I have watched this pattern for years, and I am tired of the polite silence. Foreign companies walk into our countries, secure geological surveys, lock down mining concessions, win engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts and build-operate-transfer deals, and obtain bank guarantees, sovereign guarantees and letters of comfort from our governments. Then they fly back to Toronto, London, New York, Dubai or Beijing. There, they securitise those same African commitments into safekeeping receipt (SKR) financial instruments, raise cheap, long-term money and return to our soil with capital that looks generous only because we never saw how they secured it. This has not been a partnership. It is arbitrage on our sovereignty. They turn our risk into their asset and our political signatures into their collateral. And we clap when the foundation stone is laid. Look closely. The real value is not always in the truck that hauls the ore. Sometimes, it lies in contracts signed in boardrooms in Kampala, Dodoma or Lusaka, then used to secure financing in markets we can barely access. They call it patient capital. But we must ask ourselves why financing becomes cheaper once our commitments have helped make the project bankable. We keep negotiating as if the only discussion concerns royalties and free-carried interests. We rarely ask why a project that struggles to secure ten-year financing locally may attract longer-term funding once a government guarantee or other credit support is in place and the transaction reaches international markets. That gap deserves our attention. And here is the question that keeps me awake: are we teaching finance in a way that leaves us comfortable with other people’s structures but suspicious of our own ideas? From primary school to university, we learn to follow rules and work within established systems. There is nothing wrong with that. But where are the lessons in financial engineering, structured finance and the creative use of assets to mobilise capital for development? Africa remains tied to a financial system whose rules and institutions have evolved over decades, often outside our control. Dare to discuss alternative financing structures with a banker, and the idea may quickly be dismissed as a possible scam. Yet conventional guarantees and other forms of credit enhancement are routinely used to make projects more attractive to lenders. Why should we be afraid to learn how these instruments work and how they might serve our own development? I am not against foreign investment. I am against our failure to research, learn and dare. I am against the comfortable story that says Africa is simply capital-poor and must therefore accept whatever terms arrive with the money. We are not just capital-poor. In many cases, we are structuring-poor. We have minerals, land, labour, infrastructure opportunities and growing pools of domestic savings. What we lack is sufficient capacity to bring these assets together, structure viable projects and negotiate financing on better terms. A mining concession is not cash. A government letter of comfort is not automatically a bank guarantee. And not every contract can be turned into a financial instrument. But these distinctions should push us to learn, not discourage us from exploring what is possible. If a project’s risks can be reduced through a government guarantee, if its future revenues can be reliably assessed, or if its contractual payment obligations can support financing, African institutions should be asking how they can participate in that process and capture more of the value created. Our central banks, development banks, pension funds and other financial institutions must be part of this conversation. We need stronger local capital markets, better project preparation, credible credit-enhancement mechanisms and professionals who understand how to structure complex transactions. The objective is not to replace foreign lending. It is to stop outsourcing the thinking behind every major financing decision. If a project becomes bankable because of an African government’s commitments, African institutions should have the capacity to participate in its financing and refinancing, and to share in the value created over its lifetime. The financing game is not necessarily a conspiracy hidden in secret rooms. Much of the knowledge is available to anyone willing to study it. Enough of the excuses. Let us learn the instruments, build the institutions and negotiate with our eyes open. Let us explore how properly structured guarantees, contracts, receivables and project revenues can help mobilise long-term financing for African development. The writer is an ideator and a strategist in development and alternative financing at Halisi Consulting Ltd.
