---
title: 'Africa Is Not Hungry Because It Lacks Land: The Politics of Food, Failed Governments, Terrorism and Western Hypocrisy'
url: 'https://contextura.world/africa/africa-is-not-hungry-because-it-lacks-land-the-politics-of-food-failed-governments-terrorism-and-western-hypocrisy'
markdown: 'https://contextura.world/africa/africa-is-not-hungry-because-it-lacks-land-the-politics-of-food-failed-governments-terrorism-and-western-hypocrisy.md'
date: '2026-10-17'
description: 'It was floated recently in a discussion in an online group where someone living in Europe remarked that, on the surface, it appeared to be about food security but, on closer examination, revealed a much deeper problem in how the world understands Africa. The argument was that Africa has enormous am…'
---

# [Africa Is Not Hungry Because It Lacks Land: The Politics of Food, Failed Governments, Terrorism and Western Hypocrisy](https://contextura.world/africa/africa-is-not-hungry-because-it-lacks-land-the-politics-of-food-failed-governments-terrorism-and-western-hypocrisy)

   17th Oct 2026  

It was floated recently in a discussion in an online group where someone living in Europe remarked that, on the surface, it appeared to be about food security but, on closer examination, revealed a much deeper problem in how the world understands Africa. The argument was that Africa has enormous amounts of land yet cannot produce enough food for itself, leaving other parts of the world to feed its people.

It is the sort of statement that can attract agreement because it contains a measure of truth. But it also conveniently leaves out the political, historical, economic and security realities that determine whether a country can turn its natural resources into prosperity.

Africa is not a continent without agricultural potential. Nor is it a continent where people have suddenly forgotten how to grow food. The real question is why so much of that potential remains unrealised, who is responsible for that failure, and whether those criticising Africa are prepared to examine the international systems that contribute to its difficulties.

## The world has always depended on specialised food production

No serious discussion of food security can begin with the assumption that every country should produce everything its people consume. Geography, climate, soil composition, rainfall and growing seasons determine what can be produced efficiently in different parts of the world.

Russia and Ukraine have historically been major producers and exporters of wheat and other agricultural commodities. West Asia and North Africa have long histories of cultivating dates, figs and other crops suited to their climates. Other countries specialise in rice, cocoa, coffee, maize, soybeans and numerous agricultural products.

International trade allows countries to exchange these products, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement.

The problem begins when interdependence becomes a weapon, when food imports become a substitute for domestic investment, or when an entire continent is portrayed as incapable of feeding itself simply because its agricultural systems have not been sufficiently modernised.

Africans already produce a substantial share of the food they consume. Nigeria, for instance, produces cassava, yams, maize, rice, millet, sorghum, beans and numerous other crops. The problem is not simply whether food grows in Nigerian soil. The question is whether that food can be produced efficiently, harvested at scale, stored without excessive losses, transported safely, and sold at prices ordinary people can afford.

That is where the conversation becomes political.

## 1. Nigeria's agricultural problem is not just about farmers; it is about the state

For decades, Nigerian governments have spoken about agricultural transformation, mechanisation, food security and economic diversification. These promises are repeated across administrations, yet the fundamental weaknesses remain.

Modern agriculture is an industrial undertaking. It requires machinery, irrigation, reliable electricity, access to credit, fertilisers, improved seeds, research institutions, storage facilities, processing plants and functioning markets. Farmers cannot compete with highly mechanised agricultural economies when they must contend with fragmented landholdings, expensive inputs, unreliable infrastructure, and inadequate institutional support.

Consider the recurring announcements about tractors and agricultural equipment. If equipment is procured but remains undistributed or unavailable to farmers for extended periods, the mere purchase becomes a political performance rather than an agricultural intervention. Where credible reports establish that machinery has sat idle for months or years, citizens are entitled to ask who is responsible, what the delay has cost farmers, and why public investment has failed to produce public value.

This is a question of institutional capacity, but it is also a question of political mentality.

