Bola A. Akinterinwa
Relationship between Nigeria and South Africa is largely governed since 1960 by the conflicting foreign policies on Africa of both countries. Nigeria considered Africa as the cornerstone of her foreign policy from 1960 through 1976, and as centerpiece as from 1976 until 2026. It was in May 2026 at the inauguration of Nigeria’s Ambassadors-designate that Africa ceased to be the centerpiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy and when Nigeria and Nigerians became the new foreign policy thrust and centerpiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy.
Apartheid was the main dynamic for the choice of Africa as cornerstone and centerpiece. Nigeria considered that whatever happens to any black or African person anywhere in the world was also a direct happening to every Nigerian. Consequently, every Nigerian was required to fight whoever was fighting Africans and Nigerians. Apartheid explains why Nigeria formulated an exception to the principle of non-intervention as provided for in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. Dr Jaja Wachukwu, then Nigeria’s Minister of External Affairs, made it clear in 1963 that under no circumstance should apartheid be considered a domestic affair of any country and that Nigerians and the Government of Nigeria owed it a responsibility to declare a total war on apartheid.
In the same vein, Nigeria made it clear to the United Nations that Nigeria could not close her eyes to the brutal killing of President Sylvanus Olympio of Togo under the pretext of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another sovereign country. In the eyes of the then Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, President Olympio was a very good friend of Nigeria and therefore Nigeria had the duty to interfere and intervene to save a friend of Nigeria when in trouble. And true enough, the holder of a Nigerian passport was openly and specifically required to fight apartheid with whatever arms available to him or her. This instruction was contained in the inner back cover of the then standard Nigerian passport in the early 1970s. Most unfortunately, most modern-day South Africans are completely ignorant of these verifiable hard facts. It is against this background that South Africa’s Nigerianophobia should first be understood.
Nigeria-South African Relations
Nigeria’s foreign policy objectives at the time of independence included the promotion of the rights of all black people and all those still under the colonial yoke. The objective also included the promotion of African integration and active support for African unity. Consequently, South Africa could not but be a major issue in Nigeria’s foreign policy strategic calculations.
On the basis of Africa as cornerstone of Nigeria’s foreign policy, Nigeria strained economic, diplomatic and cultural ties with apartheid South Africa from 1960 to 1994. In other words, there were no direct investments, trade or commerce. South Africa was considered the main enemy of Nigeria until 1994 when South Africa was finally liberated from the chuckles of racial separation or apartheid. South Africans of today never knew that Nigeria put in place in 1960 the National Committee Against Apartheid (NACAP) and the Southern Africa Relief Fund in 1976 under the military administration of General Olusegun Obasanjo. Nigeria was on record to have incurred not less than $60 billion cumulatively to implement the doctrine of whatever happens to blacks in South Africa was also a happening to all Nigerians wherever they may be.
Imagine how radio and television guest discussants can publicly suggest that Nigeria’s engagement in the anti-apartheid struggle was mainly because of economic motivational purposes. How can anyone rightly think that Nigeria’s involvement was transactional? When did Nigeria become another European or American country that frequently take much delight in war-making because of the need for strategic relevance?
When Brigadier-General Buba Marwa was Nigeria’s High Commissioner to South Africa, he drew the attention of the Government of Nigeria to the radio and television discussion programme, laying emphasis on the implications. When Ambassador Gbenga Ashiru was Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, the issue was taken up with the Government of South Africa. South Africa’s explanation was that not many South Africans knew much about Nigeria’s great efforts. Unbelievable, but reportedly true. Why did South Africans not know much about Nigeria’s commitment? Nigeria was said to have been relating mainly with the international wing of the African National Congress and not with the national wing.
Could this also explain why Streets are not named after Nigeria or Nigerian leaders? Professor Alaba Ogunsanwo already drew national attention to this lacuna when he was Nigeria’s High Commissioner to Botswana and Ambassador to Belgium? Most unfortunately, most of the members of the international wing of the African National Congress with whom Nigeria related have passed on. There are, at best, few of them still alive. The implication of this situational reality is that Nigeria now owes it as an urgent desideratum to place on record her contributions to the anti-apartheid struggle in all ramifications for posterity. This is one major reason why the general public should give active support to the initiative of the Achievers University’s Institute of Diplomatic Practice, Culture, and Language Development is working on the documentation of the relationship.
Apartheid was about white supremacy and racial segregation. All African countries combatted apartheid. There were the Frontline States in the struggle against apartheid: Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as Lesotho and Swaziland (now Eswatini) whose economies largely depended on South Africa by then. Nigeria, though not territorially contiguous with South Africa, was also given the official recognition as one of the Frontline States in the 1970s and 1980s in order to show global and African appreciation of Nigeria’s role in the anti-apartheid struggle. As frontline states, safe spaces, training camps diplomatic support were given by the Frontline States.
