The renewed diplomatic engagement between Nigeria and South Africa over the persistent xenophobic attacks against Nigerians presents an opportunity that must not be wasted. Whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu meets President Cyril Ramaphosa’s special envoy today or at a later date is ultimately of secondary importance. What matters is that such engagement delivers tangible outcomes rather than becoming another episode in a familiar cycle of assurances without lasting change.
By Shu’aibu Usman Leman
The renewed diplomatic engagement between Nigeria and South Africa over the persistent xenophobic attacks against Nigerians presents an opportunity that must not be wasted. Whether President Bola Ahmed Tinubu meets President Cyril Ramaphosa’s special envoy today or at a later date is ultimately of secondary importance. What matters is that such engagement delivers tangible outcomes rather than becoming another episode in a familiar cycle of assurances without lasting change.
For far too long, Nigerians living and working in South Africa have endured repeated episodes of violence, intimidation, and the destruction of their livelihoods. Businesses have been looted and razed, lives have been lost, and countless others have lived under the constant threat that their nationality alone could make them targets. Each outbreak of violence follows an all-too-familiar pattern, condemnations are issued, diplomatic exchanges take place, promises are made, and attention gradually fades until another attack occurs. That cycle cannot continue.
READ ALSO:
Xenophobia: Take South Africa to African Court, not AU, Falana tells Nigeria, Ghana
Diplomacy remains an indispensable instrument of international relations, but diplomacy that fails to produce meaningful action serves neither justice nor those whose lives are at risk. The primary purpose of foreign policy is not simply to preserve cordial relations between governments; it is to protect national interests, safeguard citizens abroad, and uphold the dignity of every Nigerian wherever they may reside.
It is within this framework that we must examine the deeper structural roots of these recurring tensions. Xenophobia does not emerge in a vacuum; it is frequently fueled by socio-economic anxieties, political scapegoating, and the deliberate manipulation of public grievances. When local populations face economic hardship, inadequate public services, and high unemployment, foreign nationals often become convenient targets for populist rhetoric. Addressing this challenge requires both governments to look beyond immediate security responses and confront the underlying socio-economic drivers that make communities vulnerable to demagoguery and hate.
It is in this context that Nigeria’s call for a credible and legally binding Early Warning Mechanism with South Africa deserves serious consideration. Such a proposal should not be misconstrued as hostility towards South Africa or a departure from the longstanding relationship between both countries. Rather, it reflects the maturity expected of two nations that have long regarded themselves as partners in advancing Africa’s political and economic aspirations. Genuine friendship is strengthened by accountability, not weakened by it.
Nigeria and South Africa occupy unique positions on the continent. Together, they have shaped Africa’s diplomatic influence, contributed to its economic growth, and championed the struggle for political liberation. Yet leadership cannot be measured solely by declarations of African solidarity or commitments to continental integration. It must also be reflected in the willingness and ability to protect African lives.
Nigerians in South Africa are not merely visitors passing through. They are entrepreneurs, professionals, investors, students, and skilled workers whose contributions extend beyond their own communities into the broader South African economy. Their right to live and work in safety should never be compromised by prejudice or violence rooted in their nationality.
The significance of an Early Warning Mechanism lies precisely in its emphasis on prevention rather than reaction. Governments should not be content merely to investigate attacks after lives have been lost and livelihoods destroyed. Effective governance requires the ability to identify emerging tensions, strengthen intelligence-sharing, coordinate timely interventions, and protect vulnerable communities before violence erupts.
Equally troubling are suggestions that victims of xenophobic attacks should be denied protection or compensation because they may have irregular immigration status. Such arguments fundamentally misunderstand both the rule of law and the obligations of the state. Every sovereign nation has the unquestionable right to regulate immigration and enforce its laws. However, immigration status can never become a licence for criminal violence.
No individual forfeits the right to life, security, or equal protection under the law because their documentation is disputed. The responsibility of the state is clear, to uphold public order, protect everyone within its jurisdiction, and ensure that those who commit crimes are brought to justice. Anything less risks creating a dangerous precedent in which some lives are deemed less worthy of protection than others.
Furthermore, the enforcement of domestic laws within South Africa must demonstrate absolute impartiality and zero tolerance for impunity. Too often, perpetrators of xenophobic violence operate with a dangerous sense of immunity, confident that public outrage will eventually subside without legal consequences. Restoring faith in the justice system requires visible, rapid, and transparent prosecutions of those who incite or participate in attacks against foreign nationals. When justice is swift and public, it sends an unequivocal message that criminality disguised as xenophobic agitation will not be tolerated.
Civil society organisations, community leaders, and the media in both countries also have a vital role to play in this ecosystem of accountability. Beyond governmental interactions, public discourse must actively counter harmful narratives and xenophobic tropes. Media houses, in particular, carry a profound responsibility to report responsibly, avoiding sensationalism that exacerbates tensions and instead promoting stories of shared humanity, economic interdependence, and cross-border cooperation.
The present diplomatic engagement therefore offers an opportunity to redefine cooperation between Nigeria and South Africa. Rather than producing another communiqué expressing goodwill, it should result in measurable commitments. These should include stronger protection for Nigerians living in South Africa, an effective and operational Early Warning Mechanism, improved cooperation between security agencies, swift prosecution of perpetrators of xenophobic violence, and sustained bilateral dialogue focused on preventing future attacks.
Some may argue that Nigeria’s insistence on stronger guarantees could strain relations with South Africa. I take a different view. Strong relationships are not sustained by avoiding uncomfortable conversations. They endure because both sides are willing to confront difficult realities with honesty, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to lasting solutions.
Africa’s aspiration for deeper integration, expanded economic cooperation, and the free movement of people cannot succeed if Africans continue to fear for their safety in fellow African countries. The vision of continental unity loses much of its meaning when nationality becomes a basis for discrimination and violence.
Continental frameworks, such as the African Union and the African Continental Free Trade Area, are fundamentally premised on the ideals of unity, shared prosperity, and the removal of artificial barriers between African peoples. Allowing unchecked xenophobia to fester directly undermines these foundational ambitions, eroding the very trust and solidarity required to build an integrated and prosperous continent.
Nigeria has consistently demonstrated restraint and a commitment to dialogue. What is needed now is not another round of diplomatic assurances but practical commitments capable of restoring confidence among those whose lives and livelihoods remain vulnerable.
Diplomacy must deliver results. Partnership must be accompanied by responsibility. Above all, every human life must be protected, irrespective of nationality or immigration status. That is the standard by which the success of this renewed engagement should ultimately be judged.
