Introduction
There is no arguing that African universities stand at a critical juncture, tasked with navigating a postcolonial landscape marked by competing demands, historical legacies and structural constraints. Envisioned as development engines, these institutions are expected to produce skilled graduates, foster critical thinking, and address pressing societal challenges from unemployment to climate change, while competing in a globalized academic arena (Cardoso Reference Cardoso2020). In my opinion, their ability to fulfil this mandate is hampered by interconnected issues ranging from chronic underfunding and governance challenges to a persistent dependency on external aid that often undermines local agency. With public investment in higher education across sub-Saharan Africa averaging well below 3.4 per cent of GDP, universities are bound to struggle to maintain infrastructure, retain qualified faculty or expand access, given that only 9 per cent of youth enrol in tertiary education (Thomas and Kagia Reference Thomas and Kagia2024). This scarcity exacerbates elitism and undermines the transformative potential of higher education to bridge social inequities.
Compounding these challenges is the tension between local relevance and global integration. African universities must craft curricula that reflect indigenous knowledge and address local needs, such as agricultural innovation or public health, while meeting international standards to ensure graduate employability and institutional credibility. However, colonial legacies and global academic hierarchies often prioritize Western models, marginalizing local scholarship and languages (Heleta Reference Heleta2016). This dynamic raises questions about intellectual sovereignty: can African universities assert agency in knowledge production without risking isolation from global networks that offer resources and prestige? Furthermore, internal issues such as mismanagement, corruption and outdated pedagogies hinder progress, shifting focus from external pressures to the need for institutional accountability. Ochonu (Reference Ochonu2025) aptly highlights these problems using Nigerian universities as a case in point. The crisis faced by these universities is driven by, among other issues, politicized recruitment, patronage-driven governance and rigid, irrelevant theoretical mandates that stifle innovation. Ochonu’s solution, which is predominantly prescriptive, includes modernizing curricula, prioritizing student-focused reforms and depoliticizing governance to restore academic excellence.
The urgency of reform is undeniable, yet proposed solutions – ranging from digital innovation to interdisciplinary approaches – often assume resources and readiness that many institutions lack. The digital divide, faculty shortages and political interference complicate these ambitions, demanding a critical examination of both vision and feasibility. As African nations pursue development goals including Agenda 2063, universities must redefine their role, balancing decolonization with pragmatic engagement in a globalized world. This article contributes to the ongoing scholarly perspectives that illuminate these challenges and offers insights into the path towards a resilient, inclusive and autonomous higher education system that empowers Africa’s future.
African universities in the postcolonial context
The challenges outlined in the postcolonial landscape of African higher education find a compelling, if contested, analysis in Jeremiah O. Arowosegbe’s essay ‘African universities and the challenge of postcolonial development’ (Reference Arowosegbe2024). Arowosegbe frames African universities as pivotal to national development, arguing that their potential is stifled by political interference, economic constraints and globalization’s imposition of Western academic standards. He emphasizes the need for academic freedom, curriculum reform that integrates indigenous knowledge and digital adoption to reclaim intellectual sovereignty and to address local needs. His postcolonial positioning aligns very much with the predominant discourse on university reforms in Africa, where universities are perceived as both victims of external forces and agents of democratic transformation (Nyamnjoh Reference Nyamnjoh2019). Nevertheless, while his diagnosis captures critical tensions, his arguments face significant rebuttals from scholars who challenge his overemphasis on specific barriers, his idealized view of universities, and the vagueness of his solutions.
Arowosegbe’s assertion that political interference is the primary obstacle to academic freedom is critiqued for exaggerating its role over internal structural issues. Ivaska (Reference Ivaska2024), for instance, rebuts this perspective, arguing that while political interference is significant, Arowosegbe oversimplifies the complex interrelationship between states and universities and overlooks the historical and contextual changes that exist in the academic landscape. Additionally, scholars such as Rambe and Moeti (Reference Rambe and Moeti2017) argue that inefficiencies such as corruption, nepotism and outdated administration – often within universities’ control – also hinder progress. By focusing on state meddling, Arowosegbe risks underplaying institutional agency, a point echoed in broader research that calls for governance reforms to enhance accountability rather than solely reducing state oversight. Similarly, his celebration of universities as democratic incubators is contested for romanticizing their role. Critics note that African universities, with only 9 per cent youth enrolment, often perpetuate elitism and fail to challenge socio-political hierarchies, undermining their transformative potential.
