“#PutSouthAfricaFirst”, “Undocumented migrants must pack and go”, “Reclaiming our economy” and “Mabahambe!” — meaning “they must leave” — have become some of the most visible slogans associated with anti-immigrant mobilisation in South Africa, particularly around groups such as Operation Dudula and related protest movements.
These movements present themselves as campaigns against illegal or undocumented migration, but their rhetoric and actions have often fed a wider climate of hostility toward African migrants, including those who may be lawfully resident in South Africa.
The leaders of these movements proclaim that foreigners have taken over the country and their businesses, such that there are no jobs for South Africans, and there is pressure on hospitals in South Africa, leading to the impoverishment of the average South African.
Although these claims are often made without sufficient evidence, they have helped create a climate in which some foreign nationals, both documented and undocumented, have been exposed to harassment, intimidation and violence.
This year’s xenophobic attack is not an isolated case. It is a recurring issue against African nationals, becoming one of the most disturbing contradictions in contemporary Africa. These recurring attacks are especially troubling because South Africa’s liberation struggle drew moral, diplomatic and material support from across the African continent.
It is therefore painful to see a country once sustained by African solidarity struggling to protect fellow Africans within its own borders.
This latest wave of anti-immigrant hostility, including reported attacks, intimidation and forced repatriation of foreign nationals (particularly other African nationals), should trouble every African government, especially Ghana in particular, given the direct impact on Ghanaians living in South Africa. This issue can no longer be dismissed as isolated street anger or a temporary domestic disturbance, given its recurring nature. When African migrants are harassed, threatened, denied access to public services, forced into fear, or compelled to return home for their own safety, the matter becomes a continental crisis. It raises fundamental questions about African solidarity, human dignity, regional integration and the responsibility of states to protect all persons within their borders.
Ghana’s decision, through the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Honourable Samuel Okudjeto Ablakwa, to evacuate distressed Ghanaians from South Africa is understandable and commendable. That is a hallmark of a responsible government, and as such, no responsible government should ignore the safety of its nationals abroad. However, I argue that the evacuation should not be treated as the end of the matter. It is only the emergency response. The Government of Ghana, together with other African countries whose citizens have been affected, must go beyond emergency evacuation and pursue a stronger, coordinated diplomatic response toward the South African government. This is not a call for retaliation, violence or hostility toward South African nationals living elsewhere on the continent.
To be clear, South Africa’s history is unique. The long years of apartheid left deep social, economic and psychological scars, including inequality, unemployment and social exclusion. However, that painful history cannot be used to excuse xenophobic attacks on fellow African nationals. South Africa also has legitimate concerns about unemployment, crime, pressure on public services and undocumented migration.
These are serious governance issues. No country is obliged to ignore illegal migration or surrender its immigration laws. However, immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the state, not vigilante groups, mobs or politically motivated movements that intimidate, harass or force foreign nationals out of the country. A person’s immigration status does not strip them of human dignity.
Every person, whether documented or undocumented, retains fundamental human rights and must be treated with dignity under the law. It does not make them fair game for public humiliation, violence or exclusion from basic protection. The danger of the current crisis lies in the politics of scapegoating. South Africa’s social and economic challenges are deep and complex.
They are rooted in historical inequality, high unemployment, poverty, uneven development, governance failures and the unfinished business of post-apartheid transformation. African migrants did not create these problems. Economic hardship does not give anyone the right to attack migrants. Blaming them for South Africa’s hardships may be politically convenient, but it is intellectually dishonest and morally dangerous. It diverts public anger away from structural failures and directs it toward vulnerable people who are often struggling for survival.
While South African officials have argued that the perpetrators do not represent the views of most South Africans, the state’s responsibility cannot end with public condemnation. One of the defining features of a state is the monopoly of violence. In a lawful state, only authorised state institutions may exercise coercive power, and even then, only within the limits of the law.