Too much of Nigeria's agricultural policymaking still resembles an era when development was measured by government announcements, ribbon-cutting ceremonies and the number of items purchased. The modern question should be different: How many hectares have been cultivated more efficiently? How much has the cost of production fallen? How much additional food has reached the market? How much have farmers' incomes improved?

A government that buys tractors but cannot establish a transparent, reliable system for putting them to work has not solved the problem. It has simply moved public money from one column of the budget to another.

And the consequences are borne by the farmer, the trader and the consumer.

## 2. You cannot feed a nation if you cannot move food across it

Imagine a farmer in northern Nigeria who has worked for months to cultivate maize, tomatoes, onions or beans. The harvest is ready. There are buyers in southern Nigeria. Millions of people need affordable food. In principle, this should be an opportunity for everyone: the farmer earns a living, the transporter earns money, traders make a profit and families obtain food, but that simple transaction depends on a functioning system.

Roads must be motorable. Trucks must be available and affordable. Produce must be stored properly. Electricity must support refrigeration and processing. Security must allow farmers and transporters to operate without fear of abduction, robbery or death.

Nigeria has repeatedly failed to build this system at the scale required.

In December 2024, the World Bank reported that approximately 80% of Nigeria's road network was in poor condition. Its analysis also highlighted the importance of rural roads in connecting farmers to markets and reducing transport costs. \[Source: World Bank\](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/12/13/nigeria-to-enhance-road-infrastructure-to-benefit-four-million-in-rural-communities?

That figure alone should provoke serious questions about national priorities. Instead of treating the maintenance of existing roads as an urgent economic necessity, governments repeatedly announce enormous infrastructure projects while communities struggle to transport their produce along roads that have deteriorated for years.

Major new roads can be economically justified. The problem is not that Nigeria should never build a coastal highway or expand its transport network. It is that infrastructure spending must be assessed against competing needs, economic returns, connectivity and the maintenance of what already exists.

If a proposed coastal road costs trillions of naira, Nigerians are entitled to ask how its benefits compare with rehabilitating critical agricultural corridors, repairing existing highways, expanding freight rail and improving rural feeder roads.

The debate should be about the national transport system as a whole, not merely the political prestige attached to a spectacular new project.

A road is not just a strip of asphalt. It is an economic instrument. It determines whether a farmer can reach a market, whether a factory can obtain raw materials, whether food prices rise unnecessarily and whether a rural community can participate in the national economy.

Railways matter, too. Efficient freight rail could move large volumes of grain and other agricultural products over long distances, reducing pressure on highways. Properly regulated private investment could also help develop logistics facilities, storage networks and other infrastructure where commercially viable, alongside public investment.

There is a particularly cruel irony in a country where food can be abundant in one region and unaffordable in another because the systems connecting them are inefficient.

The World Bank has documented how poor transport connectivity, lengthy supply chains and inadequate storage contribute to food losses and high prices across Africa. Its research makes the point that food security is not merely a matter of growing more; it is also a matter of getting what is grown to the people who need it. \[Source: World Bank's analysis of African food supply chains\](https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/publication/improving-transport-connectivity-for-food-security-in-africa?

Nigeria cannot industrialise agriculture while treating the infrastructure that makes agriculture commercially viable as an afterthought.

## 3. Terrorism and banditry are destroying the foundations of food production

This is where the discussion becomes even more disturbing.

A farmer cannot cultivate land that has become a death trap. A family cannot sustain agricultural production when its members risk abduction in their fields. A trader cannot confidently transport produce through areas where armed groups prey on travellers and demand ransom.

Across parts of northern Nigeria, insecurity has disrupted farming, displaced communities and endangered the movement of people and goods. Kidnapping has also affected highways and rural settlements, making agricultural activity more dangerous and expensive.

The European Union Agency for Asylum's reporting on Nigeria's security situation documents kidnappings affecting villagers, travellers and people using national highways, alongside persistent insecurity in rural areas. \[Source: EU Agency for Asylum\](https://www.euaa.europa.eu/nigeria-security-situation/123-banditry-and-kidnappings? The consequences extend far beyond the immediate victims.

