It is disgraceful that South African authorities have allowed street gangs to usurp the work of immigration officials under the guise of fighting illegal immigration. These roaming mobs have looted businesses, assaulted, killed and, in some instances, committed atrocities that border on genocide against fellow Black Africans.
Many analysts believe the authorities’ failure to halt this wave of xenophobia is deliberate, serving as a convenient diversion from their inability to improve the living conditions of the Black majority more than three decades after the end of apartheid.
In response to the attacks on Nigerians and other African nationals, some Nigerians have urged the Federal Government to nationalise South African businesses operating in the country.
A senator, Adams Oshiomhole, in particular, called on the government to seize the profits of such companies. His principal targets were MTN Nigeria, MultiChoice Nigeria (DStv) and Stanbic IBTC.
Earlier, Oshiomhole had advocated revoking the operating licences of South African companies in Nigeria and even suggested that MTN should be nationalised.
That would be a costly mistake.
There are more effective and responsible ways to seek redress. Punishing private businesses for the failings of another country’s government would amount to Nigeria inflicting harm on itself. It would damage investor confidence, undermine the country’s ease-of-doing-business credentials and weaken its struggling foreign direct investment drive.
During the military administration of Olusegun Obasanjo between 1976 and 1979, Nigeria nationalised British Petroleum, later renamed African Petroleum, Barclays Bank, rebranded Union Bank, Standard Bank, which became First Bank of Nigeria, and Shell-BP. What lasting benefit did the country derive from those actions?
Ironically, those measures were taken in retaliation for Britain’s support for the apartheid regime in South Africa. Nigeria, alongside several African countries, stood firmly behind the struggle to liberate Black South Africans from White minority rule. That proud history makes today’s hostility towards fellow Africans even more painful.
Even so, Nigeria must respond with maturity and strategic calculation. If private companies are shut down, who will ultimately bear the cost? Nigerians.
These companies have made substantial contributions to the economy. Besides, some of them are no longer exclusively South African-owned.
DStv’s parent company, MultiChoice, for instance, is now owned by the French media conglomerate Canal+.
MTN Nigeria is even more intertwined with the Nigerian economy. A significant proportion of its shares is listed on the Nigerian Exchange, while about 11 million Nigerians have indirect stakes in the company through their pension funds.
The company also controls more than half of Nigeria’s telecommunications market. Any disruption to its operations would have severe economic and social consequences.
Rather than target private businesses, Nigeria should mount a robust diplomatic offensive. It could recall its High Commissioner, deny South African Airways landing rights and formally accuse South Africa before the United Nations Security Council and the African Union of failing to protect African nationals from organised violence. The difficulty, however, is that the African Union has become largely ineffective.
Nigeria also spearheaded the international boycott that helped isolate apartheid South Africa. It should consider championing similar diplomatic pressure whenever major international events are hosted by South Africa if these attacks continue.
The Federal Government could equally suspend aspects of its bilateral relations with Pretoria.
There is already precedent for such action. President Cyril Ramaphosa was due to visit Ghana in the first week of August, but the trip was cancelled at Ghana’s instance following the alleged killing of a 40-year-old Ghanaian, Bashiru Isak, during anti-foreigner demonstrations in Cape Town on June 30 and the subsequent repatriation of hundreds of Ghanaians fleeing South Africa.
Earlier, Ghana had petitioned the African Union over the recurring attacks, arguing that they violate the spirit of the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement.
Although President Bola Tinubu has taken some steps, including approving evacuation flights to bring stranded Nigerians home, more is required. He should engage Ramaphosa directly and demand concrete action.
Even more disturbing is the silence of many respected South African elder statesmen and senior government officials. Rather than unequivocally condemn these barbaric attacks, many have remained silent, while others have attempted to justify them. Ramaphosa himself argued that South Africans were merely exercising their right to protest. That position is deeply disappointing. Nelson Mandela would be turning in his grave.
One of the few prominent voices to condemn the violence has been the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, Julius Malema, who described the attacks as a manifestation of self-hatred and a societal sickness.
It is absurd that many Black South Africans continue to blame fellow Africans for their economic hardship instead of holding their political leaders accountable. Most Nigerians in South Africa are entrepreneurs and employers, not simply job seekers. Many migrated because South Africa’s institutions, largely inherited from the apartheid era, function more effectively than Nigeria’s.
For now, if travelling to South Africa has become synonymous with courting danger, Nigerians should stay away.
Above all, this shameful episode should compel Nigeria’s leaders to build an economy that offers genuine opportunities at home. Only when the country creates widespread prosperity will its professionals, entrepreneurs, and students no longer feel compelled to seek greener pastures abroad.