African civil society organisations are increasingly questioning donor-driven development models and calling for greater local ownership of decisions affecting communities across the continent.
The concern emerged strongly at a recent gathering of African civil society leaders in Accra, where participants examined the growing tension between securing international funding and remaining faithful to the missions for which their organisations were established.
A case involving a small civil society organisation in Kenya was cited as an example of the difficult choices facing development organisations. The organisation turned down substantial donor funding after determining that accepting the money would have required it to expand into communities it was not yet ready to serve.
According to Nafissatou Sene, Senior Manager, Portfolio Services, African Collaborative, the donor was seeking greater scale, while the organisation preferred to deepen its existing relationships with communities before expanding.
“They knew it would not be easy,” she recalled. “But they wanted to send a message that they would not accept something simply because it was available.”
The decision, she said, reflected a broader debate about whether African organisations should allow funding opportunities to determine their priorities or retain control over the direction of their work.
For many organisations, the dilemma is complicated by their dependence on external funding to sustain programmes, employ staff and respond to community needs.
Dr Nana Asantewa Afadzinu, Executive Director of the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI), said the challenge went beyond access to money and was fundamentally about recognising Africa’s own resources, knowledge and capacity to develop solutions.
She said Africa possessed significant human resources, indigenous knowledge, creativity and cultural wealth, yet solutions to African challenges were still often shaped outside the continent.
“We have resources. Not merely financial resources, but human resources, indigenous knowledge, creativity, and rich culture. Yet despite possessing those assets, Africa often finds itself treated as though the answers must come from outside,” she said.
Madam Wanjiru Kanyiha, a Kenyan lawyer who has worked with communities on governance and public participation, similarly called for communities to have greater influence over development decisions.
She said residents were sometimes consulted only after decisions had already been taken, leaving them in the position of recipients rather than partners in development.
“They should have a voice and they should have power,” she said.
The debate also highlighted the growing problem of mission creep, as organisations facing funding shortages consider taking on projects outside their core mandates simply because financing is available.
Madam Juliet A. Amoah, Country Director of Emerging Public Leaders Ghana, said an organisation established to work in one area could suddenly be pushed towards unrelated programmes when funding for its original area became scarce.
“An organisation established to strengthen public institutions suddenly considers education projects because funding for governance has become scarce. Another begins chasing issues far removed from its founding purpose,” she said.
She described the situation as a difficult choice between financial survival and remaining committed to an organisation’s original purpose.
“Do you change course to survive? Or do you risk financial uncertainty to remain faithful to the communities you were created to serve?” she asked.
Madam Amoah said the consequences of such decisions could extend beyond organisations themselves because employees, their families and communities depend on the programmes being implemented.
She also called for stronger collaboration among African civil society organisations, arguing that groups pursuing similar objectives should move away from excessive competition for limited resources and explore partnerships that combine their strengths.
Another concern raised at the gathering was the language commonly used within the development sector, including terms such as “beneficiary,” “grantee” and “capacity building.”
Madam Tendisai Chigwedere, Programme Officer at the Hewlett Foundation, challenged assumptions behind such terminology, arguing that African organisations already possess substantial knowledge of the communities they serve.
African organisations, she said, do not necessarily need to wait to become experts because they already understand their communities, adding that what they often lack is recognition.
The discussions did not produce a new financing model or a single blueprint for transforming Africa’s development sector. However, participants used the gathering to question existing power relationships and examine who should determine development priorities.
At the centre of the debate was the belief that African communities and organisations should have greater authority in defining their needs, designing solutions and determining how development resources are used.
The Kenyan organisation’s decision to reject funding therefore became a symbol of a broader push for independence in decision-making. Its choice demonstrated that, for some organisations, financial resources are not the only measure of success; maintaining control over their mission and relationships with communities can be equally important.
The discussions also echoed the aspirations of the African Union’s Agenda 2063, which envisions an Africa that is prosperous, self-reliant, people-driven and supported by accountable institutions.
For the civil society leaders gathered in Accra, the challenge is increasingly about ensuring that Africa’s development agenda is shaped by Africans themselves, with external partners supporting locally defined priorities rather than determining them.
