The simple answer to your question is yes. And perhaps the most obvious example actually happened less than fifty years ago in the British colony of Southern Rhodesia.

Here’s a little narrative I wrote previously on the subject. In the early hours of 11 November, 1965, Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister, following a lengthy telephone conversation with Harold Wilson, his British counterpart, portrayed a dejected figure, ‘overwhelmed by a feeling of absolute frustration’ at what the socialist government of Britain was doing to the Commonwealth, ‘hell-bent on appeasing the cult of Marxism Leninism at the expense of the old traditional values of the British Empire.’ In his own words, by then ‘we had had an absolute “bellyful”; Rhodesians simply wished to be left to lead their own lives.’ At 11am, Ian Smith signed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence and announced that Rhodesia would henceforth be independent from the United Kingdom, although still loyal to the Queen.

Within hours a flood of economic and political sanctions, as well as near-universal international condemnation hit Rhodesia. Britain’s policy of decolonization throughout its empire was based fundamentally on the concept of majority rule and the right of the indigenous people to rule themselves and by declaring their country an independent nation-state, Smith’s white-minority government’s refusal to hand over power was seen by Harold Wilson as an embarrassment that needed the swiftest of resolutions. Britain was criticised for allowing Rhodesia to get to the point of UDI and the issue became front-page news around the world, with the primary debate raging over whether economic sanctions would be severe enough to end Smith’s regime, or whether, as many independent African states demanded, military intervention would be required.

There never was any military intervention by Britain or other international forces, excluding the civil war between the white state and African nationalist forces of ZANU and ZAPU which had foreign support from Russia and China. I have talked about why Britain never did invade the rebel settler state in another post here.

Why the Rhodesian Front government of Smith decided to declare independence revolved mainly around the British insistence on majority rule and a supposed fear amongst the white Rhodesians that African rule would lead to the sort of violence, destruction and racial killings seen in the Congo and other newly decolonised and independent African states. But other factors must also be considered, not least the geopolitical situation of Southern Africa and the wider world at the time, something which Ian Smith vehemently argued for the rest of his life actually drove his decision to declare independence. The Cold War and the threat of Communism were put forward by Smith, notably in his autobiography The Great Betrayal, as providing yet another reason why African rule could not be allowed – the desire to portray Rhodesia as the last bastion of the British empire and the final frontier against Communism for South Africa was a dominant theme in Rhodesian writing and rhetoric from 1965 onwards.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling and hope this helps. Sources can be provided if you want, just ask away. If you are genuinely interested in this specific example, have a read of Michael Charlton’s The Last Colony in Africa - fairly easy and will lead you further into the topic!

If you have any questions, feel free to ask away.