The Federal Government issued the warning on Tuesday at a roundtable organised by the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) in Lagos, where officials and experts examined South Africa’s experience with xenophobia and its wider implications for the continent.
Opening the discussion, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olusola Enikanolaiye, said South Africa must take responsibility for enforcing its immigration laws rather than allowing vigilante groups and mobs to decide who belongs in the country.
His central message was blunt: illegal migration can be addressed through lawful enforcement; violence against migrants is not a solution.
Nigeria calls it ‘Afrophobia’
Enikanolaiye argued that the problem goes beyond conventional definitions of xenophobia.
From Nigeria’s perspective, he said, the targeting of Nigerians, Ghanaians and other Africans in South Africa amounts to “Afrophobia”—hostility directed specifically at fellow Africans.
He said this was particularly troubling given the history between Nigeria and South Africa.
Nigeria supported the anti-apartheid struggle, including at significant political and economic cost, while South Africa’s transition from apartheid to democracy became an international symbol of reconciliation.
That history, the minister argued, creates an obligation for both countries to prevent recurring attacks on their citizens from defining bilateral relations.
‘Migrants did not create these problems’
The Nigerian government also challenged the argument that migrants are responsible for South Africa’s deeper socioeconomic problems.
Enikanolaiye said issues such as unemployment, corruption and institutional weaknesses existed independently of migration and should not be blamed primarily on foreign nationals.
He warned that portraying entire groups as criminals, drug traffickers, parasites or threats to national survival can help create an atmosphere in which violence becomes socially acceptable.
For Nigeria, there is an important distinction between protecting national interests and deliberately excluding outsiders.
The minister framed the difference this way: patriotism should strengthen a country without requiring hostility toward another people.
Nigeria warns of wider consequences
According to the federal government, xenophobia and Afrophobia carry consequences well beyond individual attacks.
Nigeria said such incidents could:
- damage South Africa’s international reputation;
- weaken investor confidence;
- complicate relations with other African states;
- undermine regional economic integration;
- place African businesses and citizens at greater risk; and
- erode the moral authority South Africa gained through its liberation struggle.
Nigeria therefore proposed that Abuja and Pretoria move quickly to revive bilateral mechanisms for addressing the issue, including consideration of convening the Nigeria–South Africa Binational Commission.
South Africa rejects the xenophobia label
South Africa pushed back against Nigeria’s characterization.
Speaking at the same event, South Africa’s Consul General in Lagos, Professor Bobby Moroe, rejected the suggestion that South Africans as a people should be described as xenophobic.
Moroe argued that criminal acts committed by vigilante groups should not automatically be used to define an entire population.
He also pointed to the number of migrants living in South Africa as evidence that the country cannot simply be characterized as hostile to foreigners.
According to Moroe, South Africa is home to approximately 3.9 million migrants, representing about 6.3% of a population of roughly 65 million.
He said around 2.4 million of those migrants are documented, while the remainder are undocumented, but maintained that the country’s constitution protects them regardless of their immigration status.
A dispute with implications beyond Nigeria and South Africa
The exchange highlights a deeper question facing African governments: how should countries enforce immigration rules without allowing economic frustration to turn into hostility against migrants?
For Nigeria, the answer requires firm action against violent targeting of African nationals.
For South Africa, the challenge is to enforce immigration law while resisting attempts to equate isolated acts of vigilantism with the attitudes of an entire population.
The disagreement now places renewed attention on the bilateral relationship—and on whether diplomatic engagement can prevent periodic attacks on migrants from becoming a permanent source of tension between two of Africa’s most influential countries.