₦airaland Forum

DiamondsAreFore:
From Prison Cell To Presidential Palace

Before last weekend, if you'd have asked about Col Michael Randrianirina on the island of Madagascar, you'd have got a lot of blank looks.

In just three days, however, he has become arguably the most powerful person in country.

Randrianirina's sudden ascent began on Saturday, when as the head of Madagascar's elite CAPSAT army unit, he drove with his troops into the centre of the capital city, joining thousands of protesters who had long been demanding the president's resignation.

After Andry Rajoelina eventually fled the city and MPs voted to impeach him, 51-year-old Randrianirina stood in front of the vacant presidential palace and informed the world's media that CAPSAT was taking over.

The constitutional court then declared that he was the country's new ruler, even though the ousted president still insists that he remains in charge.

Randrianirina carries a rare air of mystery - for the leader of the country's most powerful military unit, there is not much information about him in the public domain.

What we do know is that he was born in Sevohipoty, a village in the southern Androy region.

He later became the governor of Androy, serving between 2016 and 2018 under former President Hery Rajaonarimampianina.

Then, Randrianirina became head of an infantry battalion in the city of Toliara, a position he held until 2022.

He was a vocal critic of Rajoelina, an entrepreneur who took power via a coup in 2009, stepped down in 2013, then returned five years later after winning elections.

Randrianirina was jailed in a maximum-security prison without trial in November 2023, accused of inciting a mutiny and planning a coup.

Student groups, fellow soldiers and politicians were among those who argued Randrianirina had been imprisoned for unfair political reasons, and he was released in February the following year.

Just hours before announcing he was taking over Madagascar on Tuesday, Randrianirina told the BBC he was a mere "servant" of the people. He exuded charm, hospitality, confidence - but not arrogance.

The colonel is also known to be a staunch Christian. Magalasy journalist Rivonala Razafison describes him as "simple but tough", "straightforward" and "patriotic".

Randrianirina certainly has thoughts about his country and how it is still influenced by France, which was Madagascar's colonial master until 1960.

When offered the option to respond to the BBC's questions in French, an official language in Madagascar, Randrianirina countered: "Why can't I speak my language, Malagasy?" adding that he does not like glorifying the colonial tongue.

The CAPSAT leader has told local media that, moving forward, his priority is "social welfare" - a pressing issue in a country where roughly 75% of people live below the poverty line.

He has said the military will rule for up to two years alongside a civilian government before an election is held.

Sources have told Reuters that Randrianirina will be sworn in over the next day or two - a ceremony that will serve as a coda to a whirlwind few days that took him from mystery man to the officer everybody is talking about.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6ne96gx1do

mohbadliveson:
Military era is gradually coming back to africa. We must not allow it in Nigeria

anonimi:
We had democracy before colonialism.

How is Britain and its hereditary head of state and monarch more democratic than old Oyo empire

Mirasteel:
Nigeria when?

Nigerian youths are unserious and army is very corrupt.

PepeXKermit:
Which democracy?

Your kings, obas , Ezes and Emirs ruling yoi was democracy?

dmangodwin:
When what?
You want Nigerians to jump from frying pan to fire?
Many of you have never experienced military rule. The three African countries that recently switched to military rule how are the citizens faring.
The Madagascar senate proposed two months to conduct election, but the junta insist they will be holding power for two years. Enough time to loot as much as possible. And they will be very brutal on any protest against their regime.
WE SHOULD PROTEST FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE BUT MILITARY RULE IS BACKWARD MOVE.

damoobaba:
You want people to kpai unnecessarily, what did the endsars protest achieve? OR the countries that protested and changed their leaders, what have they achieved or youve gone to their countries and seen the citizens just enjoying without working.

All these shenanigans is what brought Military dictatorship into Nigeria which took Nigeria backwards for several years.

DiamondsAreFore:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6ne96gx1do

Mirasteel:
Nigeria when?

Nigerian youths are unserious and army is very corrupt.

CaseSensitive:
I guess you're right, Islands often have the potential to do well due to their distinct ecosystems, resources, and maritime access. But what truly determines success isn’t geography alone, it’s how a country’s political and economic systems evolve after colonialism.

