Front-and-centre, or side-by-side? The question of the Congo’s place in African anti-colonial struggles has varied in answer from thinker to thinker. As covered previously, Nkrumah, the first President of Ghana, believed that the Congo stood as the “Heart of Africa” and was therefore at the forefront of African liberation. However, not every thinker shared this opinion and instead believed that the Congo’s place was on a more equal level of importance to its neighbours. One such thinker was Nnamdi Azikiwe, the First President of Nigeria and the father of Nigerian nationalism.

Nnamdi Azikiwe (1904-1996) was born in Zungeru in Niger state to Igbo parents. Attending primary and secondary schools in Onitsha, Calabar, and Lagos, Azikiwe was exposed to all three major Nigerian cultures, learning more about Nigeria’s position in the world upon moving to the US for university and later travelling to Ghana for early employment. After returning to Nigeria in 1937, Azikiwe founded the Nigerian Youth movement and the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) which supported him as he was elected to the Nigerian Legislative council and later emerged victorious during the 1959 federal elections. These elections were key in securing Nigerian independence from the United Kingdom’s colonial control, asserting Nigeria’s capacity for self-rule, and demonstrating their demands for freedom from European imperialism. Despite his focus on Nigerian politics, Azikiwe also looked outwards to the rest of Africa, foreseeing a collaborative push between African states for the total liberation of the continent from colonial powers.

Azikiwe’s anti-colonial thought rested on a few principles, insisting upon the right of an African state to sovereignty, non-interference, and to federate (or confederate) with whom they chose. The state of African nations was a source of despair for Azikiwe, who likened the continent to a “ham which has been carved by the sword of European imperialism.” The Nigerian leader believed that if matters were placed totally and wilfully into the hands of African countries by Europe, the continent would prosper. Most importantly, Azikiwe believed in the right of African states of equality of sovereignty irrespective of size and population, opposing any hierarchy of importance between African countries. For these foundational beliefs, Azikiwe believed that the independence of Africa came from the formation of an African Leviathan from a collaboration among African states, calling for Nigeria to “co-operate closely with the other independent African states” to form the political bloc needed to push out colonial influences. While still supportive of African liberation and the Congo’s independence, Azikiwe’s ideals put an emphasis on equal collaboration among African states as the method towards true African freedom, instead of the fateful sway of any state, as Nkrumah believed for the Congo.

Lumumba’s own philosophy aligned with much of Azikiwe’s thought, similarly believing in an egalitarian attitude to the importance of African Liberation. In a speech at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria, in 1959, Lumumba stated that “Africa will not be truly free and independent as long as any part of this continent remains under foreign domination”, placing all African states on an even plane of importance. The Congolese leader was also of the same opinion that it was colonialism and its facets of control that “seriously hinder the flowering of a harmonious and fraternal African society,” seeking their removal to allow Africa to bloom. Lumumba similarly sought the unity of Africans in popular movements or unified parties to “demonstrate our brotherhood to the world” and fight against the balkanisation of Africa into weak states at the mercy of the West, a sentiment parallel to Azikiwe’s own comparison of a balkanised Africa to a carved ham in its revulsion at the predatory colonial division of Africa.

While Azikiwe’s thoughts on the Congo Crisis itself remain unknown, it can be assumed through his philosophy, that the secession of Katanga under Tshombe and the brutal military involvement of Belgium, the UN and allied countries would have been taken as a mark of disrespect to the integrity of Africa and its right to federate or confederate without influence. The involvement of Nigerian military forces in peacekeeping operations solidifies notions of favouring an Africa-led response to intra-African conflict and the camaraderie of African states through the support offered to the Congolese government by Nigerian forces.

Despite records never hinting at a meeting between the two leaders, Azikiwe and Lumumba clearly shared a vision of an Africa free from European domination and believed in similar pillars for African inter-state collaboration moving forward. Whether the vanguard of liberation or a willing member of an egalitarian community, the Congo’s independence was and is a matter of importance to Pan-Africanists from all walks of the ideology. Today, the Congo faces the same challenges to its rightful sovereignty, territorial integrity and freedoms as it faced during the crisis of the 60s. Irrespective of which pan-Africanist ideologue you follow, there is no question about the independence of the Congo; its protection is essential to the anti-colonial struggle, and it must be freed from the grasp of colonial and neo-colonial influences.

