Nigeria’s relationship with South Africa is not likely to be easy in the near future. Not because of the existing theories of competition and rivalry or that of their being regional powers on their own right, but because both countries are not in the right mood to understand one another beyond diplomatic games. True enough, it can be easily argued that the bilateral relationship between the two countries has been elevated to the high level of partnership, and therefore that, the relationship cannot be easily subjected to new irritants. However, the current developments, that are, more often than not, ignored, constitute a new force majeure that clearly point, to the direction of new difficulties that may not be easy to resolve in the near future.
Last Wednesday, the Senate called on the Federal Government to issue a travel advice to all Nigerians intending to travel to South Africa for whatever purpose in the light of the increasing attacks on Nigerians in that country. Nigerian businessmen and tourists have been targets of armed gangs in the hotels where they lodged. The most recent cases include that of Alhaji Bamanga Tukur, the Chairman of the African Roundtable. On 10 May, 1999, I drew public attention to the increasing wave of hostility vis-à-vis Nigerians in my then Monday Column. The article was then entitled, “Pretoria: Violation of Nigeria’s Diplomatic Residence”. Unknown gunmen reportedly fired several gunshots, on May 1, 1999, into the official residence of the then Nigerian High Commissioner, Alhaji Shehu Malami. The culprit simply explained that it was an accidental discharge and not an attack aimed at hurting Alhaji Malami. If it really was an accidental discharge, it should be recalled here that Nigeria’s Consul-General, Mr. Charles Onwuagbu, was also attacked in his own official residence in Johannesburg at that same time. More importantly, a week after, that is, on May 8, 1999 the 12-year old son of Nigeria’s High Commissioner was again kidnapped at a filling station while he was being taken to his school. Could this have been a coincidence or accidental discharge matter?
Without any shadow of doubt, South Africa, in Nigeria’s foreign policy calculus, has become a noisome issue. The relationship between Nigeria and South Africa, from 1960 to 1994, was largely informed by South Africa’s policy of apartheid and racial segregation which Nigeria resolutely fought. Many students of Nigeria-South African relations have suggested that Nigeria had no other policy on Africa apart from the anti-apartheid policy. In fact, one major rationale for the adoption of Africa as cornerstone of Nigeria’s foreign policy in 1960 was the factor of the state of dehumanisation of black people, particularly in South Africa and the general situation of underdevelopment in Africa as a whole. In Belgian Congo, for instance, the country could not boast of more than five medical graduate doctors as at 1960. Nigeria could not telephone to any of the immediate neighbouring countries unless through London or Paris. Consequently, Africa as cornerstone of foreign policy is now questionable. The issues in Nigeria’s relations with South Africa are quite fundamental. They are neither understood by the ordinary people of South Africa, nor by the policy makers of both countries. It is the people of Nigeria that have been made to suffer greatly from the non-understanding of the issues involved.
Anti-apartheid Role
The first issue is Nigeria’s role in the anti-apartheid struggle. The present younger generation of South Africans, from the way they relate to Nigerians, appear not know the affection of Nigerians for the generality of the people of South Africa, especially for the Black South Africans. They know very little of Nigeria’s role in bringing the apartheid administration to its feet. For instance, there is no disputing the fact that Nigeria adopted a policy of no compromise with apartheid in 1960. It is on record that Alhaji Tafawa Balewa, Nigeria’s Prime Minister, stopped the employment of White South Africans in the Nigerian Public Service. In the same vein, Nigeria sponsored the expulsion of South Africa from the Commonwealth in 1961. Nigeria gave scholarships to 200 South Africans to come to Nigerian universities and study. Nigeria placed a ban on sporting contacts with apartheid South Africa. On March 10, 1978, Lt. General Olusegun Obasanjo planted an Abata kolanut tree (Anti-apartheid Tree) to commemorate the 1978 World Action against Apartheid at the then University of Ife. Nigeria nationalised the Barclays Bank and the British Petroleum in protest against the British romance with apartheid South Africa and the tactical delays being put on the path of independence of Rhodesia. Nigeria made it clear in August 1980 her principled opposition to the South African membership of the World Medical Association. As warned by the then Minister of State in the Federal Ministry of Health, Dr. Paul Mirchaulun, ‘Nigeria would withdraw her membership of the organisation.’ In 1986, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi called off his proposed trip to Lesotho, while he was still in the Zimbabwean capital, Harare, in order to avoid having a stop over in Johannesburg and having contacts with apartheid people. Prof. Jibril Aminu, as Minister of Education, asked the Commonwealth universities, as well as all scholars, in 1987, to strain academic cooperation with apartheid South Africa.