Take Australia, for instance. Yes, it’s prosperous today, but its prosperity was built on colonisation, displacement, and the near-erasure of Aboriginal Australians, who had lived there for tens of thousands of years before the British arrived. The original inhabitants were massacred, dispossessed of their land, and subjected to policies that tried to erase their culture. So Australia’s “success story” also carries a dark colonial legacy that is still being reckoned with today.

In contrast, countries like Madagascar, Senegal, or Niger didn’t inherit wealth, infrastructure, or autonomy from their colonial masters, they inherited dependency structures. France maintained deep economic and political control long after “independence,” especially through mechanisms like the CFA franc and strategic influence over national policies.

So while Madagascar indeed has massive geographical, cultural, and economic potential, the issue isn’t its location; it’s the systemic legacy of exploitation and dependency that France (and others) designed to keep such nations weak and reliant.

If Randrianirina genuinely intends to break from that legacy and prioritise the Malagasy people’s welfare and sovereignty, then his success could mark a turning point not just for Madagascar, but as part of the broader wave of African self-determination we’ve seen growing in the Sahel.

Also I guess Seychelles is doing well because its population is only about 100,000 or so with limited natural resources so there's no point in Britain meddling in their affairs or planting a puppet regime. They are also dependent on tourism and service economy. They don't have natural resource like that.

Cape Verde too don't have much resources either, that's why they're stable. Madagascar on the other hand has a lot of resources and strategically important to France for that reason and other reasons such as the Southeastern coast directly along key Indian Ocean shipping lanes that connect the Middle East (oil/gas routes), the East African coast and Southeast Asia. Whoever has influence in Madagascar has a vantage point over sea routes vital for global trade and energy supply. So in essence, and as history and our current realities has shown us. There are usually unrests, poverty, insurgencies, regime change on African countries with resources.

whippersnapper:
in Africa apart from military dictatorship and rulers all African presidents are American puppet's

blueAgent:
Story.

Puppet so America would achieve what?

blueAgent:
Bla bla bla.

Half baked crap.

The same CFA that its benefits where so good that, Equatorial Guinea had to Join them despite been colonised by Spain and not France.

All this excuse of Former colonial masters been the reason for Africa's undevelopement is stale.

Qatar Kuwait,Singarpore,UAE, Cyprus ,Malaysia, India,Brazil,Argentina Peru, Costa Rica, name it the list is endless.
They are all ex- Colonies, but they are all doing well.

Only in Africa where ppl elect and support their wicked leaders based on tribalism and selfish intrest and later they blame the West for their own decisions.

mohbadliveson:
Military era is gradually coming back to africa. We must not allow it in Nigeria

CaseSensitive:
Half-baked? at least it's baked in facts, yours is frozen in ignorance and denial. You’re right about one thing tho, bad leadership is killing Africa. No debate there. But pretending colonialism isn’t part of the equation is just lazy thinking. Did the French leave Africa after "independence" of their colonies in Africa? No, they hardwired dependency into the system politically, economically, and monetarily. The CFA franc still ties multiple countries’ financial arteries to Paris.

Equatorial Guinea? Rich on paper, poor in reality. Oil money for the elite, crumbs for the people, typical textbook extractive economics. So yes, “doing well” depends on which side of the palace gates you’re standing.

And comparing 54 vastly different nations to tiny petro-states like Qatar or the UAE who's population is smaller than Lagos? Common.
Leadership is part of Africa’s problem, no doubt but pretending colonialism has no fingerprints on today’s instability is like treating a knife wound as if the knife was never there.

whippersnapper:
So they'll dig gold in burkina Faso

blueAgent:
Can you explain or give examples of how the colonialism affects Africa today.
For your information Singapore has more population than Equitorial guinea with far more challenges, yet they are a developed country why that Equitorial guinea is a failed state despite there oil and gas wealth, so small population is not the reason for the success of Qatar ,Kuwait and Bahrain

Go and look up the benefits of CFA.

CaseSensitive:
Sure let's unpack it since you asked;

The CFA franc isn’t “beneficial”; it’s a colonial hangover. Member states must keep 50% of their foreign reserves in France’s treasury, and France retains veto power over their monetary policy. How's that not dependency? You can’t develop freely when another country controls your currency and reserves.

2. Trade imbalance:
Colonial economies were built to export raw materials and import finished goods, that pattern never ended. African countries still export crude, cocoa, and minerals, then buy back refined products at a premium. That’s structural underdevelopment, not bad leadership alone.

