I agree wholeheartedly with the writer's view. I have always believed that the Scrambled For Africa, by which process Europe carved up the African continent like spoils of war without regard for the Africans is probably one of the worst atriocities visited on the continent. In drawing these artificial boundaries, this process ended up lumping together tribes that had nothing in common or were actually historically enemies, whilst at the same time dividing people that were kinsmen. Many of Africa's civil wars are traceable to this process, though of course they are not justification in any way.
In Europe, the geopolitics kept changing with various wars, conquests, alliances and the like, such that the borders of that continent in say 1500 look nothing like that of today. But these changes came from within the continent, and the change, in my view, was organic. The same process was taking place with empire-building and strategic alliances through wars etc when the European carve-up put paid to all this and artificial boundaries with absolutely no reflection on the reality, were drawn up. Therefore the Igbo, the Hausa and the Yoruba will probably clench their teeth and get along, but it is only a union, not unity. Likewise the Ashanti and the Ewe.
The irony of this all is that Africa demanded independence and the right to assert itself. However, it has steadfastly maintained one damaging colonial legacy- the artificial state as inherited. The attempted seccession of Biafra is ample testimony to this.