Arowosegbe’s scepticism of globalization, which he sees as perpetuating colonial legacies, is rebutted by scholars highlighting the benefits of strategic global engagement. Additionally, his broad proposals, such as diversification and digital adoption, lack specificity, with scholars critiquing the absence of actionable strategies to address faculty resistance or resource constraints. These rebuttals, informed by studies advocating for industry partnerships and centralized curriculum reform, lay the groundwork for a deeper examination of how African universities can navigate these complexities, as explored in eight related articles. However, before focusing on concrete actions and proposals, it may be worth critiquing Arowosegbe’s critics, focusing on recent contributions published in this journal.
Several key themes cut across the various perspectives. My take is that Arowosegbe’s critics outline comprehensive themes and solutions but fall short in specificity and feasibility, necessitating a critical analysis that integrates Arowosegbe’s arguments, his critics’ broader insights and alternative proposals locally grounded in African realities to stimulate the discourse on African higher education. Because African universities are contextually – that is, historically, socio-culturally and politically – unique, I argue that only carefully tailored actions can expose their unique selling points.
Influence of external support and dependency
Arowosegbe and his critics deplore the dependency of African universities on foreign aid and partnerships, arguing that it undermines academic autonomy and intellectual sovereignty. Arowosegbe contends that globalization forces universities to prioritize Western standards, perpetuating colonial legacies at the expense of local needs. Similarly, scholars such as Alabi (Reference Alabi2024) have noted that reliance on external support risks compromising local agency. This postcolonial critique is valid, as donor-driven agendas often prioritize global metrics over local priorities, such as indigenous knowledge systems. However, Arowosegbe and his critics risk oversimplifying the role of external partnerships. As seen in the partnerships between Chinese universities and institutions such as MIT, strategic global collaboration can provide resources and expertise without compromising local focus. The challenge lies in negotiating equitable terms, a nuance that Arowosegbe and his critics fail to belabour. Therefore, the debate should instead focus on how African universities can negotiate collaborative agreements that allow them to preserve their local focus.
Challenges and opportunities
Scholars have identified structural challenges – such as resource constraints, governance issues and neoliberal reforms – while also highlighting opportunities presented by collaboration and innovation. Arowosegbe complements this by emphasizing economic constraints and political interference as barriers to academic freedom. These challenges reflect historical underinvestment, with public funding for African higher education often below 1 per cent of GDP, compounded by colonial legacies. Optimism about growth through interdisciplinary STEM education and digital tools is promising (Falola Reference Falola2024); however, this optimism is founded on the assumption that there is institutional readiness, such as reliable electricity or trained faculty, which many universities lack. While valid, Arowosegbe’s focus on political meddling exaggerates its dominance over internal issues such as corruption or mismanagement, which he notes but does not prioritize. Both Arowosegbe and his critics, it appears, should better acknowledge the scale of investment needed to translate opportunities into reality.
Need for transformation and local relevance
The call for the transformation of universities is central to the various narratives on their role in development (Arowosegbe Reference Arowosegbe2024; Falola Reference Falola2024; Gudo et al. Reference Gudo, Olel and Oanda2011; Nyamnjoh Reference Nyamnjoh2019). Overall, a case is made for reconfiguring intellectual approaches and engaging historical narratives to meet contemporary demands (Mazarire Reference Mazarire2024; Monaville Reference Monaville2024), while Arowosegbe proposes curriculum reform to integrate indigenous knowledge. This aligns with decolonization movements such as #RhodesMustFall (Hlatshwayo Reference Hlatshwayo2021; Nyamnjoh Reference Nyamnjoh2016) that seek to redefine African universities’ roles in a postcolonial context. However, both proposals lack specificity in implementation. Arowosegbe’s suggestions for curriculum reform and digital adoption are vague, as they ignore faculty resistance or logistical hurdles, while his critics’ broad calls for transformation sidestep practical strategies for curriculum redesign and accreditation challenges. The tension between local relevance and global standards, including balancing indigenous knowledge with employer-demanded skills, remains underexplored. Furthermore, the question of local relevance cannot be holistically addressed given the complex realities of African societies.