3. Resource extraction:
Foreign companies which are mostly European and Americans still dominate Africa’s mining, oil, and telecom sectors. They repatriate profits while locals get royalties and polluted land. Look at Niger (uranium), DRC (cobalt), and Nigeria (oil). The story is the same. Talking of Telecom sector, I can also dive deeper on how the Europeans wanted to keep Africa dependent on European Telecom infrastructures so that Africa continue to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bandwidth fees every year until Gadaffi intervened. If you're old enough to remember when a single MTN SIM card was selling for 35,000 naira, before it gradually dropped and dropped to the point that it was selling for about 200 naira? Yes that's because of Gadaffi. Europe does not want Africa to progress, it's evident and I can also show you a video from a British University professor who laid everything bare to his students on how Western powers are hell bent on keeping Africa underdeveloped. If you watch the video, you can maybe judge yourself. All of his claims are Africa's reality today.

As for Singapore, yes, it has a larger population but it wasn’t systematically stripped of wealth or occupied by a colonial power that left it in debt. Lee Kuan Yew built a state that broke from British influence, invested in education, and rooted out corruption. Compare that with France’s post-independence setup in Africa, where coups, regime change and client states were routine.

So when you say “look at Singapore or Qatar,” you're ignoring context, those states had autonomy. Many African nations still don’t.

Colonialism isn’t history, it just changed its tools.

blueAgent:
I laugh in Chinese.

How much gold?
A country where only 2 of there companies has more value or wealth than the entire African Economy.

Abeg wakeup from your slumber.

Africans are there own greatest enemy.

blueAgent:
What kind of childish writeup did i just read?

I laughed so hard reading this your fairy tale.
Am not sure you have heard of capitalism.

Today we have Nigerian owned companies in Oil and gas, why did the West not stop them?

Are you sure, you read your article well?
I thought you said colonization was wrong?

So you want the West to aslo show you how to extract your resources , processes it for you and aslo sell and spoon fed you?

Apart from Oil and gas, tell me any other resources that is mined and processed and exported in large quantities in Nigeria?

Are you waiting for the West to do that for you?
Was it the West that destroyed Ajeokuta Steel, 4 oil refineries Ikot Obasi Aluminium mill, E.t.c

You even have resources, what of Singapore that does not have even drinking water or land to farm or build on?

All the things you wrote are not factual, I just don't have enough time to refute them.

Mirasteel:
It's young men like you in Nepal that fought for their country, will you continue the suffering and smiling? do you love doing that?

whippersnapper:
you think so. It is a big mistake to think the western hegemony, imperialism,neo-colonialism is not the reason for Africa's retrogression. Abacha, Gaddafi,idi Amin,mainassara,Walter Rodney,Sankara were wiped out by the west. Only a Fidel castroeque revolution will save Africa. Not a prophet of doom it will never happen in Nigeria. A race that sold their people for slavery for a mirror

CaseSensitive:
Nothing I said was a “fairy tale.” The irony is that everything you mentioned, Ajaokuta, the refineries, Ikot Abasi etc actually drives my pont home.

Nigeria’s refineries didn’t just collapse out of thin air; they were allowed to collapse. Years of corruption, political appointments, and deliberate mismanagement turned them into cash drains. Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan, Buhari all promised reform but none of them implemented a consistent industrial policy to protect or privatize the refineries properly. They all budgeted billions for “Turnaround Maintenance,” yet nothing changed because those funds were looted.

Another layer is foreign dependence. Western oil companies (insert Chevron, Shell, Total etc) controls the upstream (crude extraction), while refined products come back to us at a markup. Powerful import cartels at home also profits from that dependency, so keeping local refineries idle benefits both external and internal players, ensuring that we exported crude oil and imported petrol, keeping it dependent on foreign refineries. This created a situation where local refining threatened some powerful interests, both foreign and domestic who profited from importing refined products.

Then foreign-backed “advisory” institutions (like the IMF and World Bank) also discouraged state ownership of refineries, pushing for market liberalization yet Nigeria’s private sector never had the infrastructure or incentives to fill the gap.

The same pattern exists across Africa, extract raw materials, import finished goods. That structure didn’t start yesterday; it was designed under colonialism and reinforced afterward through “economic advice” that discouraged self-sufficiency.

