https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram#Ideology
"Islamofascism" has been a widely criticised term, and Boko Haram is not a fascist movement. Although some West African jihadists do cite the Almoravids and Fulani Jihadists as inspirations, this isn't universal and there are divides in jihadism over that. Or to compare them to European "clerical fascism", the clerical fascist vision of an ideal society seemed a lot more compromising with modernism than what these Islamists want. It's easier to put clerical fascist movements (both Protestant and Catholic) in the political tradition of the nation's they arose in
And it seems really like the Rwandan group I cited earlier does have many of those features. At very least they were racist authoritarians.
As I said, medieval Europe would qualify under that, since it was an authoritarian (not totalitarian of course) society which had moments of extreme racism/antisemitism toward Jews, Moors, etc. Yet no one calls medieval Europe a fascist society. That's why it's hard to qualify Hutu Power and that period of Rwanda as fascist. Personally, I favour a more narrow view of movements which you can apply the label of fascism to (with the key example Mussolini's Italy), most of which operated in the interwar period. A lot of post-war movements labeled "fascist" or "neo-Nazi" mostly seem linked to fascism via the Nazis, and the elements of the Nazis they loved the most was their racial policies and their success, not so much Nazi economics or other elements of Nazi Germany (like George Lincoln Rockwell's World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists).
If Fascist Italy remains neutral in World War 2 but realizes that holding onto Italian East Africa beyond Eritrea is unfeasible, you could see the establishment of a Fascist government in Mogadishu.
An
Italian fascist government, but not necessarily an Afrofascist government or the sort of fascism which a Somali might create.
Even in a Axis victory scenario, Africa is going to be far away from Japanese sphere of influence. Italy and Germany would not look kindly at such meddling.
International fascism is a challenging thing to create (and Japan wasn't really fascist like Italy and Germany since Japanese fascism was only one of several factions in the 30s/40s), and African fascism could borrow off of several models, although would likely be just ways to aggrandise the leader of the movement and his followers. The fascist focus on a singular "great leader" (a
duce, a
fuhrer, etc.) will appeal greatly to some leaders in Africa (by this I mean the types like Félix Houphouët-Boigny, who moved the capital of his country to his home village Yamoussokro as a show of power) who would use appeals to fascist economics and nationalism to get enough other people on board to build a powerful movement. Japan's appeal as the "liberator of non-white races from colonialism" inevitable, and Japan will want Afrofascist movements to support them to exploit those countries for the resources Japan needs.
Pan-Africanism will be a major part of Afrofascism. "Africa" as a united country can be created like India was (at least in the minds of some intellectuals), and the African diaspora will be essential for this.
We would somehow need to get a reputation of fascism that makes Africans believe that fascism will "liberate" them from European Imperialism
Japan was engaging in imperialism throughout the early 20th century yet at the same time was presenting themselves as liberators of non-white races from white colonialism, to the point they gained support from certain Ethiopians and even black Americans (via black American support for Ethiopia against Italy). But if Italy was neutral, post-WWII fascist Italy (and maybe with Spain/Portugal as allies) could be a solid bloc promoting fascism in Africa (to weaken the British/French), at least until Portugal's wars in colonial Africa.