His latest comments have revived fears of another trade challenge between the United States and China, pushing investor confidence down and triggering a fresh sell-off across key technology stocks.

Luxshare, a major assembler of iPhones and producer of AirPods, dropped 2.2%. Lens Technology, which provides mobile screens, declined 1.8%, while Goertek, another AirPods manufacturer, fell 1.1%. 

These dips are directly linked to Trump’s Friday warning that iPhones not made in the U.S. could face a 25% import tariff.

And he didn’t stop there. Trump also floated the idea of a 50% tariff beginning June 1, adding more pressure to global supply chains and increasing concerns that the trade truce of the last few weeks could unravel.

The U.S. had already slapped tariffs on imports earlier this year. Although the White House later stepped back, after a market issue shook U.S. bonds and the dollar, the 10% baseline import tax remains. 

Again, Trump had imposed a 145% tariff on Chinese products, which was later scaled down to 30%.

The impacts weren’t limited to Apple’s supply chain. China’s main stock indices also reflected investor anxiety. The Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong dropped by 1%, while the CSI 300, which tracks large-cap stocks in mainland China, slid 0.7%. 

Apple, anticipating the risks, is already acting. The company is making plans to manufacture most of its U.S.-sold iPhones in India by the end of 2026. 

The goal is to insulate itself from the geopolitical tug-of-war between Washington and Beijing. But shifting production isn’t simple, and bringing it to the U.S. may be even harder.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had claimed last month in an interview with CBS: “The work of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones will come to the United States and be automated, creating jobs for skilled trade workers such as mechanics and electricians.” 

However, when asked later by CNBC, he admitted that Apple CEO Tim Cook told him the necessary automation technology just doesn’t exist yet.

So what now? We’re looking at a scenario where rhetoric can move billions in market value within hours, and where companies are being forced to reconsider how and where they make their most iconic products. Apple is trying to outpace the politics, but the rules keep changing.

This increase came as leading brands, including Apple, Samsung, and Motorola, accelerated their imports to dodge tariff threats that could have disrupted pricing and demand.

Apple alone shipped $2 billion worth of iPhones from India in March, leveraging its production partners, Foxconn and Tata Electronics. 

This was a historic record for the company and stressed a bigger shift in global supply chain strategies. I find this development unsurprising. 

In recent years, the U.S.-China trade tension has triggered a wave of recalibrations. Tech giants are now leaning heavily into India and Vietnam, seeking more stability and new manufacturing hubs.

The U.S. had pointed to new tariffs on electronic imports in early April, but the Biden administration issued a temporary 90-day suspension. That pause gave companies like Apple some breathing room, but not enough to stall their contingency plans.

“The increase in smartphone shipments in March and early April will help insulate Apple from potential immediate pricing impacts in the U.S. through mid-to-late summer,” said senior research analyst Gerrit Schneemann. 

He added, “Should the tariff situation remain unresolved with China by the time the iPhone 17 ships, we expect India to become the primary provider for U.S.-bound iPhone 17 devices.”

Apple’s sales to distributors and retailers rose by 42% in March. Samsung posted a 4% increase in sell-in, while Motorola, owned by Lenovo, nearly tripled its exports from India. 

The result was that India’s share of U.S. smartphone imports jumped from 16% in the first quarter of 2024 to 26% this year.

This is a global reset in motion and by the June quarter, Apple expects most of the iPhones sold in the U.S. to be sourced from India. 

The strategy is about long-term independence from China’s unpredictable regulatory and political environment. 

Starting Wednesday, the United States will lower its punitive tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%. China will respond in kind, dropping its retaliatory duties from 125% to 10%. 

This is a big change from the near-embargo levels both sides had maintained, freezing nearly $600 billion in two-way trade and straining global supply chains.

For months, there have been high tariffs, factory slowdowns, and markets on edge. Now, with this deal, the two countries are finally showing willingness to talk, not threaten.

Speaking from Geneva after two days of negotiations, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said plainly, “Both countries represented their national interest very well.” He added, “We both have an interest in balanced trade, the U.S. will continue moving towards that.”

The deal, reached during face-to-face meetings at the U.N. ambassador’s villa overlooking Lake Geneva, also includes a commitment to ongoing discussions, alternating between the U.S. and China. Both governments published a joint statement outlining the framework for continued talks.

