Roger Milla: The African of the 21st Century Decade - Part 1

By Louis Egbe Mbua

This article first appeared in camnetwork on 7 January 2000, at the very dawn of the 21st century. It was written as a response to the debate as to who would covet the title of The African of the 20th century. At the time of writing, we were thinking of the future by retrospecting the past; and believing that we would now face a brighter future in Africa. Today, with the conduct of political African leaders in a manner that leaves the world gasping for breath, the writing is as true in 2000 as it is today. The same problems that plagued Africa in the 2oth century remain -- if not getting worse. Tyranny, poverty, disease, constitutional and electoral fraud; and political fiat continue with all the ferocity of a whirlwind and a storm combination. In 2000 Roger Milla won the day in the debates; and it still holds today.

Who is the African of the 20th Century?

There were some aspects of Nkrumah's achievements, which the author believes should warrant his nomination as “An African of the Century”: although I do not believe he will win the coveted title. If I could go by historical accounts, Kwame Nkrumah was only thirty-six years old (born in 1909) when he attended the Pan-Africanist Conference in 1945 in Manchester.Before then, he had already taught at Lincoln University in America;and being voted the best lecturer of the year. Although W.E.B Dubois wasvery instrumental in that particular conference, it was Nkrumah who read the signs of the times. On his return to Ghana in 1947, he quickly capitalised upon the injustices of World War II, and African domination by the Allied powers to demand "self-government now". Realising that the party which he was affiliated was dragging its feet, hequickly resigned his position as Secretary General. He then went on to form his ownparty, the Convention People's Party in 1949 that quickly captured the people's imagination. He worked closely with trade union leaders toorganise civil disobedience reminiscent of Gandhi in India. In fact, he is called in some well-informed quarters as "The Gandhi ofAfrica." A tireless and dynamic worker with a flair for showmanship; andunparalleled intellect, he was imprisoned several times. It is said thathe continued to smuggle messages written in bathroom tissues while inprison!

Only ten years after returning to Ghana from the UK, Nkrumah was PrimeMinister of Ghana with his country becoming the first Black Africanstate to achieve independence having completely out-manoeuvred theBritish on intellectual grounds. This achievement alone totallychanged the African political landscape since this provided otherAfrican leaders with the inspiration to challenge colonialism head-on – genuinely or pretentiously. As a result, some African Nationalists lost their lives - Um Nyobe was killed in 1958 and Patrice Lumumba who was brutally murdered in 1964 duringthe Congo crises – allegedly with connivances by the CIA: for these are the very sad episodes what resulted from Nkrumah’s historic political achievement. However, Cameroon and Congo Kinshasa both managed to gain independence in the early 1960's. Others followed in quick succession- Algeria under Ben Bella, Kenya under Jomo Kenyata, Nigeria etc. all in the early 1960s.

It may also be recalled that it was perhaps as a consequence of Nkrumah's achievement --in this respect -- that the great man, Nelson Mandela, decided tochallenge the then racist bastion or clique in Pretoria by force ofarms in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Well, we all know whathappened to him. Spending Twenty-seven years in jail under atrocious conditionsis not something pleasurable at all. With all due respect for Mandela, what Nkrumah achieved in ten years, Mandela took Thirty-one years toachieve in 1994 when he became the first black President in a democraticSouth-Africa. So, we can say, without any foe to utter a contrary position, that what Nkrumah achieved in 1957, in the twentieth century, caused the total liberation of the entire continent. What he gained in the late 1950s is still felt in Africa in the Twenty-firstcentury in the person of Nelson Mandela who has since honourably stooddown for the younger generation living in retirement in SouthAfrica.Nkrumah did not stop there. It is a known fact – or open secret dependent on what side you belong -- the British left Ghana a very rich country indeed.

Living up to its former name, the GoldCoast, the government coffers were panelled with gold; and Nkrumah went aboutbuilding a nation. He built excellent schools, Universities (CapeCoast, Kumasi Institute of Technology) which attracted first class minds from all over the world. With education being free at the time; It is not acoincidence that the first sub-Saharan African Secretary-General ofthe United Nations, Koffi Annan, is partly a product of Ghanaianeducational system. In fact, one of my Economics Lecturer, anEnglishman, in my Undergraduate days commented that Ghanaian farmersspoke very good English - better than Welch farmers (people fromWales). How amazing!Nkrumah also promoted cultural activities by wearing his "nationaldress when attending Commonwealth Heads of Government conferences (CHGM). A friend of the author working for an NGO; and who visits severalAfrican countries, once commented that Ghanaians are the most culturally conscious; and that their civil service, the most efficient.

Nkrumah also built roads, Airports, improved the country'stelecommunication system and embarked on the Volta Project that led tothe gigantic Akosombo Dam for the smelting of Aluminium from Bauxiteand for electricity. Millions of Ghanaians found employment in theseprojects. He promoted hard work, confidence and self-reliance. It is afact that Ghanaians in Diaspora are one of the most hard-working ofall Africans.His foreign policy was very aggressive towards the westbecause he foresaw neo-colonialism. In this respect, Nkrumah tried hisold tactics of direct confrontation, brinksmanship, flamboyance andNationalism. Surely, this was a mistake that was to become his undoing.He tried to play a double game by his non-aligned stance: at one pointhe was a Socialist aligned to the Soviet Union; In another momenthe needed Loans from the West for his grandiose projects. He could notwin because the Cold War was raging meaning he had to choose which side he belonged. Nobody was allowed to have his cake and eat it: for Ideology was thegame. You had to be a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Fidel Castro cleverly, on the other hand, chose and exploited the Soviet Union and prospered politically and economically. Our own very Ahidjo, cunningly sided with the West: healso prospered politically and economically. Cameroonians then went onto party, drinking, eating, dancing and enjoying unimaginable salaryhikes until they woke up one morning to find out that there is nomoney in the bank – It had been stolen by kleptocratic politicians while they were busy dancing: the party was over. Sekou Toure mistakenly sided with the Socialists. Well, the French came in and uprooted their lamp posts in Conakry as the entire country was plunged into darkness ofhardship and poverty. One-Party state became fashionable to put downdissent with the pretext of encouraging unity. Whatever the case, he remained in power until his death.