Absolutely not. Just look at the nations which were spawned from British colonial nations: South Africa, Nigeria, Sudan (and now South Sudan), Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Egypt. Each one faces an array of problems unlike anything seen before. To name a few well known issues would be Apartheid in South Africa, the product of a power vacuum left by the British with a severely racist society that favored whites economically, politically and socially. The blood diamond "wars" covered large portions of Africa, but to this day scars South Africa and Sierra Leone horribly. South Sudan just recently won its independence from Sudan but is still locked in tribal warfare in 12/13 of its states. (Not to mention the prevalence of slavery in both nations), and Nigeria's barely functioning democracy has been overthrown four times in its history, with periodic changes in regimes. Somalia remains among the poorest nations in the world due to British resource exploitation, and its government remains unable to enforce even the most basic of laws. Most of this was due to one of two things: a) Power vacuums left by the British (they essentially just said "Peace out" and left with no attempts made to ensure the safety of its subjects citizens during the interregnum) and b) the mindless collection of resources with no intention for long term sustainability (this is what was infamously dubbed the "rape" of Africa). If you'd like clarification or sources for any of the above examples, feel free to ask.

As far as we can tell, being colonized by the British was better than by other countries, but it was best to be colonized as little as possible by anyone.

Several researchers have studied "which colonizer was best, given comparable colonies", and the answer pretty consistently is "on average, the British were best." (The easy examples here are Jamaica versus Haiti in America, Hong Kong versus Macao in China, and Kenya versus Tanzania in Africa. But this just a statistical rule, so you can find plenty of exceptions.) For comparing different colonizers in general, Acemoglu & Robinson are the researchers to look at. For a particular focus on Africa, I like "How does Colonial Origin Matter for Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa?" Agbor et al 2010.

But frankly, colonization in general was bad for Africa. To quote Acemoglu and Robinson, at independence African states found themselves with "institutions that were probably even worse than those they had at the time of colonization." That is, colonization drove African societies backward.

This is especially because of the slave trade, which did huge damage to politics and society -- essentially you have economies built on war and kidnapping. But even after the slave trade, colonization encouraged "extractive" economies focused on the convenience of the elite (the overseas power and its top local allies) rather than facilitating general growth.

For the general view of the problems with "extractive" economies, as common in colonies, see Acemoglu & Robinson's book, Why Nations Fail. For the particular case of Africa, see their essay (from which I quoted above), "Why is Africa Poor?", 2010.

The result is particularly dramatic for the bad effects of the slave trade. Nathan Nunn has done the signal work here, see "The Long-Run Effects of Africa's Slave Trades", 2008, where he shows fairly robust ties between "how easy and often were slaves taken from this African country" and "how poor is it today". Ironically, the most slavery-exploited countries were the ones that used to be the richest, before the Europeans came along -- lots of people! convenient local leaders to work with! Slavery turned things upside-down, so that now one of Africa's richest countries is Botswana. Why? Botswana started out poor and landlocked. You'd think that was a disadvantage -- but precisely because of that, the Botswanans never had their political and social institutions ravaged by slave traders and colonial exploitation.

Anyway, even if you leave out the slave trade -- and that is a huge, huge thing to leave out! -- European colonizers in Africa largely suited the convenience of management and exploitation, not the institutions that led to internal development. Unlike Hong Kong, where the British ruled directly and brought over their own commerce-friendly legal codes, Africa was harvested, not invested in, and the British were only modestly better than the rest about that. To the extent they were better, Agbor et al seem to find it's because of a greater British encouragement of education.

But your best bet is not to be colonized, period. With isolated exceptions -- Hong Kong, again, comes to mind -- it's hard to find cases where the natives (as opposed to colonizing settlers) got a good deal out of the arrangement.

TL,DR: read Acemoglu & Robinson, "Why is Africa Poor?" and then Why Nations Fail.