Written by Alex Temmink

If touched upon within education, African anti-colonial thinkers are often placed in a political vacuum, artificially isolated from neighbouring contemporaries within wider continental dialogues. The effects of collaboration among African ideologues on pan-Africanist thought are often left out of records, constructing a false atmosphere where African anti-colonialists acted alone against European imperialism instead of together. This phenomenon risks the omission of key interactions between popular African leaders and the connections made between their struggles for independence.

Notably, Nkrumah, the revolutionary first President of Ghana, was a marked supporter of Lumumba and a Free Congo. Nkrumah is construed as the founding father of Ghana and the main leader behind Ghana’s role in the wider pan-Africanist movement, but little is said about his interactions with fellow leaders. Nkrumah saw the Congo as “the Heart of Africa” – a vital region that formed a buffer state between a growingly independent Africa in the North and a South controlled by imperialists. To Nkrumah, the Congo stood as a decisive factor in the fight between neo-imperialism and Pan-Africanism, marking the victory of either party depending on which way the country swayed. Resultantly, the freedom of the Congo from imperialist influence became a matter of significant importance for Ghana’s president and Pan-Africanism at large, underwritten by the leader’s “fervent hope” to rally Africa to his ideology.

This political leaning brought Nkrumah into close contact with Patrice Lumumba, who shared in his ideals of African freedom, unity, and independence. Lumumba’s own experiences in Accra during the All-African People’s conference of 1958 had added a stark Pan-African dimension to his Congolese nationalism and fostered a close relationship between him and Nkrumah, referring to one another as brothers in official correspondences. Lumumba and Nkrumah often discussed how the Congo could be structured to best repel imperialist influence, with Nkrumah often encouraging a strong unitary governmental system for the Congo as a means of preventing neo-imperialist meddling through the exploitation of federal systems, an omen for events soon to come.

During the Congo Crisis of the 60s, Nkrumah attempted to push for “African self-respect” in peace-keeping matters by sending a solely African force to prevent conflict, also transporting an unprecedented level of foreign aid to the Congo at “almost every level of government”, according to Opoku Agyeman, including medical and civic support. To the Ghanaian president, this backing was a matter of principle, stating in a 1960 UN General Assembly meeting that “to damage the prestige and authority of that [Lumumba’s] government would be to undermine the whole basis of democracy in Africa”, denouncing the belligerence of the West and Western-backed rebels against the legitimate central Congolese government as an extension of how far colonial powers would go to maintain their domination “in one form or another in Africa.”

Nkrumah’s plans of an Afro-centric response to the Congo Crisis were short-lived, eventually being pushed out by a mix of UN, European, US, and US-backed forces who chose to support Mobutu and his pro-western sentiments. The betrayal of the UN and Lumumba’s later assassination at the hands of these parties was a source of considerable grief for Nkrumah, stating in a broadcast on the 14^th of February 1961 that the loss of Lumumba was an illegal power grab by the rulers of the US, UK, France and other powers allied with Belgium as well as a “loss for the whole African continent.”

Despite knowing each other for a short time, the interactions between Lumumba and Nkrumah appeared to have a profound effect on the politics of Ghana, Congo and continental Pan-Africanism, highlighting an often-overlooked connection between African struggles to be rid of colonial influences. What’s important to keep in mind when analysing the Congo or any other Black African nation is that their struggles rarely exist in a void and are often emblematic of larger conflicts, be it ideological, economic, or social. The Congo is the heart of Africa, so ask yourself, what does it tell you when the heart is under attack?

Written by Alex Temmink

In the presence of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo, represented by Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, and of Rwanda, Olivier Nduhungirehe, signed the pre-agreement on peace in Washington on Friday. While this agreement is generating hope and acclaim at international level, it is an unprecedented step backwards that could be signed in 2025 with full understanding of the problem. After reading the "agreement" or "capitulation", this editorial focuses on the three following points.

1. The failure of Tshisekedi regime to solve the problem and using lying propaganda:

His administration failed to put even one or two interests of Congolese people in that accord. This is a shame because for sure wise people here in Congo didn't expect nothing but not the capitulation of Kinshasa to all needs of Congolese people. It is a sad day for Congo because there is no withdrawal of Rwandan’s militaries. The M23 is like a Congolese matters instead all confirmed information of the Rwanda fueling that conflict. At the same time, there is propaganda here in Kinshasa done medias of the regime to present that accord as a result of highest diplomacy and this will save the country from this unjustified war against DR Congo.