Primarily because of apartheid, Nigeria took an exception to the principle of ‘non-interference’ in the domestic affairs of other African countries. In 1963, Dr. Jaja Wachukwu took into account the assassination of President Sylvanus Olympio of Togo and threats of apartheid to political stability in African states and then declared to the world that Nigeria could not close its eyes to the killing of good neighbours and the mistreatment of Black people by the minority Whites in South Africa. Nigeria took all measures necessary to campaign against apartheid South Africa. The National Committee against Apartheid was set up. All Nigerian workers were made to contribute one Nigerian pound, which was deducted from their salaries, for the purposes of the liberation struggle in Southern Africa. In one of the old Nigerian passports issued to Nigerians travelling outside of the country, the holders of the passport were required to fight apartheid with whatever means they have at their possession and wherever they might be.
Thus, the commitment to the dismantling of apartheid was total and unwavering. It was not simply a commitment by the government but also by all Nigerians. Several Nigerians who responded to the clarion call of the Government to fight apartheid, using their individual means, have been made to suffer in many ways in their host countries: denial of renewal of their residence permits; expulsion from their host countries, academic and business victimisation, etc. Instead of, at least appreciating Nigeria’s role, the role was and is now being given a political colouration.
Frontline State Status
In October 1988, Dr. Femi Aribisala, then of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, asked in an article published in National Concord of 3rd October, 1988 whether Nigeria was sincerely considered one of the Frontline States. He drew public attention to the change in terminology: from ‘Frontline States (including Nigeria) to ‘Frontline States and Nigeria’. Explicated differently, initially, ‘Frontline States’ was the common expression and it was generally accepted to have included Nigeria. But at a particular juncture in the history of the anti-apartheid struggle, the expression became ‘Frontline States and Nigeria’, which clearly implied that Nigeria was either no longer a member of the Frontline States or that the Frontline States, as a group, including Nigeria, is seeking to examine its relationship with Nigeria, as one of its members. In any case, the observation of Dr. Aribisala was quite pertinent but was not taken up seriously by policy makers and analysts. As he put it by then, ‘Nigeria is regarded as a Frontline State by the independent states of Southern Africa when there is a requirement for financial assistance; on other occasions, Nigeria is regarded as West African State. Today, the Frontline States meet without extending an invitation to Nigeria. Those exclusions also cover those meetings held specifically to map out effective diplomatic and military strategies against apartheid South Africa.’ And perhaps most problematically, ‘the fact of the matter is that the Frontline States see Nigeria more as a regional competitor than as an ally, and this is responsible for their growing inclination to keep us at arms length.’
Thus, from the explanation of Nigeria’s role above, it cannot be said that Nigeria was competing with any of the Frontline States for whatever status. It could not have been that Nigeria was trying to take the shine away from them. However, this was the way Nigeria’s role was perceived. And this may go a long way to explain the general ingratitude of South Africa, in particular, but also that of the Frontline States, in general.
Ingratitude of South Africa
It is useful to distinguish between policy declaration and policy action here. Without any shadow of doubt, Nigeria’s relationship with South Africa, at the governmental level, is good, warm and cordial. The goodness in the relationship is illustrated by the establishment of a Joint Commission and the elevation of the relationship to the level of strategic partnership. In fact, 2005 witnessed the first time that bilateral trade between the two countries crossed the $1 billion mark, even though the balance of trade had continued to tilt in favour of South Africa. Both countries coordinate their positions on several African questions at the level of the African Union. In fact, the genesis and success of the NEPAD, as at today, is largely ascribable to the efforts of the duo.
