Nigeria–South Africa: A confrontation between Africa’s powerhouses — No victors, only victims

Across Africa, history continues to remind us of a simple but profound truth: actions provoke reactions, and reactions carry consequences. No nation today exists in isolation. Our citizens live, trade, study, and invest across borders. What affects one country inevitably reverberates across another.

There is a popular Nigerian expression, “Do me, I do you; God no go vex.” It reflects a deep human instinct for reciprocity. Yet, as Mahatma Gandhi cautioned, an eye for an eye ultimately leaves the whole world blind. That warning is no longer theoretical. It is unfolding before us in the recurring cycle of xenophobic violence in South Africa and retaliatory attacks in Nigeria.

This is not merely a bilateral dispute. It is a confrontation between Africa’s two largest economies and most influential nations, countries that should be leading the continent toward integration, prosperity, and stability. Instead, we are witnessing mutual hostility, destruction of businesses, and a breakdown of trust among ordinary citizens. In this confrontation, there are no victors, only victims.

The immediate causes of xenophobic attacks in South Africa are not difficult to identify. Economic competition lies at the heart of the crisis. Many South Africans, particularly unemployed youth, perceive foreign nationals, especially Nigerians, Zimbabweans, and other Africans, as competitors for scarce jobs and opportunities. This perception is compounded by persistent narratives, often exaggerated and sometimes politicised, linking immigrants to crime and illicit economic activity.

These tensions are further aggravated by weak governance. Inconsistent enforcement of immigration laws, poor regulation of informal business sectors, and ineffective policing create an environment where resentment festers and vigilante actions emerge. Add to this South Africa’s deep structural inequality, one of the highest in the world, and the result is a volatile social landscape in which frustration is easily redirected toward foreign nationals.

On the Nigerian side, the retaliatory response by youths reflects a mixture of outrage, wounded national pride, and emotional reaction to images of violence circulating widely on social media. The attacks on South African businesses in Nigeria, while understandable in their emotional origin, are ultimately misguided. They neither restore dignity nor deliver justice; instead, they escalate tensions and undermine economic interests on both sides.

Beyond these immediate triggers lie deeper, more troubling structural causes. Across Africa, millions of young people face chronic unemployment and limited economic opportunity. What should be a demographic dividend has become, in many cases, a demographic time bomb. When young people are excluded from meaningful participation in the economy, frustration can quickly turn into anger, and anger into violence.

Equally concerning is the erosion of historical consciousness. Many young Africans today are unaware of the sacrifices made by other nations during defining moments in the continent’s history. In the case of Nigeria and South Africa, this amnesia is particularly striking.

During the dark years of apartheid, Nigeria stood firmly with the oppressed people of South Africa. Its support was neither symbolic nor superficial. Nigeria provided substantial financial assistance to the African National Congress, funded scholarships for South African students, led diplomatic efforts against the apartheid regime, and mobilised global opinion in favour of freedom and equality. Nigeria earned the reputation of a frontline state without borders.

To many Nigerians, therefore, the xenophobic attacks in South Africa are perceived not just as acts of violence but as a betrayal of historical solidarity. However, the South African response introduces an important counterpoint: past assistance does not grant any individual the right to engage in unlawful or anti-social behaviour within another sovereign state. Concerns about illegal business practices, criminal networks, and pressure on public services, whether fully substantiated or not, cannot simply be dismissed.

This is where moral clarity is required. Violence, under any circumstance, is indefensible. Mob justice is not justice. Retaliation is not resolution. When Nigerians are attacked in South Africa, it is wrong. When South African businesses are destroyed in Nigeria, it is equally wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right; they deepen the crisis.

The consequences of these actions are far-reaching. Economically, both countries suffer from the destruction of investments, loss of jobs, and erosion of investor confidence. Politically, diplomatic relations become strained, undermining cooperation at a time when Africa urgently needs unity to address shared challenges. Socially, xenophobia deepens, mistrust grows, and the Pan-African ideal of brotherhood is weakened.

Ultimately, Africa as a whole loses. This crisis also represents a failure of leadership. Both governments should have anticipated these tensions and acted proactively to prevent escalation. Early warning systems, intelligence gathering, and diplomatic engagement were either inadequate or poorly executed. More importantly, there has been insufficient effort to address the underlying drivers of youth unemployment, inequality, and social exclusion.

Leadership is not tested in moments of comfort; it is tested in moments of crisis. On this occasion, both Nigeria and South Africa must acknowledge their shortcomings and commit to doing better.

The way forward must be rooted in practical, long-term solutions rather than reactive measures. First, both countries must prioritise job creation and economic inclusion, particularly for young people. Without addressing unemployment, similar crises will recur. Second, education systems must be strengthened to include not only technical skills but also history and critical thinking, ensuring that future generations understand both their shared past and their collective responsibility.

Third, law enforcement must be professional, impartial, and effective. Criminal activity, whether by citizens or foreigners, must be addressed through the rule of law, not through mob action. Fourth, governments must actively promote ethical business practices and ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks.

Fifth, there must be a deliberate effort to rebuild Pan-African consciousness. Africa’s future depends on cooperation, not competition driven by fear and resentment. Finally, both countries must deepen bilateral economic engagement, transforming rivalry into partnership.

It is also essential that political, religious, and social leaders speak with one voice in condemning violence and promoting unity. Silence or ambiguity in times of crisis only emboldens those who seek to divide.

As Africans, we must confront an uncomfortable question: who benefits when we turn against one another? Certainly not our people. Certainly not our economies. And certainly not our future.

In the final analysis, this confrontation between Nigeria and South Africa serves as a sobering reminder that strength is not measured by retaliation but by restraint; not by division but by unity; not by destruction but by construction.

There are no winners here. Not the attackers, not the retaliators, not the governments, and certainly not the ordinary citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted.

Only victims.

It is time to step back, reflect, and rebuild not just diplomatic relations between two nations but also the broader vision of an Africa united by shared purpose and mutual respect.

Because if Africa cannot stand for Africa, who will?

Note:

This article was written in 2019, reminding South Africans of the role Nigeria played in their liberation.

Sonny Iroche was a senior academic fellow at the African Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Where his research was on: “African Titans: Unveiling the Diplomatic & Economic Relations between Nigeria and South Africa”