“The consensus from both delegations this weekend is neither side wants a decoupling,” Bessent said. “And what had occurred with these very high tariffs … was the equivalent of an embargo, and neither side wants that. We do want trade.”

This unexpected softening comes just months after President Trump, having returned to office in January, escalated the trade war to new heights by raising tariffs to 145%. 

China retaliated with equally aggressive tariffs and export restrictions on rare earth materials, key inputs for U.S. industries ranging from defence to consumer electronics.

Markets reacted instantly. Wall Street futures jumped. The Hang Seng in Hong Kong surged by 3.4%. In Europe, container shipping giant Maersk rose more than 12%, and luxury brands like LVMH and Kering recorded gains of 7.4% and 6.7% respectively. Oil prices also rose, with Brent Crude climbing 2.8%.

Economists had expected a more modest rollback, if any. Zhiwei Zhang of Pinpoint Asset Management said, “This is better than I expected. I thought tariffs would be cut to somewhere around 50%.” He added, “Obviously, this is very positive news for economies in both countries and for the global economy.”

But don’t mistake this deal for a full reconciliation. The U.S. tariffs targeting critical sectors such as electric vehicles, semiconductors, steel, and pharmaceuticals will remain in place. According to Bessent, these areas are still considered strategic and vulnerable.

“We have identified 5 or 6 strategic industries and supply chain vulnerabilities and we will continue moving towards US independence or reliable supplies of allies on those,” he said.

While much of the attention was on tariffs, the discussions unexpectedly touched on the U.S. fentanyl issue, a national security issue that Trump cited when imposing some of the original tariffs. 

Chinese negotiators reportedly showed unusual openness to cooperation. A Chinese deputy minister was specifically sent to address the opioid issue, which Bessent later described as “the upside surprise for me from this weekend.”

It’s too early to say whether this 90-day truce will lead to a lasting agreement. But it has halted, at least temporarily, a damaging escalation.

This weekend’s meetings may just be the start of a longer, complicated road toward resolving issues over intellectual property, forced technology transfers, and unfair subsidies.

President Trump, speaking before the deal was formally announced, described the talks as “a total reset… in a friendly, but constructive, manner.”

In the March quarter, Apple saw only “limited impact” from tariffs, but Tim Cook said that’s no guarantee the coming months will look the same. If global tariffs don’t change and no new ones are introduced, Apple expects the extra cost to stay around the $900 million mark in Q3. That’s a big “if” in today’s volatile trade environment.

Investors, though relieved it wasn’t worse, didn’t exactly cheer. Apple posted $95.4 billion in revenue and $28.4 billion in net profit — figures that beat expectations.

Still, shares slid 4% after hours. Tariffs are only one piece of the puzzle; legal pressure is increasing too, especially after a recent antitrust ruling. Uncertainty, not profit, is what’s moving the market now.

When asked to give a more detailed outlook, Cook shut the door on speculation. “I don’t want to predict the future, because I’m not sure what will happen with the tariffs.” Apple isn’t gambling on trade policy. Instead, it’s changing its supply chain out of China at a fast pace.

About half of iPhones sold in the U.S. now come from India. Macs, iPads, and other devices are produced in Vietnam. That’s a deliberate strategy and a response to years of growing geopolitical issues.

After a meeting with former President Donald Trump, Apple managed to avoid the harshest tariff spikes. At one point, tariffs on Chinese imports were set at 145%, but electronics were spared. That exemption may not last. “Our estimate assumes current global tariff rates, policies, and applications remain in place for the rest of the quarter,” Cook warned. It’s not a promise, just a possibility.

To Cook, Apple’s game plan hasn’t changed: stay focused, stay calm, and invest for the long term. “For our part, we will manage the company the way we always have, with thoughtful and deliberate decisions, with a focus on investing for the long term, and with dedication to innovation and the possibilities it creates,” he told investors. 

“As we look ahead, we remain confident, confident that we will continue to build the world’s best products and services, confident in our ability to innovate and enrich our users’ lives, and confident that we can continue to run our business in a way that has always set Apple apart.”

Behind the positiveness, there’s realism. Apple’s tight supply chain has given it breathing room, but Cook didn’t offer illusions about what comes next.

