Why Africa’s Debt Crisis is Really a Development Crisis
By Steve Aborisade
Lokoja Sept. 18, 2026
Across Africa, governments are facing an impossible choice that has now become routine: whether to channel scarce public funds into servicing foreign debts or to invest in hospitals, schools, food security and jobs. Increasingly, debt repayments are coming first.
- Advertisement -
This is the central argument in a new advocacy statement by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) Nigeria Senior Advocacy and Marketing Manager, Steve Aborisade, made available to Journalists on Friday in Lokoja.
Aborisade said the continent’s debt challenge has moved beyond fiscal emergency to become the normal condition of governance.
According to Aborisade, while analysts continue to focus on debt-to-GDP ratios, interest rates and credit ratings, such indicators obscure a deeper reality.
When governments spend more repaying creditors than investing in their citizens, debt ceases to be a financial tool and becomes a barrier to development.
Global data paints a stark picture. An estimated 3.4 billion people worldwide live in countries that spend more on debt servicing than on health or education. In Africa alone, about two-thirds of countries face this reality.
Aborisade argued that the widespread pattern cannot be explained by poor governance or reckless borrowing alone, but points to deep structural flaws in the international financial system.
The most immediate impact, he noted, is the crowding-out effect. Every dollar devoted to sovereign debt, bilateral loans or commercial credit is a dollar unavailable for building clinics, improving schools, expanding electricity, strengthening agriculture or preparing for climate change.
The effect, he said, has become the defining feature of public finance in many African nations.
“The story is compounded by the slow and fragmented nature of debt restructuring. In many countries that defaulted on external debts in recent years, governments spent years negotiating with creditors before meaningful restructuring could begin.
“Even after agreements with official lenders, talks with private creditors remained slow, leaving scarce resources tied up while economic recovery stalled.
“The burden is heavier for climate-vulnerable nations. Despite contributing only a small share of global greenhouse gas emissions, many African countries pay higher borrowing costs because they are deemed more vulnerable to climate risks,” he said.
Aborisade described this as deeply ironic — countries that need affordable finance to adapt to climate change pay the highest price to access it.
Behind the statistics, his emphasizes, are ordinary people. A government that prioritises debt repayment over healthcare cannot adequately staff hospitals or provide essential medicines, while cuts to education spending deprive young people of skills for the future.
Women, children and the poorest communities bear the greatest cost.
While acknowledging that corruption and weak institutions have contributed to debt problems in some countries, Aborisade insisted that blaming African governments alone misses the larger picture.
He traces part of the problem to colonial legacies, where economies were organised to extract raw materials rather than build diversified industries, leaving newly independent states with narrow, commodity-based economies vulnerable to price shocks and dependent on external borrowing.
Attempts to establish legal principles to prevent new states from inheriting unjust colonial debts, he noted, ultimately failed.
“These historical inequalities continue to shape today’s debt architecture, where international financial institutions remain central to debt management yet African countries collectively hold only a small share of voting power, despite accounting for many nations in debt distress.
“The restructuring process itself, favours creditors.
“Official lenders, private bondholders, multilateral institutions and commercial banks often pursue conflicting interests, prolonging negotiations while debtor countries endure hardship,” he stated.
According to Aborisade, faster restructuring alone is not enough, as an unfair system that operates more efficiently remains unfair.
He proposed four key reforms: First, stronger collective representation for debtor nations through a coordinated Borrowers’ Forum to balance negotiations against better-resourced creditors.
Second, automatic debt service pauses during public health emergencies or climate disasters to allow governments to save lives.
Third, governance reforms in international financial institutions to give developing countries a stronger voice.
And fourth, higher standards for both borrowers and lenders, with governments improving transparency and creditors ensuring responsible lending.
Africa’s future, Aborisade concluded, does not depend on avoiding borrowing altogether, as external finance remains essential for infrastructure and economic transformation.
The challenge, he said, “is ensuring debt becomes a tool for development rather than an obstacle to it.
“Debt should finance opportunity, not postpone it”.
He called for a shift from a system that manages recurring crises to one that genuinely supports sustainable development.
The piece was written as part of the Freedom from Debt campaign (June 2026 – January 2027) championed by the AHF Global Public Health Institute.
End
