Martin Cole-
South African defence industrialist Ivor Ichikowitz has called on African countries to stop relying so heavily on foreign weapons suppliers and develop their own defence industries — a provocative proposal that is not without precedent, but which would face major political, financial and technological obstacles if African governments attempted to pursue it on a continental scale.
Writing in New African ahead of the United Nations General Assembly, Ichikowitz, the founder of South African aerospace and defence company Paramount Group, argued that Africa should develop the ability to design, manufacture, maintain and upgrade its own military equipment rather than remain dependent on foreign powers.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
His argument is explicitly Pan-African rather than a call for South Africa alone to rearm. Ichikowitz writes about African states collectively building their own security capacity and proposes regional standardisation of equipment, pooled procurement and shared military training institutions. His underlying argument is that individual African countries often lack the resources to develop sophisticated capabilities independently, while cooperation could create economies of scale.
The proposal comes at a time when many African governments remain heavily dependent on imported weapons, even though several countries already possess significant domestic defence-manufacturing capabilities. And that is an important point: Ichikowitz is not proposing something that Africa has never attempted before.
Africa already makes weapons
South Africa itself has one of the continent’s longest-established and most sophisticated defence industries. The country’s domestic arms industry dates back to the 19th century, but expanded dramatically during the Second World War and again from the 1960s as Pretoria sought greater strategic independence.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
By the late 1980s, South Africa had developed a substantial domestic production capability covering armoured vehicles, aircraft, ammunition, artillery and other military equipment. The country’s government says that, by that period, most of the equipment requirements of the South African Defence Force could be met domestically.
That industrial base survives today through organisations including state-owned Armscor and a network of private companies. Ichikowitz’s own Paramount Group is part of that ecosystem. Founded in 1994, the company has developed and manufactured armoured vehicles, aircraft and unmanned systems and has worked with international partners to establish production capabilities outside South Africa
South Africa is not alone. while countries including Morocco, Ethiopia, Kenya and others have been developing more specialised defence-industrial capacity. Recent assessments describe South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria and Algeria as the continent’s most established defence-manufacturing centres.
Nigeria, for example, has the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria, or DICON, a state-owned manufacturer that has produced small arms and ammunition and is expanding into additional areas of domestic defence production. In August 2026, Nigerian defence officials travelled to Egypt as part of efforts to advance joint arms production, technology transfer and domestic ammunition manufacturing.
Egypt and Algeria have also developed capabilities for producing or assembling military equipment. SIPRI has documented licensed production of armoured vehicles in both countries, while research on Africa’s defence industry has identified domestic or licensed production of small arms, ammunition, naval vessels and other military equipment across several African states.
So the idea of Africans making African weapons is not new. What is more ambitious about Ichikowitz’s proposal is the scale: he is arguing for a more integrated continental defence-industrial system rather than simply encouraging individual countries to manufacture some equipment domestically. This is not the first time African leaders have called for greater defence independence
Nor is the broader political idea entirely new.
The African Union has for years maintained a framework for a Common African Defence and Security Policy and has an institutional Defence and Security Division within its Peace and Security Department. The AU framework addresses issues including counter-terrorism, small arms, weapons of mass destruction, disarmament and security-sector reform.
The push for greater African self-reliance in defence has also been driven by the continent’s experience of relying on external suppliers during conflicts and security crises. What has changed is the technological environment.
African militaries are increasingly dealing with drones, electronic warfare, surveillance technology, artificial intelligence and rapidly changing battlefield systems. Ichikowitz argues that importing finished equipment leaves African forces dependent not only on foreign manufacturers but also on foreign companies for spare parts, upgrades, software and technical expertise.
His proposed answer is therefore broader than simply manufacturing rifles or ammunition.He wants Africa to develop the engineering, electronics, software, aerospace and manufacturing expertise required to sustain modern military capabilities itself.
His argument is partly about jobs
That is where Ichikowitz connects his defence proposal to the findings of the 2026 African Youth Survey, commissioned by his own foundation.
The survey questioned 4,901 people aged 18 to 24 across 16 African countries. Its findings suggest that young Africans do not necessarily view greater military spending as their primary answer to insecurity.
According to the survey, 54% identified unemployment and poverty as the biggest threats to safety in their communities, compared with 56% who said governments should prioritise job creation for young people when asked about improving security. Thirty-five per cent selected military investment as a priority. That creates an interesting tension at the heart of Ichikowitz’s argument.
He is not simply saying Africa needs more weapons.His proposition is that producing more defence equipment domestically could simultaneously strengthen security and create high-skilled employment in engineering, manufacturing, electronics, software and aerospace.
The survey itself indicates that young Africans are concerned about conventional security threats. Large majorities expressed worries about armed groups crossing borders, weapons and drug trafficking and human traft Ichikowitz’s argument is therefore that defence manufacturing can be treated as an industrial-development strategy as well as a security strategy.That is considerably harder to answer.
There is likely to be support in some African policy and military circles for the principle of greater strategic autonomy. Countries that have experienced delays in obtaining equipment, restrictions imposed by suppliers or dependence on foreign technology have obvious incentives to develop domestic alternatives.