This power of monopoly of violence, exerted by the state, is invested by any state into its security apparatus. If South African law enforcement fails to intervene when foreign nationals are threatened or attacked, the state risks appearing indifferent, negligent or complicit in the continuation of xenophobic violence. As seen in many media reports, social media viral videos and witness counts of some evacuees, the South African police service has watched on for these hoodlums to continue the molestation and abuse of other African nationals.
The failure to investigate, restrain or prosecute individuals and groups that incite xenophobic violence creates the impression that such conduct is being tolerated, even if official statements condemn it. It also gives credence to the narratives that the xenophobic anger is tolerated, excused and politically exploited.
Ghana and other African countries must not stay silent because silence can easily be interpreted as acceptance. The muted response of the African Union and other African governments to previous xenophobic attacks has weakened continental pressure and may have emboldened perpetrators who believe that such violence carries little consequence.
While many have called for further diplomatic engagement with the South African government, Ghana and other African countries must be prepared to move beyond routine statements if such engagement continues to produce little change. Targeted political and economic measures should be placed on the table as a last resort.
Diplomacy does not only mean peaceful dialogue, negotiation, or sending ambassadors or high state officials to other countries. It includes pressure tools that states use to influence the behaviour of another state without immediately resorting to military force. Xenophobia did not begin in 2026, and for years, countries have used strong diplomatic engagement with South Africa through bilateral talks, the AU and regional platforms.
However, years of diplomatic engagement have not produced sufficient deterrence, as xenophobic attacks continue to recur with disturbing frequency.
African countries should consider targeted political or economic sanctions. These should not be broad measures that punish ordinary South Africans, many of whom have themselves condemned xenophobia. Rather, they should be carefully designed to affect individuals, groups, institutions or officials who incite, enable, finance or fail to prevent organised attacks on migrants.
These could include visa restrictions, asset freezes, suspension of official engagements with implicated actors, limits on public funding or partnerships involving groups linked to xenophobic mobilisation, and coordinated continental pressure through the African Union.
The aim should not be revenge against South Africa, but the creation of consequences for those who undermine migrant safety, human dignity and the rule of law.
Targeted sanctions can work when they are lawful, proportionate, multilateral and tied to clear behavioural demands. International experience shows that sanctions are most effective when the target knows exactly what must change for the pressure to be lifted.
In the Libya-Lockerbie case, UN sanctions helped pressure Libya to cooperate with international demands before the sanctions were eventually lifted. In the Iran nuclear case, coordinated financial and oil-related sanctions helped push Iran toward negotiations that produced the 2015 nuclear agreement, under which Iran accepted restrictions and monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief.
These examples show that sanctions should not be used casually or emotionally, but they can become useful diplomatic instruments when ordinary appeals fail. For Ghana and other African countries, any such measures should be tied to clear demands: protection for African migrants, restraint of vigilante groups, prosecution of perpetrators, and visible commitment by South Africa to uphold the rule of law.
The recurring xenophobic attacks in South Africa are not merely attacks on migrants; they are attacks on the very idea of African solidarity. Ghana and other African countries must therefore respond with clarity, courage and principle. Silence is no longer a neutral position. It risks becoming a quiet approval of a dangerous pattern in which vulnerable Africans are blamed for structural problems they did not create. South Africa has the right to enforce its immigration laws, but it has no right to permit mobs, vigilantes or pressure groups to determine who belongs, who receives protection and who must live in fear. Ghana’s response must therefore go beyond evacuation.
It must include sustained diplomatic pressure, coordinated African Union action and, where necessary, targeted political and economic measures against individuals and groups that incite or enable xenophobic violence. The objective should not be revenge against South Africa or hostility toward ordinary South Africans, many of whom reject xenophobia.
The objective must be accountability, protection and the defence of human dignity. If Pan-Africanism is to mean anything beyond speeches and summit declarations, then no African should be abandoned to fear in another African country. Ghana and Africa must speak now, act wisely and insist that South Africa protects fellow Africans within its borders.
