In Accra, on the sidelines of the high-level conference on the governance of critical minerals and conflicts in Africa, Dr. Badié Hima, founding director of the MAT laboratory, gives his analysis of the current issues on the continent. Former resident director of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Togo and Mali, and specialist in democratic governance, he warns of the central role that these resources now play in global power dynamics. For this Nigerian expert, critical minerals represent “the new face of global geopolitics” and expose Africa even more to economic, political, and security tensions if states do not strengthen their governance mechanisms.
In this interview with Financial Afrik in the Ghanaian capital, he advocates for an approach based on transparency, genuine community participation, and the asserted sovereignty of states over their resources, so that these riches finally become levers for peace, stability, and development for African peoples.
Interview conducted in Accra by Nephthali Messanh LEDY
Financial Afrik: In your opinion, how can Africa avoid turning its critical minerals into causes of conflict on the continent?
Dr. Badié Hima: Potentially, critical minerals can be seen as the new face of global geopolitics. We can clearly see the rush of major companies and powers towards the African continent today. This means that our continent is, more than ever, a battleground for global economic competition. If we are not careful, this dynamic can worsen existing conflicts. And these conflicts are, as you know, both the product and the consequence of our resources. This is why we speak of the resource curse in Africa.
To avoid this, we must first commend the initiative of the Open Society Foundations, which has brought together here in Accra the cream of African expertise on governance and peace issues related to the extraction and exploitation of minerals.
For my part, I see three prerequisites for critical minerals to become sources of peace, drivers of development, and not conflict factors.
The first is governance. You have seen how the debates revolved around this issue. And in the governance of extractive industries, there are two major concepts: transparency and community participation.
From the perspective of transparency, this means that contracts must be made public, the generated resources must be disclosed, the use of revenues from critical minerals must also be known, and a critical debate must exist on how the state invests these revenues.
Regarding community participation, this is indeed another name for democratic governance. I conducted research for seven years on institutional processes in Africa, from independence to sovereign national conferences. I observed how our constitutions and institutions were established. Often, this was done in a copy-and-paste manner, without genuine community participation. Without citizen participation, we cannot build strong institutions.
What makes an institution strong is real inclusion. In my research, I have seen many consultations, dialogues, and forums that are considered inclusive. Communities, civil society, political parties, and citizens are invited. But in reality, more than three-quarters of the participants discover the terms of reference once in the room. That is not participation.
This is why I spoke yesterday about empowering participation. How can we empower communities to participate meaningfully? How can we strengthen their capacities so that they can formulate rational, informed, and relevant viewpoints? We cannot convene them in a room without them knowing what will be discussed.
For example, how can we engage the communities of Arlit, Sikasso, or those affected by phosphate mining in Togo in a meaningful debate on high-level scientific and technical issues? This requires that before consultations and dialogues, we reach out to them, train them, equip them so that they understand the subject of discussion.
Lastly, talking about participation also means discussing the use of revenues from extraction. We often mention building schools, supporting health, infrastructure. But these choices must be discussed with the communities. We cannot decide on the development of communities without them. Yet, this is still too often what happens.
Today, in the Sahel States Alliance (AES), there is a move towards nationalizing gold and uranium. Do you think this could be a good response to insecurity and poverty among the populations?
Of course, but under certain conditions. Nationalization first requires a strong capacity of the state, especially in terms of exploitation means. This means that the three countries of the AES want to fully exercise their sovereignty and therefore must have the technical and technological capacities necessary for industrial production.
For me, there is no other way than nationalization. It is what will allow the AES states to reclaim national resources. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations clearly states: natural resources belong to communities and states.
The AES has found a way. Significant efforts are already being made, especially legislatively in Mali, which is very advanced on this issue. Niger and Burkina Faso are also on the right track. I believe this will allow states to take control of the majority of revenues and reinvest them.
But there is another requirement. Nationalize, yes. But we must also meet all the prerequisites I mentioned earlier: transparency in exploitation, revenue management, and reinvestment. We must know what goes to security, what goes to basic social sectors, education, health. This will allow the populations of the AES to support their states because they will understand what is happening and see that the decisions made are in line with their development. And this also creates the conditions for peace and stability in the sub-region.
Is there a risk that this assertion of sovereignty will come at the expense of transparency?
No, it is not contradictory. Nationalization means that the state regains control of the resource. But who is the state? It is the institutions, yes, but also the communities. Therefore, there are democratic requirements. Nationalization must also adhere to democratic requirements.
This requires a public debate on how to nationalize, how to exploit, on the generated revenues, on the quantities produced, on what is generated each year. Sovereignty should not mean opacity. It should, on the contrary, strengthen public accountability.
At the same time, some argue that democracy is not well shared in the AES.
I think these are just parentheses. Africa, from the village, experiences democracy in its own way. In the vegetable garden, you already have a democratic experience: solidarity, sharing, discussion about the environment, protection of spaces, boundaries. Democracy is nothing more than that.
Our culture also carries democratic values and practices, from the grassroots, from the village. Therefore, democracy should not be seen as something foreign to our societies.
Today, artisanal sites fund armed groups. What concrete solutions are there to sever this link?
Investigations show that there is still little clarity and visibility on criminal economy because there are multiple groups present on the ground. But a 2023 survey estimates that this criminal economy represents between one and two billion dollars. That is huge.
The main solution is security. It is a major issue: we must secure the areas currently affected by insecurity. In regions like Mopti or Tillabéri, farmers already struggle to go to the fields or sow, let alone control gold and mining sites.
There is no other solution than securing the sites so that the state can reclaim the land, production, and ultimately resource control.
What are your expectations after these meetings held in Accra?
I hope that the meeting in Accra will be a starting point and a landmark. I would like the core group formed here around the OSF Foundation to serve as a continental think tank, both in terms of advocacy with sub-regional and regional institutions and in terms of idea generation. You have seen that there are civil society organizations, researchers, and think tanks from Senegal to South Africa, up to Sudan.
My wish, even my dream, is that this meeting will lead, perhaps not immediately, but eventually, to the development of a continental declaration, accompanied by an action plan and a monitoring and advocacy mechanism. We need an Accra Declaration, supported by a strong action plan, to continue the work in the long term.
I do not want the Foundation to abandon this idea, this concept, because we cannot let the exploitation of critical minerals, which is now shaping global geopolitics, become another missed opportunity for the aspirations of African peoples.