Role of language and knowledge production
The importance of fostering local languages alongside global academic language has also been highlighted to enhance accessibility and relevance. Arowosegbe’s focus on indigenous knowledge implicitly supports this vision, advocating for curricula that reflect African socio-cultural contexts. This is a progressive step, as language barriers often exclude non-English-speaking and non-French-speaking communities, limiting higher education’s impact. However, Arowosegbe and his critics overlook the resource-intensive nature of multilingual education, including the need for trained educators and materials. Additionally, prioritizing local knowledge production faces resistance from global academic gatekeepers, a challenge neither Arowosegbe nor his critics fully address. Discussions on which local languages to formalize, standardize and implement for educational purposes, and how to assemble the resources to realize this feat, are, in my opinion, more worthwhile.
Interdisciplinary and innovative approaches
Scholars have advocated for interdisciplinary STEM education and innovative pedagogies, such as digital platforms, to address societal needs (Monaville Reference Monaville2024). Arowosegbe echoes this with calls for digital adoption and critical thinking. While forward-thinking, these proposals assume infrastructure and faculty capacity that many African universities lack. For example, only 34 per cent of academic staff in sub-Saharan Africa hold doctorates, which limits research and teaching innovation (Hayward Reference Hayward2012). The digital divide,Footnote 1 particularly in rural institutions, further complicates the adoption of online learning, a gap current scholars underplay.
Reforming partnerships and governance
Scholars and critics have consistently called for the redefinition of partnerships to promote African agency. For instance, Monaville (Reference Monaville2024) and Mazarire (Reference Mazarire2024) have reflected on the complexities of receiving external support and its implications for self-determination and development in African higher education, highlighting how foreign assistance can undermine local institutions. Partial solutions include moving beyond dependency to foster genuine cooperation. However, the emphasis on governance reform to reduce state control is pragmatic but assumes political will that may be inconsistent in many African states. Arowosegbe’s focus on political interference risks shifting blame outwards, underplaying the university leadership’s agency to address internal inefficiencies, such as nepotism or outdated administration, as noted by Rambe and Moeti (Reference Rambe and Moeti2017).
The scholarly discourse on African higher education offers a robust framework for addressing postcolonial challenges. The focus on academic freedom and indigenous knowledge constitutes a foundational analysis of governance, funding, pedagogy and partnerships, providing a holistic road map for reform. This multidimensional approach tackles our earlier concerns about chronic underfunding, elitism and the tension between local relevance and global integration. Proposals for interdisciplinary STEM education, digital learning and community engagement reflect global best practices tailored to African contexts. At the same time, Arowosegbe’s advocacy for gender equity and curriculum reform adds a postcolonial lens that prioritizes intellectual sovereignty. The shared emphasis on local agency and decolonization, reinforced by the attention to local languages, underscores the urgency of redefining African universities as drivers of inclusive development.
Despite these strengths, the perspectives of Arowosegbe’s critics are constrained by significant assumptions. There is a lack of specificity, as most scholars offer broad recommendations, such as digital adoption or diversified funding, without detailed implementation plans. Additionally, there is little reference to case studies – such as Makerere University’s financial reforms or Stellenbosch’s pedagogical innovations – that could set the pace for other African universities. This vagueness limits practical guidance, particularly when faculty resistance or logistical hurdles are unaddressed. The assumption of ample financial and human resources underpins the discourse’s optimism about digital tools and tech enthusiasm, ignoring Africa’s funding constraints; in 2021, public investment in higher education averaged below 3.5 per cent of GDP (Fornino and Tiffin Reference Fornino and Tiffin2024). These oversights risk rendering solutions aspirational, disconnected from the resource scarcity highlighted earlier.
Moreover, the discourse’s focus on external barriers – Arowosegbe’s emphasis on political interference and globalization and related critiques of foreign aid – underplays internal inefficiencies, including corruption or nepotism, and the potential of strategic global partnerships to provide resources and prestige. Despite students being primary stakeholders, the marginalization of their perspectives and a monolithic view of African universities – such as the one that ignores variations between South Africa and Uganda – further limit applicability. These assumptions highlight the need for a nuanced, context-specific approach to transform African universities into resilient, inclusive institutions. In the following section, I attempt to address some limitations highlighted in the current discourse by drawing from actions that have worked elsewhere (Song Reference Song2018) and that African universities can emulate. I do not and cannot pretend that what is proposed here is a panacea for higher education challenges in Africa; however, grounding the discourse in actions, rather than opinions and speculation, introduces pathways towards development.