With global trade dynamics changing, even the biggest players can’t control the laws. Apple’s doing what it can, adapting quickly, communicating cautiously, and staying alert. 

The Ministry of Commerce in Beijing stated:

“China firmly opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests. If this happens, China will never accept it and will resolutely take countermeasures.”

That message came on the heels of increasing chatter that the U.S. government is aggressively courting trade partners, promising tariff relief in return for cutting economic ties with China—especially in sensitive sectors like manufacturing and tech.

Washington is engineering a campaign. From Japan to South Korea, and now eyeing Taiwan and India, the U.S. is making trade deals a loyalty test.

Reports suggest American negotiators have floated ideas like “secondary tariffs” for countries that don’t toe the anti-China line, and are discouraging nations from becoming backdoors for re-routed Chinese exports.

Vietnam, clearly paying attention, has reportedly tightened border checks, blocking goods suspected of being Chinese in origin from sneaking into the U.S. under another flag.

Japan and South Korea, economic heavyweights with deep ties to both Washington and Beijing, have been drawn into early negotiations. In fact, South Korea’s top trade envoy is already in Washington to start talks. These aren’t your typical trade discussions—they’re geopolitical chess matches.

China sees it for what it is—a move to isolate, frustrate, and ultimately weaken its global economic reach. And it’s not just pushing back with statements. Beijing has a history of acting fast and strategically when crossed.

In 2016, South Korea agreed to host a U.S. missile system. The result? Chinese tourists vanished, South Korean businesses in China faced new obstacles, and bilateral relations went cold.
This time around, the stakes are even higher.

China’s grip on critical raw materials gives it an advantage it didn’t fully leverage before. It’s already restricted exports of gallium and germanium, key ingredients in chips and defence systems.

And now it’s clamping down on rare earth exports too, vital for everything from smartphones to electric vehicles.

Beijing’s strategy is two-pronged: resist American pressure and tighten its embrace of other regions. Xi Jinping’s recent tour of Southeast Asia and Europe wasn’t just ceremonial.

Visits to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia signalled a pivot—China is doubling down on regional cooperation and strengthening trade alliances where U.S. influence is less entrenched.

But here’s where things get complicated. Many countries are stuck in the middle. African nations, for example, are facing a high-stakes choice. U.S. overtures come with promises—access, funding, and relief from tariffs.

But China has been a consistent investor in the region, from infrastructure to mining. Trade between Africa and China hit $282 billion last year. That’s not a number you walk away from easily.

There’s also the fear factor. China has a track record of swiftly responding to diplomatic slights with economic punishment. And when Beijing says it will “resolutely take reciprocal countermeasures,” it means it.

Some analysts think the U.S. may struggle to rally a united front. Bert Hofman, former World Bank director for China, said bluntly, “The Trump administration’s inconsistent policy approach undermines its credibility.”

Still, he acknowledged that China’s trade surplus is a real sore point—and that the country must boost domestic demand to restore balance.
The next wave of global trade might just be about influence, leverage, and who gets to call the shots.

What’s at stake? Roughly 12,000 factory jobs, most tied to textile exports under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). But instead of just scrambling for trade talks, Prime Minister Samuel Matekane is moving fast on a different front—welcoming Elon Musk’s Starlink into the country.

It was at the Third Public-Private Dialogue National Conference on April 9 in Maseru, where Matekane made his pitch. No veils, no detours. The message revealed that Starlink’s entry is part of a strategy to make Lesotho more open to American business. “We are actively removing obstacles to US investment, addressing issues like Starlink, energy, and hospitality investment approvals,” he said.

That statement alone raised eyebrows.

The Lesotho Communications Authority (LCA) had received Starlink’s application back in February. Since then, the process has stirred more heat than hope. Strong voices—some from telecom giants, others from rights advocates—have called on the government to hit pause. Their objection isn’t about the internet service itself; it’s about ownership.

Vodacom Lesotho’s Managing Director, Mohale Ralebitso, was blunt at a public consultation: “Local involvement may foster partnerships with domestic businesses, thereby creating investment opportunities and ensuring broader economic inclusion.”

