My idea for Africa in (lets say) 1920 would be more or less this:
The Netherlands still owns the Cape colony. It has grown bigger, but without a major Boer Trek not as bog as OTL South Africa.
Britain, which still has important Asian colonies (although a large part of Indiais French), owns Natal and Madagascar as half way stations (kind of a British variant of the Dutch Cape Colony). It also owns East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania).
Portugal owns Mozambique and Angola and managed to connect both. It also owns (part) of the Congo.
West Africa is divided by various European nations. France has the Ivory Coast and Senegal. There exists a Dutch Gold Coast, Danish Gold Coast, a British Colony, and Spain and Portugal owns part of it. Mostly these colonies are the result of former trading post (usualy for buying slaves, although that doesn't happen anymore in 1920).
North Africa is French, but mainly to garantuee safe passage from France through the Suez Canal to French India. So it only focusses on the North African seacoast, not the inland. Egypt is a French protectorate, not a colony).
The rest of Africa is basicly colonist free. Too much work, for too little to gain.
As I said I am still thinking about it, everything can change. My question is just how reasonable is this scenario.