Charting an action-based path for African universities
Thorough in-house cleaning
To address internal inefficiencies such as corruption, nepotism and outdated administrative practices, African universities must undertake rigorous internal reform. Establishing independent audit committees and whistleblower systems promotes transparency and accountability, thereby reducing reliance on external oversight and mitigating potential political interference. For instance, the University of Cape Town whistleblower policy ‘encourages employees to report unethical, unlawful, dishonest or improper behavior as soon as it becomes known to them’ (UCT 2023: 2). Meanwhile, initiatives such as Nigeria and Liberia’s Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project and the Tell the Truth pilot programme exemplify this approach. As Kigotho (Reference Kigotho2013) notes, campus stakeholders – ‘students, professors and administration staff – can text a free short code through mobile phones and then be called back by an operator who gathers details of the problem’. These systems empower communities to address misconduct internally, enhancing institutional agency.
There is evidence in the literature that national anti-corruption campaigns have not specifically targeted universities. For instance, the Rwanda Anti-Corruption Policy of 2010 did not explicitly address higher education (D’Orsi Reference D’Orsi2022). Against this backdrop, promotions must shift from politically motivated or nepotistic practices, as seen in Ghana,Footnote 2 to merit-based systems. Criteria should prioritize contributions to institutional goals, research impact and student mentorship, and these elements should be evaluated transparently through peer reviews and student feedback. For instance, professors at Algeria’s Djillali Liabes University, who guided students to a 2022 breakthrough in low-cost photovoltaic solar energy production (Bensouiah Reference Bensouiah2022), deserve recognition for their leadership. I posit that implementing a merit-based system tied to measurable achievements can curb corruption, enhance transparency in funding allocation and spark innovation, directly addressing internal structural issues.
Industry–university partnerships
Arowosegbe and his critics advocate for diversified funding to reduce African universities’ reliance on foreign and government support. This strategy promotes institutional independence, enabling universities to prioritize local needs and enhance the employability of their graduates. Africa’s vast resources remain underexplored, and university-led initiatives that bolster industrial sectors can diminish dependence on external aid for both universities and industries. Focusing on these efforts, in my view, effectively engages society and propels the continent forward.
Currently, there is evidence that several African universities have launched promising initiatives in this regard. The University of Cape Town in South Africa has adopted the ‘Triple Helix’ model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff Reference Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff1997), which ‘recognizes the interconnectedness of universities, industry, and government in driving innovation and knowledge creation’ (Bailey Reference Bailey2024: 1). In Zimbabwe, Stanbic Bank partnered with Africa University to supply students with laptops, promoting academic excellence and narrowing the digital divide. This collaboration invests in students’ futures while advancing mutual goals. Such partnerships offer a stark contrast to initiatives like the one between Eurasian Resources Group (ERG) and the University of Kolwezi (UNIKOL) in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where their Project Kesho Academy trains Congolese in mining exploitation, supporting local education and the DRC’s mining sector. However, it offers little assurance of reducing foreign influence in mineral extraction and conflicts.
To address resource constraints and faculty resistance, partnerships must include capacity building, such as industry-sponsored training for faculty to adopt new technologies or pedagogies. West African nations including Cameroon, Nigeria and Ghana, which export coffee and cocoa, could partner with local agro-industries to develop processing technologies that retain economic value, create jobs for graduates and expand tax revenue for the state. Negotiating equitable terms ensures that these partnerships prioritize local agency, countering Arowosegbe’s concerns about globalization’s colonial legacies while leveraging global expertise.
Strategic globalization with local roots
African universities recognize the need to meet global standards in teaching, research and service while simultaneously serving their local communities. This dual focus is essential as globalization becomes an enduring reality impacting higher education. They reform curricula to incorporate global trends and knowledge but adapt content to resonate with local conditions and developmental priorities, thus promoting indigenous knowledge alongside international frameworks. This indigenization counters the dominance of Western models and ensures that education is anchored in African realities. This ‘glocal’ approach eliminates scepticism about globalization as espoused by Arowosegbe, given that national needs are prioritized.