2. The interest of the Tshisekedi regime instead of Congolese needs:

In the Congolese opinion, it is clear about the expectations. Withdrawal of Rwanda army from Congolese territory, liberation of occupied territory, suits to people who killed civilians and did others crimes, justice and dignity for Congolese victims who still suffered from tree decades now, the impossibility for any rebellion to integrate the army (with even a law) ...

But no one, no one of those points where in this agreement. The only thing is the capitulation, the surrender of victims to the aggressor. Only interest is the continuing of the regime, which were menace by the M23 (a Rwanda creation) to finish with Tshisekedi administration. Now they will be dealing with Rwanda and USA by trampling Congolese people, millions of Congolese killed hearts in need of justice and alive victims and survivors which will be ignored by this agreement.

3. A step back to the Goma accord:

Probably many people can analyze it like this but it is the same accord which were signed in Goma between the Congolese government and the CNDP (a Rwanda creation, father of the M23) with the Same narrative and which destroyed and injected Rwandans actors at all highest security instances in DR Congo.

Integration of Militias (only of CNDP) in the army with more power and more privilege than Congolese soldiers who served for decades under the flag, refusing giving justice to victims, take non-Rwandan militias as enemy and not include them in the process,...

We all know the results was a army to keep killing his citizens, keep protecting criminals and create a sentiment of injustice, encouraging to take weapons against the country and most of all the controlling by Rwanda's proxy of important mines in the east.

It is a bad step back

Written by Akilimali Chomachoma

While the peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda signed on 27 June 2025 in Washington raises hopes of a de-escalation, the internal dynamics of the AFC/M23 and its growing foothold in the east of the DRC cast major doubt over the success of the process. 

The Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC/M23) is going through a period of internal turbulence that could have an impact on the dialogue taking place in Doha, Qatar, because of differences of opinion. A confidential report by the UN Group of Experts reveals that controversial appointments within the group and the announcement of the return of former president Joseph Kabila to the DRC via Goma have rekindled deep divisions between rival factions.

According to the report dated 20 April 2025, tensions are intensifying between the so-called "historic" Rwandan and Ugandan factions that make up the heterogeneous structure of the AFC/M23. This dissension is said to have prompted the Rwandan government, the movement's main supporter, to consider appointing former general Laurent Nkunda to a strategic post within the rebellion in order to "restore cohesion and strengthen popular support". "Corneille Nangaa, initially presented as the political face of the AFC/M23 to reframe the rebellion as a Congolese problem, has been gradually sidelined by #Rwanda. The main reason for this change is Nangaa's personal ambition to seize power in Kinshasa by force. While Rwanda and the M23 supported the idea of regime change, they were not in favor of a military campaign aimed at Kinshasa", says the UN experts report. "Internal tensions have arisen within the AFC/M23, exacerbated by disputed internal appointments and the controversial announcement of the return of former president Joseph Kabila to eastern DRC. To restore unity, Kigali is reported to have planned to appoint Laurent Nkunda, who is under sanctions, to an important post", says the report.

Kigali leading military operations

"Similarly, RDF operations were decisive in securing control of Bukavu, which was taken without urban combat [on 16 February]", the report summarizes. Other towns were conquered with RDF support, such as Lubero and Walikale. Their withdrawal from Walikale was then decided "on the direct orders of the Rwandan government, which once again confirms Rwanda's control and command of the AFC/M23", say the reporters.

In a meeting with the press in Kigali on Friday 04 July 2025, Rwandan President Paul Kagame added: "Rwanda will always do what it has to do when the FDLR is along its border." This speech comes as the Rwandan-backed M23 rebellion controls the provinces of North and South Kivu.

"The military and political leaders of the AFC/M23 continued to receive instructions and support from the Rwandan government and its intelligence services. The Rwandan-Congolese Fred Ngenzi Kagorora and Brigadier General Patrick Karuretwa maintained frequent contact with Makenga, Bisimwa and "Colonel" Imani Nzenze", states the report of the group of experts submitted to the sanctions committee of the United Nations Security Council.

Written by Akilimali Chomachoma