As for Singapore, they weren’t burdened with borders drawn for exploitation or institutions wired for dependency. They had functional governance, control over trade, and the geopolitical luck of being a small, strategic port city. Africa’s story is different Africa is larger, resource-rich, but deliberately fragmented and exploited.

So yes, leadership matters but leadership doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It operates within systems, and Africa’s systems were never built for Africans to thrive, but of course lecture me on capitalism.

Come back when you have enough time to refute my “fairy tale”

CaseSensitive:
Nothing I said was a “fairy tale.” The irony is that everything you mentioned, Ajaokuta, the refineries, Ikot Abasi etc actually drives my pont home.

Nigeria’s refineries didn’t just collapse out of thin air; they were allowed to collapse. Years of corruption, political appointments, and deliberate mismanagement turned them into cash drains. Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, Jonathan, Buhari all promised reform but none of them implemented a consistent industrial policy to protect or privatize the refineries properly. They all budgeted billions for “Turnaround Maintenance,” yet nothing changed because those funds were looted.

Another layer is foreign dependence. Western oil companies (insert Chevron, Shell, Total etc) controls the upstream (crude extraction), while refined products come back to us at a markup. Powerful import cartels at home also profits from that dependency, so keeping local refineries idle benefits both external and internal players, ensuring that we exported crude oil and imported petrol, keeping it dependent on foreign refineries. This created a situation where local refining threatened some powerful interests, both foreign and domestic who profited from importing refined products.

I hope you know that Shell had an oil refinery in Port harcourt that was functioning b4 your government Nationalized?

Then foreign-backed “advisory” institutions (like the IMF and World Bank) also discouraged state ownership of refineries, pushing for market liberalization yet Nigeria’s private sector never had the infrastructure or incentives to fill the gap.


The same IMF that advised our government to privatize the Telecom sector which me and you can attest to the benefits


The same pattern exists across Africa, extract raw materials, import finished goods. That structure didn’t start yesterday; it was designed under colonialism and reinforced afterward through “economic advice” that discouraged self-sufficiency.



Which pattern?
Can you give examples? Togo's major mineral resources is phosphate and it is majorly mined by state owned company, Niger major mineral is Gold and Uranuim with both resources controlled by state owned firms same with other african countries.

What stop the African countries to exploit and process their raw materials b4 exporting them, do the West owe them an obligation to process the resources for them?
If Export of resources is the reason for African underdevelopment, while is Brazil major exporter of Iron ore, Bauxite, Coal, Oil, or Australia, Chile, Bolivia e.t.c why are they not poor?


As for Singapore, they weren’t burdened with borders drawn for exploitation or institutions wired for dependency. They had functional governance, control over trade, and the geopolitical luck of being a small, strategic port city. Africa’s story is different Africa is larger, resource-rich, but deliberately fragmented and exploited.

So yes, leadership matters but leadership doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It operates within systems, and Africa’s systems were never built for Africans to thrive, but of course lecture me on capitalism.

Africans have no leaders becos they are just like their followers same Selfsih greed and wicked ppl.

Blacks deserves to be recolonized.

Come back when you have enough time to refute my “fairy tale”

blueAgent:
You really sound like someone who is not exposed to globally business world.


In Nigeria apart from oil and gas, which other resources is mined and exported on large quantities by the so called West powers.

Secondly it's obvious you don't know how the oil and gas industry works.

Fortunately I work there and am better informed about the industry than you.

Go and Google about the decline of Venezuela's oil and gas industry.

CaseSensitive:
When someone (who I assume to be African) says “Blacks deserve to be recolonized,” they’ve already told on themselves, there’s nothing “global” about that worldview, only self-hate disguised as intellect. You confuse criticism of colonial legacy with denial of African responsibility. I never said the West owes Africa a solution, I said Africa is still navigating systems that were never designed for its success. There’s a difference.

Yes, Shell’s refinery existed but nationalization wasn’t the issue. The real failure came after, when maintenance, funding, and transparency collapsed. Shell ran it for profit; Nigeria took over without the institutional discipline or technical continuity Shell had. The refinery could’ve been sustained under proper governance, but instead it became politicized. That’s not proof against colonial legacies it’s proof of how fragile postcolonial institutions were. The same happened with Ajaokuta Steel that you previously mentioned. It was constant external interference, shifting contracts, and funding bottlenecks that made it a monument to dependency, not development.

