for the most part, but I have a hard time believing anyone who rose to power through the colonial electoral system in today’s Africa can truly fight against the colonials.”
Fair suspicion. African politics is full of leaders who speak Pan-Africanism by day and sign away strategic assets by night.
But there are only two boxes here: “genuine revolutionary rebel” or “tool to market a new fake Pan-Africanist agenda on behalf of the colonials, especially now that they know Russia is making tremendous inroads into the psyche of Africans, with the offer of real independence, as seen in the Sahel.”
Life is rarely that clean.
A leader can:
- Use the existing “colonial electoral system” to get into power.
- Speak in Pan-African language because it resonates domestically and internationally.
- Genuinely want to improve intra-African infrastructure and trade.
- Still be constrained by donors, debt, local elites, security pressures and global power competition (US, EU, China, Russia, Gulf states, etc).
The Sahel narrative of “Russia = real independence” is also not simple. Some regimes in the Sahel have indeed framed their break with former colonial powers in those terms. But “real independence” is more than changing security partners or rhetoric. It is about who controls your budget, your debt, your trade routes, your technology stack and your policy space.
So yes, be skeptical. But don’t reduce every African leader to either “authentic rebel” or “colonial puppet.” Most are somewhere in the messy middle, trying to survive politically while pushing (or blocking) change in specific areas.
Where I’m willing to cut Mahama slack
I’m willing to cut Mahama slack on this specific agenda:
- He is naming a real problem: colonial-era logistics that make intra-African trade harder and more expensive than trade with Europe.
- He is linking that problem directly to AfCFTA’s success: without roads, rails, ports, air links and telecoms that connect Africans to each other, AfCFTA will remain mostly on paper.
- He is focusing on concrete infrastructure and logistics gaps, not just slogans.
Whether he can deliver is another question. Ghana itself still struggles with power, debt, currency and governance. The AU chair rotates. Member states block bold moves. Donors have their own priorities.
But at least the diagnosis is correct:
“We were not meant to trade among ourselves. We were meant to trade with our colonisers, and so the logistics were not there.”
So, back to the tea
If I order two containers of tea from Kenya, that tea shouldn’t come to the UK before it’s shipped back to me in Ghana.
We must have the opportunity to have that container shipped directly to me in Ghana.
And so, even though we have the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the existing trade networks that were set up by the colonial masters do not favor exchanges amongst ourselves.
That is the core of what Mahama is saying.
You can doubt his motives. You can question the AU. You can argue about Russia, the Sahel and “real independence”.
But you cannot deny the data:
- Intra-African trade is still among the lowest in the world.
- Shipping, telecoms and air routes still lean heavily on European hubs.
- Infrastructure was literally built to extract resources to Europe, not to connect African neighbours.
So as you’re consuming all the “Mahama is a saviour” and “Mahama is a colonial tool” content online, also keep this in the back of your mind:
The real fight is not just about who sits in the AU chair.
It is about whether, in the next 10–20 years, a container, a phone call and a flight can move from one African country to another without first touching London, Paris or Istanbul.
Because having flags and anthems is one thing.
Being able to trade, talk and travel with each other without colonial detours is another thing entirely.