When farmers abandon their land, production falls. When farmers remain but pay for protection, their costs rise. When transporters fear travelling through certain routes, the cost of moving food increases. When communities are displaced, local markets collapse. When rural populations lose their livelihoods, they become more vulnerable to poverty, hunger and further displacement.

Insecurity therefore functions as an economic tax on the entire food system.

It is also important to understand that terrorism and banditry are not confined neatly to one part of Nigeria. Different armed groups operate in different regions, with distinct motives, networks and methods. The spread of insecurity into additional communities creates a wider national problem, not one that can be dismissed as somebody else's regional difficulty.

The government has a fundamental responsibility here: to protect lives, secure agricultural communities, restore safe transport routes, investigate kidnappings and dismantle the criminal networks responsible.

A government that cannot reliably protect people in their homes, on their farms and along the roads cannot credibly claim to have secured the conditions necessary for prosperity.

And the effects do not stop at Nigeria's borders. Instability across the wider Sahel disrupts trade, displaces populations and weakens agricultural livelihoods throughout the region. These problems require cooperation among neighbouring states, effective intelligence-sharing and sustained efforts to address the conditions that allow armed groups to operate.

Yet security policy must be judged by results, not announcements. How many communities have become safe enough for displaced farmers to return? How many major transport corridors can traders use without fear? How many abductees have been rescued? How many criminal networks have been dismantled and their financiers prosecuted?

Those are the questions that matter.

## 4. The uncomfortable question: who benefits from Africa's instability?

This is where the hypocrisy in some international discussions about African poverty becomes difficult to ignore.

European and American citizens have legitimate concerns about migration, pressure on public services, housing costs and economic competition. Those concerns deserve serious discussion. But it is intellectually dishonest to discuss migration without examining the political and economic conditions that drive people from their homes in the first place.

Why do people leave their countries?

Sometimes they leave in search of better wages, education or opportunities. Sometimes they leave because their governments have failed them. And sometimes they leave because conflict, terrorism, displacement and economic collapse have made a normal life impossible.

These causes must be distinguished, but none can be understood by looking at a migrant's arrival in Europe while ignoring everything that happened before it.

The international dimension deserves scrutiny. Foreign governments have supported armed actors, pursued competing strategic interests and intervened in conflicts across different parts of the world. Arms transfers, opaque security partnerships, illicit financial networks and geopolitical rivalries can prolong instability. Where foreign governments or private actors contribute to such outcomes, their actions should be investigated and their responsibilities established.

However, accusations against particular countries must be supported by credible evidence. Claims that a government has directly funded terrorists or supplied weapons to an armed group cannot be treated as established fact simply because they circulate online.

For example, allegations have circulated concerning Ukrainian support for armed groups in the Sahel, including claims involving drones. Such allegations require independent corroboration before being presented as proven evidence of state policy or direct support for attacks against Nigerian or Chadian forces.

The larger question remains valid even where individual allegations are disputed: what responsibility should foreign powers bear when their policies, arms transfers or strategic manoeuvres contribute to instability in vulnerable regions?

That question deserves the same seriousness as the questions Europeans ask about migration.

It is contradictory to demand that African countries contain the consequences of regional instability while refusing to examine the conduct of external actors where credible evidence implicates them.

It is equally wrong, however, to blame every African failure on foreign interference. Nigerian political leaders cannot outsource responsibility for abandoned infrastructure, corruption, weak institutions or inadequate security. African governments have agency, and they must be held accountable for how they exercise it.

The truth is uncomfortable on both sides: external interference can aggravate domestic problems, while domestic failures can make countries more vulnerable to external interference.

Neither reality cancels the other.

## 5. Africa must stop accepting helplessness as its destiny

There is a temptation, when confronting these problems, to become consumed by anger at foreign hypocrisy. That anger may be understandable, but it cannot substitute for a development strategy.

