Boyce and Ndikumana, authors of ‘Africa’s Odious Debts’, argue that under international law, debts incurred by dictators should not be enforceable

—

This question challenges the legitimacy and morality of debt obligations incurred by African nations under oppressive, corrupt, or colonial regimes. Many argue that Africa should not be obligated to repay odious debts, as these were often acquired without the consent of the people and used against their interests—financing dictatorships, enriching elites, or enabling foreign exploitation.

Repaying such debts not only perpetuates economic injustice but also diverts critical resources away from healthcare, education, and development. On the other hand, some contend that failing to repay may damage creditworthiness or relationships with international lenders. However, proponents of debt justice argue that true accountability means distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate debts, and calling for cancellation, reparations, or restructuring as part of Africa’s path to sovereignty and equitable development.

Ultimately, the question is not just legal or financial—it’s ethical and historical, calling the global community to reconsider systems that have long burdened Africa for debts it did not truly owe.