When black South Africans regained in 1994 freedom from their apartheid masters at the end of the Cold War, relationship with Nigeria and South Africans began to blossom. The establishment of a Bi-National Commission in 1999 largely contributed to the growth of South African companies in Nigeria. The meeting of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) and President Cyril Ramaphosa on 18 September, 2023 on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, appears to have also contributed to the expansion of South African businesses in Nigeria. Both leaders pledged to deepen their cooperation within the framework of the African Continental Free Trade Association. Thus, the relationship has been quite good at the level of government-to-government, but this is not true at the level of people-to-people.
To an extent, there have been claims that several South African women love Nigerian men and vice versa, but this has not prevented the increasing Nigerianophobia. It has therefore become necessary to put the understanding of South Africa’s Afrophobia and Nigerianophobia in context if Africa is to have any meaningful future.
When apartheid was said to have been thrown into the dustbin of history with the election of Dr. Nelson Mandela in 1994, relationship between South Africa and Nigeria was largely built around Nigerian and South African leaders and less on people-to-people. As noted above, when Nigeria was deeply engaged in the anti-apartheid struggle, Nigeria was said to be more engaged with the international wing of the African National Congress and hardly with the national wing of the party at the home level in South Africa. The lack of relationship with the home-level ANC largely prompted Nigerianophobia, especially in terms of misogyny and misandrists.
In other words, at the level of governments and businesses, there is nothing like Nigerianophobia which appears to exist mainly at the level of people to people. Ben Ezeamalu has put it rightly: ‘Nigeria and South Africa may be having a cordial relationship at a country-to-country level, but the story is entirely different when it comes to the citizens of the two countries. A history of mutual suspicion and xenophobia has defined the relationship between both countries’ nationals.’ And most disturbingly, ‘since August 2000 when two Nigerians were among seven Africans killed in the Cape flats in Cape Town, attacks on Nigerians have become a norm in the country. Between February 2000 and ‘February 2017, at least 116 Nigerians were reported killed in South Africa xenophobic attacks.’ In this regard, Nigerianophobia appears to have given birth to Afrophobia because it existed before it. Nigerians are the main targets of South Africa’s xenophobia and Nigerianophobia.
Nigerianophobia as Dynamic of Afrophobia, 1994-2026
Three main issues informed the birth of Nigerianophobia: regional leadership rivalry, permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and affluence of Nigerians in South Africa. First on regional leadership rivalry, observers and policy makers on both sides always pretend that there is nothing like rivalry, and therefore completely ignoring that the relationship is largely characterized by friendly enmity. There have been more manifestations of misunderstandings than cooperation. There are many conflicts of interest. For instance, both countries want to play effective leadership roles in Africa without any pretense.
South Africa is well noted for its largest GDP highly industrialised economy while Nigeria is noted for its biggest population and biggest arable land in Africa. South Africa was first internationally recognized as having the biggest economy and it enjoyed the status geo-politically, especially in terms of membership of international organisations. When Nigeria rebased its economy in 2014 to become the biggest economy in Africa, rivalry became a subject of economic inquiry. The rebasing made both countries to be identified as Africa’s economic powerhouse.’ In the making of the BRICS, South Africa was invited but Nigeria was not. South Africa is a member of the BRICS by kind invitation and accession while Nigeria is a member of the BRICS by negotiated partnership and accession. The rivalry between Nigerian Afrobeats and South African Amapiano in the global music scene, and particularly the global popularity of Nigeria’s Nollywood, in comparison with South African cinema is another object and subject of rivalry, if not envy.
The struggle for a Permanent Seat on the UNSC, with or without veto power, is another major dynamic for Nigerianophobia. The current Permanent Five (P-5) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were not on the permanent membership of the UNSC on the basis of regional representation but mainly on self-recognition as Nuclear Weapons States. If it were to be on the basis of regional representation, there cannot be a good basis for France and the United Kingdom to have belonged to the UNSC at the same time as they both come from the same region of the world.
In fact, the conditions for new permanent membership of the UNSC are hardly talked about unlike it is for non-permanent membership. Non-permanent members of the UNSC are elected for two years on the basis of equitable geographical representation and contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security. They must also secure a two-third majority vote of the members present and voting at the UNGA. More importantly, the ten non-permanent seats are always shared among five regional groups: Africa Group (3 seats), Asia-Pacific Group (2 seats), Eastern European Group (1 seat), Latin American and Caribbean Group GRULAC) (2 seats), and Western European and others Group (WEOG, 2 seats). Thus membership must always reflect regional representation. A potential member must have significantly contributed to the United Nations’ efforts at peacekeeping operations or now peace support operations, and must not be indebted to the UN in terms of assessed dues to the UN. However, the story is different from that of permanent membership. The politics of and the struggle for a permanent seat has been interesting.
Permanent membership of the UNSC is statutory. It is provided for in Article 23 of the UN Charter: only Republic of China, Republic of France, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR, now Russia as successor), United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the United States of America are recognized as Permanent Members. Most unfortunately, none of the Permanent-5 wants any change to this Article 23. Any change requires an amendment and the provisions of Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter are not helpful because of the requirement of consensus of the P-5 before any amendment to the Charter can be possible.
