Former Enugu lawmaker says Nigeria should reject Pretoria’s demand and instead seek compensation for Nigerian businesses and investments allegedly destroyed during xenophobic attacks.

Former Enugu State lawmaker and ex-Southeast spokesman for President Bola Tinubu, Denge Josef Onoh, has rejected South Africa’s demand that Nigeria reimburse it for the cost of repatriating Nigerian citizens, describing the request as an “illegal levy.”

Onoh said Nigeria should not be expected to pay the reported R292 million ($18.5 million) bill presented by the South African government, arguing that the expenses were incurred as part of Pretoria’s own management of its immigration and domestic security challenges.

Instead, he called on the Nigerian government to consider demanding compensation from South Africa for losses suffered by Nigerian citizens and businesses during repeated incidents of xenophobic violence in the country.

South Africa reportedly wrote to Nigeria, Malawi and Ethiopia seeking reimbursement for expenses associated with accommodating, transporting and repatriating thousands of foreign nationals amid an immigration crackdown and heightened anti-immigrant tensions.

The costs reportedly include transportation, temporary repatriation centres, accommodation and staff overtime.

South African authorities have described the expenditure as unforeseen and unavoidable.

But Onoh strongly disagreed with the demand, saying Nigeria, as a sovereign country, should not be compelled to reimburse South Africa for costs arising from Pretoria’s domestic operations.

“As an independent sovereign nation, Nigeria firmly rejects this illegal levy, which directly violates international law, the principles of continental solidarity and the fundamental rights of African citizens,” Onoh said.

He argued that the responsibility for protecting migrants and upholding their rights rests primarily with the host country, citing the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

According to him, South Africa cannot turn its domestic security and immigration expenditure into a debt owed by other African governments.

Onoh said the situation should instead prompt a wider discussion about the financial losses suffered by Nigerians and other African migrants who have been victims of xenophobic attacks.

He alleged that Nigerian traders and investors had suffered substantial losses as businesses, equipment, vehicles and other properties were vandalised, looted or destroyed during attacks targeting foreigners.

He also criticised the activities of anti-immigrant groups, including Operation Dudula, arguing that the South African authorities had failed to adequately protect foreign nationals and their investments.

“Hundreds of foreign-owned small businesses, manufacturing equipment, personal vehicles and real estate assets were systematically looted, vandalised or entirely burned down,” he said.

South Africa Seeks Reimbursement From Nigeria, Others After $18m Migrant Repatriation 

https://dailyobserver.ng/south-africa-seeks-reimbursement-from-nigeria-others-after-18m-migrant-repatriation

Onoh further claimed that some Nigerian business owners and professionals were forced to abandon their homes, businesses and investments because of threats to their safety.

He said Nigeria should work with Malawi, Ethiopia and other affected countries to document the losses suffered by their citizens and establish the full scale of the alleged damage.

According to him, such an assessment could form the basis of a counter-demand for compensation from South Africa.

“If pushed to the wall, Nigeria will forward a multi-billion-rand counter-demand for financial compensation to the South African government to cover the totality of these looted private fortunes,” he said.

Onoh warned Pretoria against treating African migration and diplomatic relations as a purely transactional issue, saying such an approach could further strain relations between South Africa and other African countries.

He argued that targeting migrants from neighbouring and fellow African countries could also undermine regional economic integration and the objectives of the African Continental Free Trade Area.

He urged South Africa to address the economic and security concerns driving anti-immigrant sentiment without making foreign nationals scapegoats for domestic challenges.

“If South Africa chooses to reduce historical diplomacy to transactional accounting, Nigeria will gladly present its own historical invoice,” Onoh said.

Nigeria’s anti-apartheid role

Onoh also invoked Nigeria’s historical support for the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, arguing that Pretoria should take into account the sacrifices made by Nigeria and other African countries during the liberation struggle.

He claimed that Nigeria spent more than $61 billion in cumulative financial, military and diplomatic support between 1960 and 1994.

He clarified that the figure was not a single direct cash payment but an estimate of Nigeria’s broad support for the anti-apartheid struggle over several decades.

Nigeria was a prominent supporter of the anti-apartheid movement and provided diplomatic, political and material assistance to South Africans fighting white-minority rule.

Onoh argued that if Pretoria insists on seeking reimbursement for repatriation expenses, the amount should be considered against what he described as South Africa’s historical obligations to Nigeria.

“Nigeria spent over $61 billion, which does not represent a single direct cash payment. Instead, it is a cumulative estimate spanning the years 1960 to 1994 and this massive financial, military and diplomatic fortune over decades to bankroll the anti-apartheid liberation struggle,” he said.

He maintained that Nigeria provided safe havens and other forms of support to South Africans during the struggle against apartheid.

Onoh said Nigeria should be prepared to use diplomatic and multilateral channels to protect its citizens and pursue compensation if South Africa continues with what he described as hostile policies towards African migrants.

He also called for stronger protection of Nigerian nationals and businesses operating in South Africa, stressing that the issue goes beyond the reported repatriation bill to the broader question of the treatment of African migrants and the protection of their economic interests.

The dispute comes at a time when immigration, unemployment and the presence of foreign nationals remain politically sensitive issues in South Africa, while Nigeria and South Africa continue to maintain significant economic, diplomatic and people-to-people ties.

Onoh’s comments are expected to add to the growing debate over who should bear the financial cost of migrant repatriation and how African countries should respond collectively to xenophobia and migration-related tensions.