In a stark display of growing anti-immigrant sentiment, thousands of South Africans took to the streets of Durban, chanting and singing as they marched through the city’s central business district and down Dr. Pixley KaSeme Street to the Point precinct. This massive demonstration, arguably the largest of its kind, brought together diverse groups including the traditional Zulu royal regiments (amabutho), and modern movements like March and March, Operation Dudula, and the Amabhinca Nation. Many protestors carried traditional weapons such as sjamboks, assegais, and shields, adding a palpable intensity to their presence. Their primary target on this particular day was a building on Mahatma Gandhi Road, which they forcibly surrounded, claiming it was a drug den operated by foreign nationals. This act, they declared, was a desperate plea for national attention, asserting that they had concrete evidence of illegal activities within and accusing some police officers of complicity. Heavily armed law enforcement, comprising various units from visible policing to tactical and public order policing, accompanied the march, with officers eventually entering the besieged building. The protesters’ actions, they explained, were a direct retort to sentiments expressed by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who had urged citizens to report illegal activities rather than taking direct action against foreigners.
This forceful demonstration was not an isolated incident but the culmination of weeks of escalating tension and direct action. Just two weeks prior, the same anti-immigrant groups had effectively shut down parts of the Durban CBD. During these “clean-up campaigns,” protestors literally swept the streets and picked up litter, but also actively engaged in citizen arrests, confronting shop owners and traders in an aggressive effort to purge the city of undocumented foreign nationals. The intensity of these operations was further highlighted by distressing videos that surfaced on social media. One showed a man being violently slammed against a pole and beaten, with widespread speculation that the victim was a Ghanaian national unable to produce valid documentation to the self-appointed enforcers. Another video depicted protestors interrogating a man, who identified himself as being from Ghana, explicitly telling him to “go back home to fix his country.” These disturbing images and narratives quickly drew international condemnation. Ghana’s foreign affairs minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, promptly engaged his South African counterpart, Ronald Lamola, and the South African envoy in Ghana. Minister Ablakwa powerfully invoked Ghana’s historical support for the anti-apartheid struggle, emphasizing that such “unprovoked harassment and attacks on law-abiding individuals” fundamentally contradicted the principles of African solidarity.
Despite the growing international concern, there remained internal disputes about the veracity of some incidents. Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, leader of March and March, a prominent group in the anti-immigrant protests, told the Sunday Times that her organization had information suggesting the man allegedly attacked in the widely circulated video was, in fact, a local South African and not a foreigner. Both Ngobese-Zuma and Ngizwe Mchunu, the leader of the Amabhinca Nation, a traditional wear movement also involved in the protests, firmly asserted that law enforcement and the government had conspicuously failed to curb the “proliferation of illegal immigrants” in South Africa. This sentiment resonated deeply with their followers, fueling their resolve to take matters into their own hands. Simultaneously, the Nigerian government expressed outrage following rumors that two of its citizens had been killed and others beaten in xenophobic attacks in South Africa. Nigerian officials vehemently condemned these alleged actions as “Stone Age behavior,” setting off a diplomatic firestorm.
The diplomatic fallout quickly escalated, with Nigerian government officials seething over the reported attacks on their citizens in South Africa. On Tuesday, Minister Lamola held a crucial telephonic discussion with his Nigerian counterpart, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, specifically addressing the plight of Nigerian citizens living in fear. This call followed a heated debate in the Nigerian senate, where officials lambasted the perceived inadequacy of government intervention to prevent these attacks and openly threatened economic retaliation. Senator Victor Umeh, speaking passionately, reminded the chamber of Nigeria’s pivotal role in supporting South Africa during the apartheid era, warning that the country should not tolerate the “dehumanization” of Nigerians. He urged the African Union (AU) to impose sanctions on South Africa and encouraged Nigeria to consider “reprisal measures.” Minority leader Abba Moro echoed these sentiments, criticizing the South African government’s “failure to act” and stressing that South Africa “should respect Nigeria for standing by it during apartheid.” Senator Adams Oshiomhole took the call for retaliation a step further, advocating for economic measures, specifically targeting South African companies operating in Nigeria, such as MTN and DStv. Nigerian Senate President Godswill Akpabio described the alleged attacks as “Stone Age behavior,” voicing his discontent with what he perceived as a lack of decisive action from the South African government.
Amidst this international outcry, Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for South Africa’s international relations department, confirmed Minister Lamola’s discussion with Nigerian foreign minister Odumegwu-Ojukwu. Phiri stated that the call aimed to address “actions against foreigners,” and both ministers agreed to collaborate in order “to get to the root causes of some of these problems” and to “improve people-to-people relations.” He recalled previous interactions between the ministers in December 2024, where they had discussed an “early warning mechanism” to address rising tensions, emphasizing the need to “complete the implementation of this” to strengthen the relationship, acknowledging “tensions historically.” Phiri highlighted that South Africa is the “net receiver of the continent’s immigrants” and conceded that “concerns around irregular migration are valid.” However, he firmly stated that these concerns “must be raised and directed towards law enforcement,” not vigilantism. Phiri also expressed deep concern about the proliferation of “disinformation” and “fake news” surrounding these issues. He pointed out the danger of baseless accusations, asserting, “Just because someone is a foreigner doesn’t mean they are a drug dealer and just because South Africans are protesting doesn’t mean they are violent and people are being hurt.” He specifically debunked rumors of two Nigerians being killed recently, stating there was no verifiable knowledge of such cases, and expressed concern about how “fake news has permeated official discussions.” He concluded by assuring that South Africa is “on high alert.”
Adding a crucial layer of nuance, Presidency minister Vincent Magwenya rejected the simplistic labeling of the protests as evidence of South Africa being “xenophobic.” He argued that such an analysis is “lazy” and “overlooks the deeper issues at play.” Magwenya revealed that President Cyril Ramaphosa and Mozambican President Daniel Chapo had agreed just last week that South Africans are not inherently xenophobic, and that African countries must collectively address the root causes of migration. He acknowledged that “there are genuine concerns that communities have with respect to crime, crimes that are committed by foreign nationals.” In such cases, he stated, “the president expects law enforcement, again, to act without any fear or favour.” He further underscored that foreign visitors in South Africa “must respect and conform with our laws,” and if they “break the law, they will face the full might of the law, just as all of us are expected to respect the law.” This statement aimed to articulate a balanced position, acknowledging legitimate grievances while firmly upholding the rule of law and condemning unlawful vigilantism, distinguishing between xenophobia and concerns about legal compliance.