The Educational Partnerships for Innovation in Communities (EPIC) model serves as a prime example of how African universities can align global initiatives with local realities. The EPIC model, a student- and community-centred innovative approach, originated in the USA over a decade ago and has since expanded to the global South, where it has empowered universities by shaping the contributions that students make in pursuit of more sustainable communities. At least eight African universities have been part of the EPIC Africa Network, including the pioneering institutions the University of Kwa-Zulu Natal, the University of Zambia and the University of Nairobi in Kenya (Ruwoko Reference Ruwoko2024). The EPIC model is transforming African universities by creating meaningful partnerships between academic institutions and their communities. Universities can now integrate real-world problem solving directly into their curricula, allowing students to earn academic credit while addressing pressing local challenges, including waste management, urban planning and environmental sustainability. This approach enhances the relevance of higher education by connecting theoretical knowledge with practical applications, making graduates more employable and socially conscious. Universities benefit from increased community goodwill, stronger local partnerships and enhanced institutional visibility. Faculty members gain opportunities to apply their research to immediate societal needs, while students develop critical thinking and civic engagement skills. The EPIC model exemplifies ‘glocalization’ – the strategic adaptation of global educational approaches to local contexts. This framework demonstrates how African universities can embrace globalization while maintaining strong local relevance.
Massive digital investment
African universities can significantly enhance their digital infrastructure by adopting cloud-based solutions and infrastructure as a service (IaaS), which offer flexibility and cost efficiency. Expanding internet access is vital to narrow the digital divide and enrich e-learning opportunities. Equally critical is investment in renewable energy to address power outages that disrupt digital education. Formulating robust digital policies will ensure cohesive implementation and long-term sustainability. By embedding digital transformation within their strategic plans, universities can align investments with institutional objectives, thereby elevating teaching quality, research output, and their commitment to equity and inclusivity.
Across Africa, some universities are actively building digital capabilities to transform both institutions and communities. For example, Miva Open University, Nigeria’s first fully online (private) university, began enrolling students in 2024, showcasing the transformative potential of digital education. Similarly, universities in South Africa, Ghana, Egypt, Morocco and Zimbabwe have expanded access through online courses. Additionally, Wits University has partnered with Robotics and Artificial Intelligence Nigeria (RAIN) and Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications multinational, to launch Africa’s first 5G laboratory (Oshodi Reference Oshodi2022). Similar US and Chinese partnerships with African universities range from the ‘small ICT lab at the University for Development Studies in Tamale, Ghana, to the proposed multimillion-dollar Innovation and Experience Centre at the University of Lagos, Nigeria’ (Oshodi Reference Oshodi2022).
While such ventures can potentially enhance the digital capabilities of universities, safeguards must be implemented to ensure that the interests of African universities are protected in both the short and the long term. Alternatively, where resources are available, universities can independently undertake such projects. For instance, researchers at Stellenbosch University have developed the Helio100, an innovative 100 kilowatt concentrated solar power (CSP) system capable of powering approximately thirty households. Designed for easy deployment without specialized labour, this cost-effective solution rivals cutting-edge global approaches and aligns with the university’s vision of sustainable energy innovation (Matroos Reference Matroos2015). Such pioneering efforts set a powerful example for other African universities. Given the critical role of digitalization in modern academia, institutions must prioritize such investments to drive educational excellence and achieve a positive societal impact.
Entrepreneurship ecosystems
Establishing university entrepreneurship centres with links to industry counters the perception, as expressed by Arowosegbe, that universities are merely democratic incubators and do not provide actionable solutions for those critics who emphasize social responsibility. While such start-ups have been prevalent in countries such as China (Su et al. Reference Su, Ali and Sohn2011) for over a decade, efforts in Africa have been slow, particularly due to a lack of financing. However, with increased globalization and technological advancements, breakthroughs have been possible. For instance, four students from Africa University secured a semifinal place in the 2024 Hult Prize Global Accelerator for creating the start-up Reagan Technologies, which focuses on generating electricity from footsteps through innovative pavement tiles. The team plans to pilot the tiles on campus to reduce reliance on the national power grid. With support from Africa University’s Innovation Hub, they aim to scale their solution and enhance energy access across Africa (Dadzie Reference Dadzie2024).
There appears to be much enthusiasm for start-ups in universities across Africa that could benefit local students. The Uni:nnovators Startups-in-Residence programme, launched by Co-Creation Hub and GIZ, encourages innovation by supporting thirty student-led start-ups in Nigeria, Namibia and Kenya. The programme facilitates a design sprint to enhance prototypes that focus on green tech and smart city solutions. Selected teams receive funding, advisory services and opportunities for knowledge exchange with researchers, including a trip to Germany for hands-on support. The initiative culminates in a summit where start-ups pitch to international investors, showcasing the vital role of higher education institutions in fostering innovation and addressing critical challenges in Africa. Additionally, the Alliance of Entrepreneurial Universities in Africa (AEUA) promotes innovation and entrepreneurship among university start-ups; it aims to create one million start-ups and generate US$100 billion in revenue. It fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing and partnerships between universities and industry, enhancing entrepreneurial ecosystems and empowering students to address local and global challenges (Jepchumba 2024). Given these initiatives, we argue that it is now time to turn the conversation away from post-colonialism and to focus on a path forward for African universities.
