The article is also incoherent. It blames the French for capital flight and for capital entry. If high interest rates aren't merited by the real risks, then why is capital flight a problem? Do locals not want in on such a good thing? The reality is the risks are high, and the rates are free market ones. Those rates provide real capital, not internal looting displacements from one class to another, which is all inflating the currency can accomplish.
The author also confuses a need to go through France with actual inconvertability, toward the end. If african francs have to first be traded into francs (or Euros), that doesn't stop anything. You just sell the francs or euros you traded them for, for whatever else.
As for continental government led by the likes of Nasser, sure that would have helped (sarcasm alert). Marxist tyrants would like the run the place themselves, loot all foreign capital already there, and inflate like mad to steal from their own populace. Look at Zimbabwe if you want to see where that leads.
A few countries in this hemisphere have decided to peg their currency to the US Dollar. Ecuador and Panama, for instance. These countries actually use the US Dollar. Argentina had pegged its currency to the dollar, but kept spending too much, so had to remove the peg. But these countries should practice sound monetary policy, and I don't think that the French should be blamed for that.