The group Section Two, also known as Advocates for the Supremacy of the Constitution, went even further. “While Section Two recognises the potential benefits of expanded internet access, we respectfully oppose the issuance of this licence to Starlink due to the complete absence of local ownership in the company,” said Secretary-General Tjatjapa Sekabi.

They’ve done the digging. According to Section Two, Starlink Lesotho is entirely foreign-owned—1,000 shares, all held by Starlink Holdings Netherlands B.V., with American directors and no Basotho at the table. Compare that to Econet Telecom Lesotho, which is 30% locally owned, or Vodacom Lesotho, where 20% belongs to the Sekha-Metsi Consortium, a group of Basotho investors and public figures.

The backlash isn’t just about economic fairness—it’s about sovereignty. Critics argue Matekane is using Starlink as a bargaining chip to sway the U.S. on trade. “These tariffs are unrelated to Starlink’s application,” said Kananelo Boloetse from Section Two. 

“Opposition to Starlink stems solely from its 100% foreign ownership and its implications for national interests. If the government intends to approve the licence despite this, it should say so clearly and directly, rather than obscuring the issue behind the tariff debate.”

There’s also the regional angle. South Africa, Lesotho’s biggest trading partner by far, has already rejected Starlink’s licence on similar grounds. And Vodacom South Africa—majority owner of Vodacom Lesotho—won’t be thrilled if Starlink gets a free pass in Maseru.

“Lesotho’s economic reality shows that over 70% of our exports flow to South Africa, compared to less than 20% to the US,” Boloetse noted. “Straining ties with South Africa to impress Trump or Musk could jeopardise the interests of Basotho.”

Worse still, he warned of potential loopholes. “Permitting Starlink here might enable South Africans to circumvent their own country’s regulations by accessing services through Lesotho, and this, we believe, could create tension with our neighbour.”

On the diplomatic side, it’s a risky game. Matekane’s government insists it’s trying to position Lesotho as investor-friendly. But critics say real reform means listening to citizens, not bypassing them to please foreign tech billionaires.

Minister of Trade, Mokhethi Shelile, doesn’t sound overly optimistic about the 90-day lifeline from Trump. “I do not know what is going to happen after 90 days,” he told SABC. “It is said that it is done so that we can sit down and negotiate. I do not have a good experience in terms of trying to get meetings with the Trump administration.”

With a GDP of just $2 billion and an economy heavily tied to exports, Lesotho doesn’t have much wiggle room. But choosing between Washington and Pretoria—between jobs and justice, between opportunity and ownership—is not as straightforward as approving a satellite licence.

The Starlink debate has pulled back the curtain on Lesotho’s deeper anxieties: Who really benefits when foreign capital arrives? And how much is a government willing to trade for short-term relief?

It’s not just about internet access anymore. It’s about who gets to decide what Lesotho becomes.

This is Beijing’s response to Washington’s decision to ramp up its tariffs on Chinese goods to 145%, worsening an already tense situation. 

The new measures increase the chasm between the two global superpowers, raising serious worries about the stability of international trade and global supply chains.

China’s Finance Ministry wasted no time in denouncing the United States’ actions. In an official statement, they lambasted Washington’s tariff hikes, accusing them of violating international trade rules and “common sense”. 

“The U.S. imposition of abnormally high tariffs on China seriously violates international and economic trade rules, basic economic laws and common sense and is completely unilateral bullying and coercion,” the ministry stated.

The escalation comes on the heels of Washington’s decision to impose higher tariffs on Chinese imports, further impacting relations. With the White House’s relentless pressure, Beijing has responded with sharp measures, raising tariffs on U.S. goods to 125%, up from an earlier 84%. 

This is a direct consequence of President Donald Trump’s executive order, which increased the duties on Chinese imports.

While the United States has confirmed its tariffs now stand at 145%, China’s response has been equally firm, leaving little room for diplomatic reconciliation. 

In a pointed message, China’s Finance Ministry added that the U.S. tariffs have created a scenario where “there is no longer a market for U.S. goods imported into China.” They went on to express their intent to continue pushing back with further measures, if necessary, to protect their economic interests.

Zhiwei Zhang, president and chief economist at Pinpoint Asset Management, commented that the current standoff signals an end to the escalation of tariff rates. According to him, the next logical step would be an assessment of the economic damage inflicted on both the U.S. and Chinese economies, though there’s little indication that negotiations are forthcoming. 

