Fresh reports of anti-foreigner violence in South Africa have sparked anger among Nigerians at home and abroad, with many accusing the Federal Government of responding too mildly while applauding Ghana for moving quickly to protect its citizen in a similar situation.
The criticism followed a safety advisory issued by the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM), asking Nigerians living in South Africa to remain indoors, avoid public gatherings, and temporarily close their businesses amid fears of escalating unrest.
The alert referenced a communication from the Nigerian Consulate in Johannesburg indicating that protests in cities including East London, Cape Town and Durban had turned violent, leading to looting, destruction of property and injuries. Intelligence from the mission also suggested that more demonstrations could take place in Gauteng Province between April 27 and 29.
NiDCOM described the message as precautionary. However, many Nigerians viewed it as another instance of what they called a pattern of “watch-and-wait” diplomacy that leaves citizens to fend for themselves during repeated xenophobic flare-ups.
Several Nigerians based in South Africa said the directive placed responsibility on victims rather than addressing those behind the attacks.
Some noted that similar incidents have occurred over the years with little visible diplomatic escalation from Abuja.
Online, reactions were equally sharp. Commentators questioned why the government’s position appeared limited to advisories instead of firmer engagement with South African authorities. Others argued that a stronger presidential stance could deter further attacks.
The contrast with Ghana’s recent response heightened the debate. After a Ghanaian national reportedly faced threats, Ghana’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, announced government support to relocate the victim at state expense. The Ghanaian government also engaged South African officials directly, pushing for an apology and accountability.
Analysts say the difference in approach highlights the role of political will in diaspora protection.
Security analyst Sadiq Lawal said Nigeria’s responses to past incidents have often stopped at statements without sustained diplomatic pressure or consequences. He argued that countries are more likely to act decisively when they know there could be diplomatic or economic repercussions.
Public affairs expert Dr Amina Yusuf said Nigeria’s once-dominant voice in African diplomacy appears to be fading as smaller nations take firmer positions to defend their citizens abroad. According to her, repeated advisories without visible follow-up risk weakening Nigeria’s credibility on the continent.
A Lagos-based geopolitical analyst, Kunle Adebisi, added that beyond rhetoric, Nigeria needs a structured rapid-response framework for diaspora emergencies, backed by consistent engagement at bilateral and multilateral levels.
Meanwhile, leaders within the Nigerian community in South Africa suggested that the renewed hostility may be linked to local political tensions ahead of the country’s elections scheduled for November 2026. They said anti-foreigner rhetoric is often used by some political actors to channel frustration over unemployment and economic hardship.
According to diaspora representatives, protests frequently begin as political demonstrations before being hijacked by criminal elements who target foreign-owned shops and homes.