Grosso modo, Nigeria and South Africa are believed to be the natural candidates to represent Africa on the UNSC, but the attitudinal disposition of the P-5 is much more of an obstacle. While France says she is prepared to support any candidate brought forward by the African Union, the United States is lobbying for Egypt because of the Arab world which does not constitute a region of the world by UN definition. True, Africa is one of the regions of the world. According to the World Bank, there are several regions in the world for the purposes of development finance, research, and reporting: East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and Caribbean, Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan, North America, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
From the perspectives of the United Nations, there are only six major macro-regions in the world: Africa, Americas, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and Antarctica. These six macro-regions are sub-divided into 22 geographical sub-regions, making the various UN agencies to adopt different frameworks for their works.
What is relevant here for our discussion is that the United States wants to have countries capable of assisting it by way of funding its foreign policy operations in the world. The United States wants countries like Japan, Germany, and Egypt who are making significant voluntary contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security. The United States wants to strengthen its influence in the Arab world but the Arab world does not constitute a region in the calculations of the United Nations. This is why the United States wants Egypt which is an Arab country and is geo-politically located in Africa which qualifies as a region of the world. By implication, the United States which has soft spot for South Africa does not really want Nigeria in the scheme and if Nigeria has to be considered, Nigeria has to compete with South Africa for the second seat after Egypt. Only two seats have been earmarked for Africa.
Even on this issue of only two seats, the African Union has been sharply divided over it. One group supports membership without the right of veto. Another school insists that if there is to be membership, it must be with the relevant right of veto. In the beginning, Africa asked for five seats on the Security Council, on the basis of one representative per one region of Africa. African leaders consider that Africa is not a region as defined internationally by the United Nations, but an Africa of five regions as defined by the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community, in its Article 1(d).
It should also be recalled that the discussions on the issue began in Addis Ababa and could not be quickly resolved. It was referred to the next summit of the Assembly in Swaziland (Eswatini) for final determination. Up till today, international discussions on the question have not been forthcoming, but it is expected that, sooner than later, it will resurface. In expectation, South Africa is trying to show more eligibility for the seat. Nigeria is not saying anything different by positing that she had been involved in UN peacekeeping missions since 1960 before an independent South Africa came into being in 1994.
Without any whiff of doubt, no country can be more qualify than Nigeria. Permanent membership of the UNSC, if the United States wants a seat for the Arabs, why not for Black Africa as a separate region. Even if South Africa and Egypt are closer to the United States in terms of US policy on the Middle East, Nigeria cannot be set aside in Sub-Saharan Africa. True, Nigeria does not pay much as South Africa to the UN regular budget mainly because payments are governed by the UN Scale of Assessment which takes into account many factors in the computations: income measure, economic relief adjustments, application of limits and ceilings, peacekeeping budget adjustments. Put differently, the UN principle is that of capacity to pay and it is computed by ‘measuring a country’s Gross National Income (GNI) relative to the global total, and then applying specific economic adjustments and scale limits.’ It is on record that South Africa has more capacity to pay than Nigeria but South Africa does not have Nigeria’s personality in terms of UN Support Operations.
The basis of calculation of dues payable by Nigeria to the United Nations is 0.252% of the total budget. It was only in 2025 that Nigeria paid its backlog. Nigeria paid its total 2025 assessed dues in full on 25 September, 2025. In between 2020 and 2024 Nigeria owed $30.53 million but remitted $10.96 million. As for South Africa, the basis of calculation of dues payable to the United Nations is 0.251% of the total budget. Even though in terms of percentage, there is not much difference, the difference cannot but be much significant in terms of the GDP of both countries when compared: Nigeria is led by South Africa with its economy valued at $400.26 billion while Nigeria’s economy is valued at $187.76 billion. When 0.251% of this is considered, South Africa is not at the same level with Nigeria internationally speaking. Apart from the nominal GDP of $400.26 billion, South Africa’s GDP per capita is over $6000 compared to Nigeria’s $1,100, a reason why South Africa is an attracting pole for Nigerians seeking greener pastures and why South Africans are now telling Nigerians, ‘go back to your own country and fix it.’ This is one message written on the banners of anti-migrants protesters.
On the third dynamic, affluence of Nigerians in South Africa, which also serves as a factor in understanding Nigerianophobia, Nigerians live visibly in South Africa. With about 400,000 of them, they are recognized as highly educated and economically active communities. Their contributions in the informal entrepreneurship and highly skilled professional sectors is noteworthy. Many of them are in the healthcare and engineering, academia and business sectors. Most of them also live big, using luxurious vehicles to the extent that several South African women easily fall in love with them. This may not only generate envy but also hatred.
Nigerians also live in good houses but many of them have had to abandon their houses which is currently generating a new diplomatic row between the two countries. The Abuja authorities are asking for compensation for those fleeing their homes and businesses but the South African counterparts are saying that no compensation would be paid because those who have registered properties in South Africa have the opportunity to put them on sale while informal or abandoned properties will not be compensated.