Zhang suggested that the real fallout from these trade tensions may be felt in the disruption of global supply chains, which could have long-lasting consequences.

Despite the confrontations, China has refrained from expanding its export control measures, choosing instead to maintain a level of restraint that could leave the door open for future talks. However, the Chinese government has been clear in its stand: if the U.S. continues to press on with tariffs, China will “resolutely counter-attack and fight to the end.”

On the other side of the issue, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has dismissed China’s position, claiming that Beijing’s reluctance to negotiate is a mistake. “It’s unfortunate that the Chinese actually don’t want to come and negotiate, because they are the worst offenders in the international trading system,” Bessent said, adding that the U.S. has long borne the brunt of China’s economic imbalances.

The economic toll on both nations is beginning to show. Goldman Sachs recently downgraded its forecast for China’s GDP, pointing to the impact of trade tensions and slower global growth. 

Though U.S. exports to China account for a small portion of its GDP, the indirect effects of the trade war are being felt, particularly in employment. Around 10 to 20 million Chinese workers are directly involved in industries dependent on exports to the U.S.

Meanwhile, in a meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a pointed comment, acknowledging the harm caused by the escalating tariff war. “There is no winner in a tariff war, and going against the world will only isolate itself,” Xi said, stressing the global ramifications of the ongoing conflict.

While some may have hoped for a shift in strategy, it seems that both Beijing and Washington are committed to their respective courses.

With the U.S. market issues, with the S&P 500 in bear territory and oil prices plummeting, the pressure climbs on businesses and consumers who are now caught in the crossfire of this trade war.

Nigeria has blocked 25 product categories from entering its borders — a move the U.S. government says is hurting American exporters and breaching the basic rules of global commerce. 

In response, the Trump administration imposed a 14% tariff on Nigerian exports, escalating a conflict that is already rattling economies far beyond Abuja and Washington.

For the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), the Nigerian policy is one of the ten worst examples of trade discrimination faced by the U.S. in recent times. 

“Nigeria’s import ban on 25 different product categories impacts U.S. exporters, particularly in agriculture, pharmaceuticals, beverages, and consumer goods. Restrictions on items like beef, pork, poultry, fruit juices, medicaments, and spirits limit U.S. market access and reduce export opportunities,” the USTR stated.

But let’s be clear — Nigeria didn’t just wake up one day and close the door. The bans were part of the country’s efforts to protect local industries, save foreign exchange, and cut dependency on imports. You could argue it’s economic self-defence. Yet the global market doesn’t operate in isolation.

Trump, never one to sidestep a trade confrontation, has hit back with what he’s calling “Liberation Day” tariffs — and they’re not just aimed at Nigeria. Almost every country on America’s trading list got a piece of the stick. 

“Nigeria maintains an average 27 per cent tariff against the U.S., which is unfair dealing,” the U.S. president said. The message? If you hit U.S. goods, expect a hit back.

There’s more than just political theatre here. U.S. businesses, particularly those in food and drug manufacturing, are reportedly losing millions in potential revenue. 

And the global market felt the punch. Stock markets tanked across continents on Monday. Investors wiped $208 billion off the books of the world’s 500 richest people in less than 24 hours. The last time we saw a drop that sharp was during the height of COVID-19.

Meanwhile, China and Canada didn’t waste time. China hit U.S. products with a 34% tariff and slammed the brakes on exports of seven key rare earth materials. Canada added its own 25% tariff on American vehicles. It’s an economic storm, and every country is adjusting its sails.

Back home in Nigeria, the immediate worry is the impact on non-oil exports. While crude — our comfort zone — is still flowing, sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, and fast-moving consumer goods are now under pressure. Any hope of deeper trade integration with the U.S. could take a serious hit.

So here we are: protectionism dressed as patriotism, tariffs parading as justice, and ordinary businesses caught in between. 

Though there’s been global market instability, triggered in part by current U.S. tariffs, the Japanese tech investment firm is pressing ahead with its plan. 

The funds raised will be used to redeem existing bonds and contribute to the outstanding payment for the acquisition of shares in chip designer Arm, which SoftBank secured through its Vision Fund in August 2023.