"IMF advised privatizing telecoms, and we saw the benefits.” Are you seriously comparing telecoms to refineries? Privatizing telecoms worked because the sector had low infrastructure barriers and high private demand unlike refining or steel, which need capital, protection, and stable energy to survive. IMF advice is one-size-fits-all, it often prioritizes market efficiency over local development. In telecoms, it fit, in refineries and heavy industry, it hollowed out local capacity. And since you claim to work in oil and gas, I expect you to understand that control of upstream doesn’t equal control of value chains. That’s precisely why resource rich nations can still be poor because they export raw wealth and import finished dependency.

You talk about Togo then threw Niger into the mix thinking you're making sense? Togo’s phosphate, Niger’s uranium, Congo’s cobalt are all exported raw with foreign companies dominating logistics, financing, and refining. France’s Orano mining company has been running Niger’s uranium mines for DECADES until recent months when Niger military leader kicked France out of their country and fought to bring their gold and uranium mines under true and sovereign state control. Togo's main phosphate mining industry also has direct/indirect link to France. "State-owned" on paper, but profits and strategic leverage still flow outward but if you think it's completely state-owned without external involvement then I have a bridge to sell you. That’s the pattern, Africa digs, others refine, others profit.

Then again you went on about Brazil, Chile and threw Australia into the mix? Those countries control their value chains and reinvest resource wealth. Brazil developed steel, aerospace, and energy industries, Chile built local processing capacity, stable institutions, and control over their fiscal policy. Most African states couldn’t, because they were economically designed as export nodes for Europe.

As for Venezuela, their decline only reinforces my point that external economic pressure and internal mismanagement are two sides of the same coin. Sanctions crippled their ability to sell oil, while mismanagement weakened production. It’s a mirror of what happens when a nation’s economy relies too heavily on raw exports and external validation which is exactly the dependency Africa was specifically built into. You can't condemn our leader's corruption and mismanagement without criticising the system that created and sustains it.

And if it's not obvious to you, I stand on my point that the rise of Africa is a threat to the world powers of today (insert EU, America and cronies) and they will do anything and everything to maintain control over the continent to make sure Africa is underdeveloped. Despite the vast land that we have, you think it's coincidence that Nigeria imports rice and other food but export cocoa, groundnuts, cotton, ginger and other products? Have you cooked some cotton & cocoa today? You think it's coincidence that herdsmen and other armed groups are destroying Rice farms across Nigeria? This is all by design to keep us dependent both by internal and external influences. Certain cabals in Nigeria make millions of $ on rice importation.

So yes I'm not refuting the fact that domestic mismanagement and entrenched corruption exists, of course they do but you keep thinking this is about blaming colonialism, No I'm not saying colonialism makes up the entirety of Nigeria/Africa's problem. It’s about understanding the systems that keep countries dependent. You can’t fix what you don’t diagnose. Mocking history doesn’t make you “exposed to global business” it just makes you loud about what you don’t understand. That's my point and I’ll leave it there. I debate ideas, not people who rely on Google for information.

blueAgent:
Stop writing long baseless and meaningless articles I don't have time to read that.

Argue one point at a time.

Whose responsibility is it to develop Africa 's resources?

Africans or the West and how can it be done?

CaseSensitive:
Maybe if you read beyond Google headlines, you might actually grasp the argument next time. Try comprehension before conversation.

blueAgent:
I want conservation based on clarity and points and facts

Let's start with the question i asked you.

Who is responsible for exploiting, extracting and processing Africa's mineral resources, Africans or the West?
Let's discuss

CaseSensitive:
Discuss?? Excuse me… I’ve been laying out facts and analysis, but for you, reading takes too much brain effort. That’s why you skim Google and Wikipedia summaries instead.

Go and Google the decline of your comatose critical-thinking skills or better still.......Take several seats.

CaseSensitive:
Discuss?? Excuse me… I’ve been laying out facts and analysis, but for you, reading takes too much brain effort. That’s why you skim Google and Wikipedia summaries instead.

Go and Google the decline of your comatose critical-thinking skills or better still.......Take several seats.