Curriculum reform via centralized hubs
National and inter-university centralized curriculum innovation boards can standardize and indigenize curricula, reducing reliance on foreign frameworks and enhancing local relevance. These boards, modelled on Makerere University’s reforms, should develop programmes integrating indigenous knowledge with practical skills, such as agricultural innovation in cocoa-producing regions. To address accreditation challenges and faculty resistance, boards must include faculty representatives and offer incentives, such as research grants. In countries such as Ghana, where the education ministry determines the curriculum but allows instructors to adapt content to local realities, teachers who share the same pedagogical goals should collaborate on syllabus development and exchange experiences and teaching resources (Wang and Paine Reference Wang and Paine2023). Additionally, universities located in the same area, or areas with similar local industries, can cooperate in research and development relating to products in the region.
In Uganda, centralizing enrolment under government structures (Walakira Reference Walakira2025) aligns training with local needs but requires curriculum standardization. Regional collaboration, supported by the Association of African Universities, can pool resources to develop materials and train educators, addressing resource constraints. This approach prepares graduates for local challenges, enhancing academic independence and societal impact. Centralized curriculum development structures have the advantage of providing a holistic perspective on the country’s or region’s challenges and can adequately target training. This is also evident in research, which shows that individual institutions struggle with curriculum development. A study on the transformation of teacher education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Durban-Westville in post-apartheid South Africa unveiled inherent internal and external challenges in designing a new curriculum. The process, described as complex, messy and contradictory, highlights the need for a unified or centralized approach (Samuel Reference Samuel2002). That means that any joint curriculum development may be based on shared goals, rather than a top-down approach where individuality is sacrificed to a collective whole.
Conclusion
Returning to Arowosegbe’s essay, it is crucial to re-acknowledge his focus on the unproductive and highly politicized faculty–leadership standoff in many higher education systems. Against that backdrop, while initiatives such as the Algerian solar cell breakthrough at Djillali Liabes University and similar innovation-driven examples demonstrate the potential for transformative change within African universities, their effectiveness in addressing deeper institutional challenges depends on the governance frameworks within which they operate. These technical and entrepreneurial successes, while valuable, can achieve their full potential only when embedded within robust governance structures that successfully balance the competing interests of faculty, administration and external stakeholders. Without proper governance mechanisms, even the most promising innovations risk becoming isolated achievements that fail to catalyse broader institutional reform, or they may become flashpoints for faculty–leadership conflicts over resource allocation, recognition and strategic direction. Furthermore, the role of external regulatory bodies – such as national higher education commissions, accreditation agencies and quality assurance frameworks – is crucial in providing objective oversight and maintaining standards that support rather than undermine internal governance. These regulatory mechanisms can serve as neutral arbiters when faculty–leadership tensions arise, ensuring that institutional conflicts do not derail promising initiatives or compromise academic integrity.
We must move the discourse on African higher education beyond postcolonial frameworks, as most African nations gained independence over six decades ago. While Arowosegbe and others rightly critique lingering colonial legacies, such as dependency on foreign aid and Western academic standards, fixating on these risks perpetuates a narrative of victimhood that stalls progress. Instead, universities must embrace self-determination, leveraging their agency to drive inclusive, decolonized development tailored to African realities.
Debating challenges – political interference, internal inefficiencies such as corruption and nepotism, and resource constraints – enriches understanding but proves insufficient without spotlighting proven solutions. The conversation must shift from external critiques – ‘Look at what they are doing to us!’ or ‘What have they done to us?’ – to internal empowerment: ‘What can we do for ourselves?’ Bridging vision and execution demands detailed implementation plans, amplified student voices and strategies that account for resource scarcity. It is by prioritizing local agency, practical reforms and inclusive education that African universities can lead as global innovators, fostering equitable, sustainable development across the continent.
Kizito Tekwa is a Canadian citizen. He is an Associate Professor at Shenzhen Technology University in Shenzhen, China. Born in Cameroon, he has profound knowledge of the workings of higher educational institutions in Africa, North America and China. His research foci are translation, educational technology and AI, including their psychological and sociological manifestations within academia.
