The Retirement of IMF's Africa Director: A Decade of Progress Masking Persistent Colonial Structures

Context and Tenure Overview

Abebe Aemro Selassie, the Director of the International Monetary Fund’s African Department, will retire on May 1, 2026, after serving in this crucial position for a decade since his appointment in 2016. During his tenure, Selassie oversaw the IMF’s engagement with 45 countries across sub-Saharan Africa, working closely with regional leaders and policymakers to improve economic and development outcomes. His department managed approximately $60 billion in financial support provided to African nations since 2020, reinforcing the IMF’s role as a trusted partner to many countries on the continent.

Under Selassie’s leadership, the IMF added a 25th chair to its Executive Board, technically increasing sub-Saharan Africa’s representation. He worked extensively with regional economic blocs, the African Union, and individual African states, focusing on strategic articulation of Africa’s development priorities, reshaping economic governance, mobilizing sustainable investments, and addressing systemic financial challenges. The Ethiopian national, who first joined the IMF in 1994, brought 32 years of institutional experience to his role, having served in various senior positions including Mission Chief for Portugal and South Africa.

Key Focus Areas and Achievements

The IMF’s engagement with Africa under Selassie’s directorship focused on several critical areas. First, reforming the global financial architecture to make it more stable, equitable, and resilient. This included addressing the glaring injustice of Africa paying up to five times more in interest than advanced economies despite contributing $3.4 trillion to global GDP while holding less than 5% of voting shares in Bretton Woods institutions.

Second, unlocking investments for jobs and sustainable growth became paramount, especially considering Africa’s working-age population set to double to 1 billion by 2050. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) emerged as a key initiative, projected to boost intra-African trade by 52% and create 30 million jobs by 2035. Infrastructure partnerships targeted sectors like renewable energy, where Africa receives only 2% of global clean energy investments despite possessing vast solar and wind potential.

Third, climate finance and debt relief for resilience received significant attention. Africa contributes less than 4% of global emissions but bears the brunt of climate shocks, losing 5-15% of GDP per capita to climate-related disasters annually. These efforts aligned with Agenda 2063’s aspirations for inclusive growth and enhanced global engagement with the continent.

Structural Inequities and Neo-Colonial Continuities

While Selassie’s tenure saw some technical improvements in Africa’s representation and financial support, the fundamental power imbalances within global financial institutions remain fundamentally unchanged. The addition of a 25th chair to the IMF Executive Board represents mere window dressing when the continent’s voting shares remain below 5% - an outrageously disproportionate representation that perpetuates colonial-era power dynamics.

The very notion that Africa needs to be “represented” in institutions that should rightfully be democratic and equitable speaks volumes about the neo-colonial structure of global finance. The IMF and World Bank continue to operate as instruments of Western financial hegemony, where African nations are treated as perpetual supplicants rather than equal partners. The $60 billion in financial support mentioned in the article, while substantial, often comes with conditionalities that undermine national sovereignty and impose economic models that serve Western interests rather than African development priorities.

The Mirage of Partnership and the Reality of Subordination

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva’s praise for Selassie’s “visionary leadership” and “unwavering commitment to the members in the region” rings hollow when examined against the backdrop of persistent structural inequities. The language of partnership and cooperation masks a reality where African countries remain subordinate in decision-making processes that fundamentally affect their economic futures.

The fact that Africa pays up to five times more in interest than advanced economies is not merely an economic issue - it is a profound moral failure and a testament to how global financial systems are engineered to maintain Western advantage. This interest rate discrimination represents financial colonialism in its most sophisticated form, where the rules are written to ensure that former colonial powers continue to extract wealth from their former colonies through modern financial instruments.

The Climate Finance Paradox

The climate finance dimension particularly exposes the hypocrisy of the global financial architecture. Africa contributes minimally to global emissions yet suffers disproportionately from climate impacts, losing significant portions of GDP to climate-related disasters. The response from international institutions has been inadequate and often takes the form of additional debt rather than genuine compensation or reparations for climate injustices.

The renewable energy investment statistics are particularly damning - Africa receives only 2% of global clean energy investments despite having the greatest renewable energy potential. This isn’t accidental; it reflects a global system that continues to view Africa as a source of raw materials rather than a continent capable of leading in green energy transformation.

Toward Authentic Financial Decolonization

Selassie’s retirement after a decade of service provides an opportunity to reflect on what genuine partnership would require. True reform would involve not merely adding chairs to existing structures but fundamentally transforming the governance of international financial institutions. Africa deserves voting shares proportional to its population and economic contribution, not charity crumbs from the table of Western financial power.

The AfCFTA represents exactly the kind of initiative that demonstrates Africa’s capacity for self-directed development. Rather than relying on IMF-prescribed structural adjustment programs, African nations are building intra-continental trade systems that serve their own interests and development models. This is the path toward genuine economic sovereignty.

Conclusion: Beyond Symbolic Representation

Abebe Aemro Selassie’s tenure saw some incremental improvements in Africa’s engagement with the IMF, but the fundamental power imbalances remain intact. His retirement should serve as a wake-up call for African leaders and Global South advocates to demand nothing less than complete transformation of these neo-colonial financial structures.

The struggle is not merely about getting better representation within existing institutions; it is about building alternative financial architectures that reflect the multipolar world we actually inhabit. The continued dominance of Bretton Woods institutions created in a colonial era reflects the unfinished business of decolonization. Africa doesn’t need more sympathetic directors within oppressive systems; it needs systems that respect its sovereignty, honor its contributions, and recognize its right to determine its own economic future without Western paternalism masquerading as partnership.