Africa needs agricultural industrialisation, not endless declarations of agricultural potential.

Nigeria needs a system in which tractors are available when the planting season demands them, farmers can obtain affordable inputs, irrigation reduces dependence on rainfall, and agricultural research translates into higher yields. It needs storage facilities, processing plants, reliable electricity, cold-chain infrastructure and transport networks that connect production centres to consumers.

It also needs security institutions capable of protecting farmers and rural communities.

These priorities are connected. A tractor without a maintenance system is a stranded asset. A productive farm without a road is an isolated enterprise. A good harvest without storage is a potential loss. A road without security is a liability. And a government programme without measurable results is little more than political theatre.

There is no reason Nigeria should treat these challenges as impossible to solve. They require competent planning, consistent execution, transparent procurement and accountability across successive administrations.

They also require a change in how success is measured. Governments should publish agricultural equipment delivery records, machinery utilisation rates, road-maintenance targets, food-loss estimates and independently verified security outcomes. Public expenditure must be connected to outcomes that ordinary people can see and feel.

African countries must also deepen regional cooperation. Food production does not have to stop at national borders, and neither should agricultural knowledge, logistics infrastructure or security coordination. Neighbouring countries can benefit from complementary growing seasons, regional trade and shared transport networks, provided that such arrangements strengthen rather than undermine domestic resilience.

The objective should not be autarky — the unrealistic pursuit of producing everything domestically. It should be food sovereignty: the capacity to make informed national and regional choices about food production, trade and access without becoming dangerously dependent on external suppliers or vulnerable to political coercion.

That is a far more useful measure of agricultural independence than simply asking whether a country imports food.

## The final question is not whether Africa can feed itself

The real question is whether Africa's political leadership is prepared to build the systems that allow its people to turn land, labour, knowledge and resources into lasting prosperity.

And the international community must confront a related question: can wealthy countries sincerely demand stability, prosperity and lower migration from Africa while ignoring the consequences of policies that undermine those very objectives?

Nobody should romanticise Africa's challenges. Governments have failed. Institutions have disappointed. Corruption, insecurity, poor planning and weak infrastructure have imposed enormous costs on ordinary people. Africans themselves must confront these failures with urgency and courage, but neither should Africa's difficulties be reduced to a crude claim that a continent with abundant land simply cannot grow enough food.

That explanation is too convenient. It overlooks the farmer whose harvest cannot reach the market, the community driven from its farmland, the produce destroyed by inadequate storage, and the machinery purchased with public funds but left idle. It overlooks the economic consequences of poor transport networks and the devastating effect of insecurity on agricultural livelihoods.

And it overlooks the international interests that sometimes operate within fragile states, even as those same states are criticised for their instability.

Africa does not need pity. It needs accountable governments, productive economies, secure communities and the freedom to pursue its development without destructive interference.

Europeans are entitled to ask why Africans migrate. Africans are equally entitled to ask why their countries remain vulnerable to forces that undermine security and prosperity — and whether the governments, corporations and political interests operating beyond their borders are willing to answer for their part.

The world would indeed be a better place if more countries could feed their populations securely and affordably, but that objective will not be achieved by mocking a continent for its shortcomings. It will be achieved by confronting the political decisions, institutional failures and international relationships that keep those shortcomings in place.

The land is there. The people are there. The agricultural knowledge is there. What remains is the difficult work of building the systems that turn potential into prosperity — and the political will to hold everyone responsible for the obstacles in the way.

---

## Navigation

- Parent: [Africa](https://contextura.world/africa.md)
- Previous: [Tinubu Promised to Protect Nigerians' Money. Three Years Later, Can He Justify Another Term?](https://contextura.world/africa/tinubu-promised-to-protect-nigerians-money-three-years-later-can-he-justify-another-term.md)
- Next: [Nigeria Has Given Every Building an Address. Now, Can Nigeria Actually Find Them?](https://contextura.world/africa/nigeria-has-given-every-building-an-address-now-can-nigeria-actually-find-them.md)