The African People vs the IMF and World Bank: A Continental Demand for Debt Justice
- International Lawyers Project
- Jul 2
- 6 min read
By Mary Ongore, Legal Manager, Sustainable Finance
African countries are currently facing a deepening debt crisis that is threatening to derail development and undermine basic human rights. As of March 2025, six African countries are officially in debt distress, and another thirteen are at high risk. The continent's total debt has ballooned from USD 375 billion in 2014 to USD 1.8 trillion in 2023. Even more concerning is that the number of African nations with debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 60% has nearly doubled over the past decade. This has a direct impact on millions of lives across the continent, as more public funds are channelled into interest payments than into vital sectors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
This unsustainable debt trajectory is not accidental. African countries are ensnared in a recurring cycle of borrowing—often to repay existing debt—leaving them vulnerable to financial shocks and policy prescriptions from international financial institutions (IFIs). While the debt burden is shaped by a complex mix of historical, economic, and governance-related factors, the roles of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank have come under increasing scrutiny. Their lending practices and policy conditions have, many argue, perpetuated this cycle and restricted the policy autonomy of African governments.
Despite their mandate to promote global financial stability and development, the IMF and World Bank have frequently imposed conditions that align more with creditor interests than with the development priorities of borrowing nations. These include requirements to cut public spending, liberalise trade, devalue local currencies, and privatise essential services. In practice, these policies have weakened domestic industries, hollowed out public services, and entrenched inequality. These issues are relevant to ILP’s work under our Sustainable Finance programme, which aims to address unsustainable debt burdens.
In response to these realities, the African Forum and Network on Debt and Development (AFRODAD) convened the African International People’s Tribunal in Lilongwe, Malawi, from 19 -20 June 2025. On the first day, the Tribunal heard accusations against the IMF and World Bank, with prosecuting lawyers presenting a brief overview of their case. This was followed by witness testimonies, during which witnesses provided evidence and were subsequently cross-examined. The day concluded with closing arguments from both sides. On the second day, the adjudicators delivered their verdict, having carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented. This unique event served as a platform for more than 150 African citizens, civil society organisations, legal practitioners, grassroots leaders, and activists to collectively examine the human cost of IMF and World Bank policies.
The Tribunal was adjudicated by Diana Gichengo, Executive Director at The Institute for Social Accountability (TISA), and Dr. Yungong Theophilus Jong, Policy, Advocacy, and Research Manager at AFRODAD, whilst I had the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses from Kenya, South Africa, Angola, Malawi, and Nigeria and make responses to the accusations against the IMF.
Accusations against the IMF and World Bank
The first accusation was that IFIs prioritise creditor interest over the interests of African citizens by perpetuating the neoliberal model of economic growth that favours free markets and minimal government intervention. These models often mandate the privatisation of services, cutting regulation, deregulation (opening markets to foreign trade), and reduced government spending on social sectors such as health and education. These often fail to address the structural causes of underdevelopment such as weak infrastructure and heavy reliance on raw commodity exports that are highly susceptible to price fluctuations.
The Tribunal heard damning testimonies of how IMF and World Bank policies have affected African lives. One witness from the Malawi Children’s Parliament explained how the price of maize had doubled, and school fees had quadrupled, placing basic necessities out of reach for ordinary families. Another witness described how the removal of fuel subsidies in Nigeria, following IMF recommendations, had led to skyrocketing transport costs that disproportionately impacted those living in poverty. These accounts painted a picture of economic policies detached from the lived realities of the people they are meant to serve.
The second accusation was that the IFIs mandate the imposition of austerity measures on African governments at the expense of the provision of social protection and public services. This, it was argued, continues to enslave African citizens in poverty with African governments spending more on repaying debt than on the provision of social services. A Congolese woman told the Tribunal that her father died after healthcare workers went on strike due to funding cuts tied to IMF conditionalities. Another witness spoke about the increase in poverty and hunger, recalling a time before IMF involvement when no one had to scavenge for food. Women, she emphasised, bear the brunt of austerity, facing high school dropout rates and early marriages due to diminished social services.
The third accusation was that IFIs provide debt with conditionalities without African citizens’ participation and have an impact on the sovereignty of African countries. Witnesses challenged the lack of transparency and inclusivity in the decision-making process surrounding IFI loans and policies. Policies with far-reaching consequences are often negotiated behind closed doors, with little or no input from affected communities. One Ghanaian witness highlighted how structural adjustment programs in the 1990s froze public sector hiring and led to growing inequality and poverty. These programmes, he argued, were not just economically harmful but also deeply undemocratic as citizens had no say in the adoption of these measures.
Another critical point raised was the legacy of colonialism embedded in the global financial architecture. The Tribunal heard that African nations hold only 7% of the voting power at the IMF and receive a mere 5% of the supplementary assets maintained by the IMF which are used to provide help countries stabilise their economy during a crisis, even though they represent nearly a fifth of the global population. This imbalance reflects a system designed during an era when most African countries were still under colonial rule and continues to marginalise their voices in global economic governance.
Responses to the accusations
In response, I emphasised the challenges posed by poor governance and corruption within African governments. State funds are often misused or misallocated resulting in minimal impact on development, irrespective of policy advice. I also contended that the IFIs have evolved since the 1980s and 1990s, setting minimum thresholds that a government agrees to spend on essential public services, and gender-responsive budgeting being incorporated into their programmes. Furthermore, I argued that policy negotiations are often conducted in consultation with national governments, which are assumed to represent their citizens.
The Tribunal’s Verdict
Despite these defences, the Tribunal delivered a powerful verdict. It concluded that the global financial system, as currently structured, is illegitimate, neocolonial, and structurally violent. The adjudicators found that IMF and World Bank policies have contributed significantly to underdevelopment in Africa, reinforcing cycles of debt while undermining state sovereignty and democratic governance. Austerity, they held, amounts to economic violence, disproportionately affecting women and marginalised communities, and violating obligations under international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
The Tribunal called for sweeping reforms. These included an immediate moratorium on African debt, the rejection of austerity policies, the cancellation of illegitimate debt, the creation of an African credit rating agency to counter the biases of Western-led agencies, the implementation of stronger mechanisms for transparency and parliamentary oversight in public debt governance, and the adoption of the African Borrowing Charter. Ending illicit financial flows and prioritising high impact, well-monitored public investment projects were also key recommendations.
The Way Forward
Ultimately, the Tribunal served as a wake-up call. It reminded the world that Africa's debt crisis is not just an economic issue but also a human rights emergency. By bringing together several actors to challenge the status quo, the Tribunal illustrated how ordinary citizens, through collective action, can challenge entrenched systems of power. In addition, the Tribunal demonstrated the potential of grassroots mobilisation to influence global financial debates and push for a just and equitable economic future.
International Lawyers Project continues to support efforts to ensure a fairer financial system where economic policy is guided not by ideology or profit but by people’s lived realities and their human rights. For more information on how we can work on issues related to achieving debt justice, contact us here.