However, the way South African law enforcement agents execute government policies when it comes to Nigerians, raises many questions. I am not unaware of the fact that South Africa has a strict regulatory and monitoring procedures and verbose labour laws that forbid owing staff salaries, which are issues generally overlooked in Nigeria, to borrow Olusola Obadimu (Executive Secretary of the Nigeria-South African Chamber of Commeerce)’s expression. I am also not unaware of the need to compel all peoples residing in South Africa to operate within the framework of the law of the land. However, the attitude of South African authorities to Nigerians leave much to desire. For instance, as reported in The Punch newspaper of 4th January, 1999, while Nkem and Ibekwe lost their lives in the black-dominated Hillbrow area of Johannesburg from stray bullets fired by alleged drunken youths, two other Nigerians, on the same eve day of the new year, sustained gunshot wounds after unknown gunmen shot at them through their window, from within their apartment.
There was the case of Mr. Royce Rabakani, who was attached to the Hillbrow Police Station in Central Johannesburg. He led a team of policemen to the Marriston Hotel where he confiscated cellphones and other items from Nigerians because they could not produce the receipts of purchase. He also mutilated and burnt the Nigerian passport of Mr. Anyanwu. Even if sanctionary measures were later taken against Mr. Rabakani, those hostility against the Nigerians cannot be disputed. First, the Nigerians should have been given time to come back to the police to show evidence of ownership. It could not have been easy for the Nigerians under unexpected police harassment to remember the location of whatever receipts the policemen wanted. Apart from that, the holder of any Nigerian passport is not the owner. It is the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that is the constitutional owner. The holder of it is simply the custodian. Thus, the South African policemen had wilfully destroyed the property of the Federal Government of Nigeria. Again, according to the report in the Nigerian Consulate, which attracted editorial comments of the Nigerian Tribune on 27th May, 2002, between 1997 and 2001, fifty-three Nigerians lost their lives to one violence or the other. ‘Majority of the deaths are often as a result of gunshot wounds sustained in an unexplained circumstances… In the year 2000, 15 Nigerians were murdered in cold blood; 13 in 2001; 2 in 1998, 9 in 1999 and 4 in 1997’. The problem is not the death but the fact that the death has generally occurred in an unexplained circumstances. And as it could be seen, the number of death has been on a gradual increase.
Challenges for the Future
From the foregoing analysis, sending a travel advice to Nigerians is apparently far from resolving the problem either in the immediate or otherwise. The first challenge is that of the South African perception of Nigerians as having come to South Africa to take the jobs of South Africans. In January 2000, a Senior Home Affairs Department officer said that ‘in a country where unemployment is estimated at between 32% and 35%, we need to rid our streets of illegals, who compete for the few available opportunities with the locals who are disadvantaged in several respects.’ How do we get rid of the ‘illegals’?
A second challenge is that of consistency and coordination of policy pronouncements. Olatunji Dare reminded us in his Guardian Column on 30th July, 1991 that ‘President Ibrahim Babangida, at an eve-of-departure reception for the nation’s new ambassadors that Nigeria would press for the lifting of economic sanctions against Pretoria if the government of South Africa repealed the apartheid laws still on the statute books’. This statement was considered as ‘a stab in the back’ and an unfortunate ‘betrayal’ by the African National Congress and the Pan Africanist Congress, especially that the apartheid system was yet to be finally dismantled. Again, and perhaps more disturbingly, the building located at the 15th floor of no. 733 of the Third Avenue in New York was owned by the Diamond International Company of South Africa (White owned) and Nigeria had been occupying it for many years before building its own. As noted by the Foreign Correspondent of The Sunday Satellite on 16th November, 1981, ‘each time Nigeria makes categorical pronouncements against the Pretoria regime, the Nigerian Mission at the UN would know no peace. Letters of bomb threats thereafter inundate the Mission and there would be repeated threats of retrieving the building from Nigeria.’ This shows that there is need always for good home work before any foreign policy action.
In conclusion, since there have been press reports in South Africa that Nigeria engaged in the anti-apartheid struggle for economic purposes and since South Africans really do not understand what Nigeria went through in fighting obnoxious policies of apartheid, Government owes the Nigerian people the duty of encouraging a special study and report of Nigeria’s role in the anti-apartheid struggle for posterity.
advertisement
advertisement