The bonds are set to mature in May 2030, offering a yield ranging between 3% and 3.6%. The exact interest rate will be determined on April 18.

Despite SoftBank’s debt load — about ¥7 trillion ($47.83 billion) in outstanding bonds — the company is projecting confidence in its ability to manage its financial obligations. 

A spokesperson confirmed that the debt-to-assets ratio is expected to remain below 25%, with the current ratio sitting comfortably at 12.9% at the end of December 2024. This shows that, even with the massive scale of this bond offering, SoftBank is maintaining financial discipline while simultaneously making aggressive investments.

This bond sale follows on the heels of SoftBank’s $30 billion investment in OpenAI’s latest funding round, contributing to a larger $40 billion push. The move reiterates the company’s high-risk, high-reward strategy, which Masayoshi Son, the company’s founder, has become known for. 

His penchant for leveraging debt to drive major investments has impacted SoftBank’s path forward, enabling the company to scale globally in technological advancement.

Global markets have become highly cautious due to geopolitical factors, such as escalating US tariffs, but SoftBank’s continued aggressive investments say that Son sees long-term growth potential even amid uncertainty.

While the bond sale brings an opportunity for individual investors, it also highlights the company’s drive to grow through its Vision Fund. The proceeds will help fund the strategic acquisition of Arm, an essential step in securing SoftBank’s stake in the chip-design industry, which continues to be a key part of its portfolio.

To find a way forward, the solution might just be to trade with each other, or risk being cornered again by external forces.

Jeremy Awori, CEO of Ecobank Transnational Inc., didn’t mince words in an interview with Bloomberg: “Now more than ever, African countries must focus on trading more with each other and creating a seamless framework for intra-continental commerce.” He’s right—and there’s no time to waste.

These tariffs are beyond numbers on a sheet, they are a direct hit to export-driven industries across sub-Saharan Africa. Textiles, apparel, and other non-oil products that once enjoyed duty-free access to the U.S. under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) are now facing stiff levies. 

For Lesotho, the blow is a lot—up to 50% tariffs, the highest slapped on any sovereign nation. Nigeria’s non-oil exports now face a 10% tariff, a setback the government says could cripple the sector’s global competitiveness.

Let’s not pretend the US is Africa’s top customer—it’s not. China, the UAE, and India have that locked down. But Washington still matters. In 2023 alone, sub-Saharan Africa exported $29 billion worth of goods to the US. 

That’s not pocket change. And the bigger problem? The ripple effect. If US-China trade tensions escalate—and they usually do—China might slow its demand for African exports too.

So what’s the plan?

Intra-African trade has been inching forward. It grew by 3.2% last year, reaching $192 billion. But here’s the thing: that still makes up just 15% of the continent’s total trade. Not enough. 

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is supposed to fix that. With 55 countries and a combined GDP of $3.4 trillion, it promises to eliminate tariffs, connect 1.3 billion people, and turbocharge industrialisation.

But progress is painfully slow. Negotiations drag on. Tariffs are only part of the problem, and the CEO of Ecobank explains that order delays, visa restrictions, and poor logistics—especially for landlocked countries—make moving goods within Africa harder than shipping them abroad. If we don’t fix these, AfCFTA remains a paper tiger.

There’s also the economic fallout. These tariffs follow Trump’s earlier decision to freeze aid to Africa. Ecobank’s internal research warns that this double blow could shove six million more people into extreme poverty. 

Meanwhile, the African Development Bank projected that Africa’s growth would rise to 4.3% in 2025, up from 3.7% in 2024. But that forecast now hangs by a thread, threatened by these very trade tensions.

The irony is hard to ignore. AGOA was meant to lift African economies. Since 2000, it has allowed over 7,000 products to enter the US duty-free. It helped build industries and create jobs. Now, Trump’s tariff wall threatens to tear that down.

Still, all isn’t lost.

Africa has a choice to make. Either keep depending on external markets that can flip the script overnight, or build internal resilience. That means adding value to raw materials, deepening intra-African supply chains, and rolling out AfCFTA like our lives depend on it—because they just might.

Africa cannot afford to wait for handouts or trade favours. According to the CEO of Ecobank, the future lies within.