p. p. p.The former colonial power is reassessing its role in the murder of Lumumba, and much of post-colonial Africa remains reluctant to face the political vision for which it was removed.
On January 20, a court in Brussels (Belgium) held a procedural hearing on the lengthy murder case of Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The hearing did not review the full history of the murder, but was limited to whether the case should be handled under Belgian law.
Tafi Mhaka, the Review by Al Jazeera
Source: Source: www.aljazeera.com
At the center of the proceedings is 93-year-old Etienne Daviignon, a former Belgian diplomat and a senior state official. Federal prosecutors are seeking to hold him accountable on charges related to Lumumba's unlawful detention and humiliating treatment in the months leading up to his execution, in which Daviignon refuses to admit his guilt. The case followed Belgium's recognition of the moral responsibility for Lumumba's death and represented an incomplete, belated attempt to deal with colonial violence by legal means.
The fact that such a payment occurs at all, albeit limited, raises a more uncomfortable question. While the former colonial power is revisiting some aspects of its role in Lumumba's murder, much of post-colonial Africa still does not want to face the political vision for which it was removed. Lumumba's murder is lamented, but his analysis is rarely taken seriously. His name is remembered, but his demands are quietly put aside.
Lumumbu is often remembered as an anti-colonial martyr and rediscovered periodically throughout Africa, but the essence of his political thought is rarely understood. Questions he raised at the time of independence — sovereignty, land and political freedom in post-colonial Africa, — They are largely unresolved.
This neglect is not accidental.. . . . Many post-colonial African leaders did not honor Lumumba's legacy precisely because of the radical clarity of his criticism and what it would require of those in power today, including the ruling coalitions that have learned to capitalize on the systems he sought to dismantle. To understand why his ideas are still disturbing so many people in Africa and beyond, it is necessary to return to the speech in which he publicly declared his policy and to the reactions it caused at the time.
On June 30, 1960, at the Palace of the Nation in Leopoldville (now Kinshasa), Lumumba performed at an official independence ceremony in the presence of Belgian King Bodouin. The speech has since been recognized as one of the most significant political speeches of the African decolonization era. At the time, however, the Western press largely regarded it as a provocation.
In an article published the following day in The New York Times, foreign correspondent Harry Gilroy described Lumumba's performance as «The Warrior» and stated that it «He left a spot.» at an event to celebrate independence in the spirit of colonial goodwill. Gilroy contrasted Lumumba with the conciliatory speech of President Joseph Casa-wubu, noted that «The Soviet diplomats present seemed to be enjoying what was happening.»And presented this moment through the lens of the Cold War, portraying Lumumba as unstable and ideologically suspicious. This approach was not random, but part of a broader Western media reflex that treated uncompromising anti-colonial speech as a threat to order, not as a statement of political subjectivity.
The Guardian's special report of 1 July 1960 was no less revealing, though more detailed. The British newspaper described Lumumba's speech as «aggressively» Damage to royal dignity. Much attention was paid to the etiquette, the king's discomfort, the delay of the official program and the alleged embarrassment caused by Belgium on the day, which was to become a ceremonial transfer of power.
According to reports of the time, Bodouin nearly left the independence ceremony while officials tried to contain the consequences. What remains largely unexplored in the West is the accuracy of Lumumba's presentation and how it originated.
Lumumba supplemented and edited his remarks while sitting in the Palace of the Nation after listening to Bodouin's speech and not being included in the list of speakers at all. His speech was not part of the official programme.
It was the answer. The gulf between the king’s self-praising narrative and Lumumba’s prophetic speech could no longer exist. Bodouin praised «gene gene gene gene» King Leopold II, whose personal rule is estimated to have killed about 10 million Congolese people from forced labor, violence and starvation in pursuit of rubber and ivory. He spoke of Belgium's so-called civilisation mission and represented independence as a benevolent guardianship, not recognizing racial terror, deprivation of property or the mass death of the people it entailed. Lumumba rejected this interpretation directly.
«We knew ridicule, insults and beatings.». . . . — He said, speaking of a system that brought Africans to the position of subjects, not citizens. He described lands selected through racially discriminatory laws, political prisoners exiled in their own country, and forced labor paid for by wages that were lacking to sustain life. Independence, he insisted, was not a gift but a result of struggle, and it would be meaningless without dignity, equality and control over national wealth.
What bothered Western observers was not Lumumba's inaccuracy, but what he said directly, publicly and in the presence of European power. Colonial self-justification was acceptable. The Anticolonial Truth — No, that's not it. Lumumba paid his life for what he called the realities that others later learned to manage, mitigate, and profit from. The obsession with his tone, timing and perceived belligerence worked as an early delegitimization of African political subjectivity.
History has proved the correctness of Lumumba’s diagnosis. One of the central requirements of his speech was to «The land of our native country really served its children.». . . . More than six decades later, this contradiction persists.
DRC has some of the world’s most strategic mineral reserves, including those needed for a global energy transition. However, about three-quarters of the population lives in poverty, while mining revenues are controlled by foreign corporations. In the DRC, reforms and liberalization programs supported by the World Bank, especially since the 1980s and formalized in the early 2000s, dismantled state control of the mining industry, promoting privatization, which returned cobalt and copper to foreign companies and weakened national control over strategic resources.
Mining continued along with population displacement, conflict and environmental degradation, especially in the east.
The same picture is visible elsewhere. In Nigeria, crude oil exports have brought in hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1970s, but more than 133 million Nigerians live in multidimensional poverty. Different national contexts, similar results: political independence without economic sovereignty. Communities in the Niger Delta suffer from chronic pollution, underdevelopment and violence, while wealth flows outward.
Lumumba also spoke directly about political freedom. He promised that he «End the persecution of free thought» and to ensure that «All citizens fully enjoyed the fundamental freedoms provided for by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.». . . .
It was not a high-spirited oratorio either. It was a warning. Throughout the continent, elementary democratic commitments have been repeatedly violated through violence, repression and deeply compromised electoral processes, including in Uganda, Tanzania and Eritrea.
Militarization has become a default policy regime, wars, coups and power struggles have become recurring traits across the continent. — from protracted conflicts in the Horn of Africa to repeated military takeovers elsewhere.
Lumumba warned against rule by force in Africa. «We will establish a world based not on rifles and bayonets. — He said he, — (a) By consent and good will». . . .
This vision was gradually abandoned. Africa is independent in form but not in substance. Corruption, repression and neo-colonial systems continue to erod it.
The African Union estimates that Africa loses about $89 billion annually due to illegal financial flows, while control of the CFA franc and debt conditions continue to hamper socio-economic progress. The courts may consider separate actions, but history judges the systems, and the systems against which Lumumba warned remain firmly in place. That is why the case unfolding in Belgium is important beyond its legal framework.
The trial in Belgium is revisiting the mechanics of Lumumba's death, but he cannot resolve the deeper historical and political trauma that his murder represented.
The Lumumba family, the DRC and the continent have the right to expect full responsibility for his murder, and Africans deserve reparations for slavery and colonialism. However, justice in the past is inseparable from responsibility in the present. His legacy requires more than statues and memorials.
The continued failure to meet the Lumumba standard has led not to stability or dignity but to predatory exploitation, inequality and repeated cycles of violence.
It's still an unfinished affair of Patrice Lumumba's life and death.