But “Africa should manufacture more of its own defence equipment” and “Africa should collectively build a continental weapons industry” are very different propositions.The second would encounter formidable obstacles.
African countries have different security priorities, different military doctrines, different procurement systems and different relationships with foreign powers. Algeria’s defence requirements are not identical to Kenya’s; Nigeria’s security problems are not the same as South Africa’s; and Egypt’s strategic position is very different from that of a landlocked Sahelian state.
There would also be difficult questions over who would control a continental defence industry, where production would take place, how contracts would be awarded and how governments would prevent weapons manufactured in one African country from being diverted into another country’s conflict. Money is another problem.
Building a modern defence industry is extraordinarily expensive. Sophisticated aircraft, missiles, radars, drones, electronic-warfare systems and precision weapons require long-term research and development, highly specialised engineers, secure supply chains and large domestic or export markets.
Africa’s existing defence industries therefore tend to be concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, while much of the continent continues to rely heavily on imports. SIPRI also notes that information on global arms production is limited, illustrating the difficulty of measuring the precise size and capability of individual national defence industries.
There is also a philosophical question surrounding the proposal.Would an African defence industry make the continent safer — or simply make it easier for governments to acquire weapons?
Ichikowitz’s argument is that domestic production would reduce dependence on external powers and allow African countries to maintain equipment without waiting for foreign approval.
Critics could counter that stronger domestic arms industries require equally strong systems of oversight, transparency and export controls.That is particularly important on a continent where several countries are experiencing active armed conflicts and where weapons trafficking is already a major security concern.
The African Union already has policies addressing small arms, weapons proliferation and conflict prevention. Any major expansion of indigenous weapons manufacturing would therefore have to operate alongside — rather than outside — those existing continental frameworks. There is another distinction that matters.
A vehicle may be assembled locally while its engine, electronics or weapons systems are imported. A rifle may be manufactured domestically while its machinery or critical components come from abroad. A drone may be assembled in Africa while its sensors, communications equipment and software originate elsewhere. True strategic autonomy requires control over much more of the supply chain.
That is precisely why Ichikowitz’s call for technology transfer, shared procurement and regional cooperation is significant. His proposal is not simply to put more African flags on imported equipment. It is to build the industrial knowledge needed to design, manufacture, maintain and upgrade those systems. Whether that is economically realistic across the entire continent is another question.
The irony is that Africa does not have to start from zero.South Africa has decades of experience in defence engineering and manufacturing. Egypt and Algeria have established production capabilities. Nigeria is expanding its domestic industry.
Other countries are developing more specialised niches. Industry observers increasingly describe these capabilities as emerging clusters rather than a single unified African defence industry. The challenge would be connecting those separate capabilities.
Ichikowitz’s proposal for standardised equipment, pooled purchasing and shared military training is aimed precisely at that problem. Instead of 54 countries attempting to develop 54 separate versions of every military technology, African governments could theoretically specialise, cooperate and buy collectively.
That could create larger markets for African manufacturers and reduce duplication.But achieving it would require an extraordinary degree of political coordination . Although Ichikowitz is South African and his own business is headquartered in the country, his argument is explicitly continental.
His article calls for African states to build their own security apparatus and advocates regional cooperation rather than simply expanding South Africa’s domestic arms industry. His proposed model involves countries sharing procurement, training and technological capabilities.
South Africa is clearly relevant because it already possesses one of Africa’s most developed defence-industrial bases and because Ichikowitz’s Paramount Group provides a practical example of an African company operating in the international defence market. But the ambition he describes is considerably larger than South Africa.
It is not the first time such an idea has been proposed, and it is certainly not the first time African countries have manufactured weapons. South Africa has been doing so for decades. Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria and several other African countries also possess domestic or partly domestic defence-production capabilities. The African Union has long discussed common defence and security arrangements.
What is distinctive about Ichikowitz’s intervention is his attempt to connect those existing capabilities into a more integrated continental industrial strategy — one that combines defence, technological sovereignty, regional procurement and youth employment.
Whether African governments embrace that vision remains to be seen. For some, the argument will sound like a logical response to a continent increasingly confronted by drones, insurgencies, cross-border armed groups and unreliable international supply chains.
For others, the prospect of expanding Africa’s weapons-production capacity will inevitably raise questions about cost, accountability, proliferation and whether scarce public money should be directed towards defence manufacturing when young Africans are demanding jobs, infrastructure and economic opportunity.
That tension may ultimately determine how far the idea travels. Africa already makes weapons. The question Ichikowitz is now putting on the table is whether Africans can turn those scattered national capabilities into a genuinely continental defence industry — and whether doing so would make the continent more secure, or simply better armed.
The strongest factual distinction for publication is therefore: this is not the first call for African defence self-reliance, nor is Africa starting from scratch. The significant news angle is Ichikowitz’s push for continental coordination of existing capabilities.
The AU has already had a Common African Defence and Security Policy framework for years, while countries including South Africa, Egypt, Algeria and Nigeria already manufacture or assemble military equipment
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar