CommentaryBriMoPet / Pixabay
Mob looting, forced documentation checks and roughly 160,000 displaced people are not a policing problem; they are a breach of the African Charter and the ICCPR.
Mobs in South Africa have looted foreign-owned shops, forced migrants out of townships and displaced tens of thousands of African nationals, conduct that breaches the equality and dignity guarantees of the country’s own constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and that repudiates the Pan-African solidarity that sustained the anti-apartheid struggle. At its core, xenophobia represents hostility towards foreigners, often expressed through violence, discrimination, and exclusionary rhetoric. These attacks have disproportionately targeted migrants from other African nations, undermining the ideals of Pan-Africanism and solidarity that sustained South Africa during its darkest moments of the apartheid regime. These attacks did not originate in the year 2026; they began soon after the 1994 transition from the system of apartheid to majority rule.
This essay argues that xenophobia in South Africa betrays Pan‑African solidarity, violates international law, disrupts regional unity, and demands continental accountability to uphold justice and dignity.
Historical bonds of solidarity
South Africa’s liberation struggle was not one fought in isolation. The apartheid regime, entrenched in racial segregation and systemic oppression, was not only frowned upon by South African nationals but also by the wider African continent.
Ghana, under her first president, Kwame Nkrumah, was among the first nations to provide support. In 1964, South African parties such as the African National Congress (ANC) and Pan-Africanist Congress (PAC) were represented in Accra, Ghana’s capital city. Each party was granted an office, accommodation, and allowances. Ghana also provided members of these liberation movements training at the Kwame Nkrumah Institute of Economics and Political Science (KNIEPS) and invited them to the “new year school” held in Accra at the Institute of Public Education which was provided by the government.
Young activists of the liberation movements were also not left out. They were sent for training; Ghanaian tertiary institutions and secondary schools provided scholarships to African students to study in Ghana. All these students had to be backed by a liberation movement recognized by the Bureau of African Affairs (BAA). Nationalist parties were also considered to be accountable for the students’ behaviour while in Ghana.
Nigeria played a pivotal role, contributing financially to the liberation movements and spearheading sanctions against the apartheid regime. Nigerians contributed to the Southern Africa Relief Fund, popularly known as the “Mandela tax,” where civil servants donated portions of their salaries to support victims of apartheid. The fund reflected nationwide solidarity, with donations raised across social and economic classes. Nigeria also provided financial backing to liberation movements like the ANC.
Additionally, Nigeria made economic sacrifices by willingly enduring economic consequences by opposing foreign interests linked to apartheid and championed oil embargoes and trade restrictions, signaling its readiness to bear costs of justice. Zambia and Tanzania, just like other African nations, offered safe havens and training camps for liberation movements to regroup and strategize.
These sacrifices were rooted in Pan-African solidarity with the notion that the liberation of one African nation was no different from the liberation of all. The post-apartheid South Africa was expected to embody gratitude and solidarity. Yet, the eruption of xenophobic attacks against fellow Africans shows ungratefulness to their history, eroding the moral debt owed to those nations.
Nature and impact of xenophobic attacks
Xenophobic violence in South Africa has manifested in brutal forms:
Looting and assaults against foreign-owned businesses, particularly those run by Nigerians, Somalis, and Zimbabweans. Mobs and local protesters have looted stores, demanded documentation checks, and forced foreign business owners out of their townships. The local demonstrators and vigilante groups accuse foreign nationals of competing unfairly. Owners of businesses have reported massive inventory losses, physical intimidation, and forced closures.
Displacement of migrants, forcing families to abandon livelihoods and seek refuge elsewhere. The anti-immigrant campaigns, unofficial deadlines, and targeted pressure in South Africa have caused a wave of unrest forcing migrants to abandon stable jobs, homes, and informal businesses. According to an Agence France-Presse (AFP) tally, approximately 160,000 people have been forced to abandon their livelihood due to the anti-migrant protests and violence.
South Africa may face economic disruption, as trade networks collapse and remittances decline driven by regional tensions, immigration shifts, and trade pressures that strain financial flows and cross-border corridors. Neighbouring nations experiencing friction or targeting of their diaspora may reduce trade and investment reliance on South Africa, threatening regional export jobs.
Beyond economics, these attacks constitute an affront to human rights, breaching the dignity and equality guaranteed under African and international instruments. The psychological trauma inflicted on victims reverberates across communities, deepening mistrust and resentment toward South Africa.
What is international law saying?
South Africa’s obligations under international law are clear without ambiguity.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obligates States to safeguard all persons within their territory, regardless of nationality pursuant to Article 2(1).
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights explicitly guarantees non-discrimination and equal protection under Articles 2 and 3.
The Constitutive Act of the African Union embeds unity, peace, and human rights as core foundational pillars that xenophobic attacks undermine.
Xenophobia directly threatens the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on the Facilitation of Movement of Persons (2005) and its goals of free movement and unity by sparking violence, blocking labour mobility, and damaging trust between member States.
These acts undermine these commitments, exposing gaps in enforcement and accountability. South Africa’s failure to protect migrants is not merely a domestic issue but a gross violation of international instruments.
Diplomatic responses and Ghana’s petition
The African Union has repeatedly called for stronger protection of migrants, yet xenophobia persists. In response, in a letter dated May 6, 2026, conveyed through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and signed by Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Ghana expressed deep concern over the recurrence of violent incidents targeting African nationals in South Africa. The communication underscores that such attacks have led to loss of life, destruction of investments and ongoing threats to the safety of African migrants. The letter closes with an appeal to Africa’s shared destiny, invoking Kwame Nkrumah’s pan-African ideals and stressing that “no African should be dehumanised on African soil.”
Ghana’s diplomatic move signals a push for collective responsibility within the AU to confront xenophobia as a continental challenge, not merely a domestic issue. The petition has gained backing from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and Ghana has partnered with Nigeria for a united continental response.
Furthermore, two Ghanaian nationals, Palgrave Boakye-Danquah, a former Ghanaian government spokesperson on governance and security, and Emmanuel Kotin, a counter-terrorism and security analyst, have submitted a communication, on July 15, 2026, to the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor to open a preliminary examination into attacks against foreign nationals in South Africa, which they said constitute crimes against humanity. The petition alleges a “pattern of widespread and systematic attacks” against migrants and accuses President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s government of failing to prevent or prosecute these crimes including murder.
Rule of law and accountability
The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Commission), through the Country Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Republic of South Africa, Honourable Commissioner Solomon Ayele Dersso, has strongly condemned recent xenophobic attacks and vigilante actions in South Africa, stressing that such violence against nationals of other African countries gravely violates the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights particularly Articles 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, and 28 which guarantee equality, dignity, life, property, and freedom of movement. The Commission emphasised that immigration enforcement is the sole responsibility of State institutions, not vigilante groups, and warned that these acts undermine African solidarity and the rule of law.
The African Union Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf on July 22, 2026, confirmed that the AU will formally address xenophobic violence in South Africa calling the human cost “terrible.” This statement was made during the AU Extraordinary Health Summit in Accra, Ghana.
The persistence of xenophobic attacks reflects systemic failures including weak enforcement by law enforcement agencies, which sometimes fail to intervene or protect victims, and erosion of trust in legal institutions among migrants, who feel abandoned by the state. For Africa to uphold the rule of law, offenders must be prosecuted, victims compensated, and equal protection to both South African nationals and foreign nationals must be guaranteed. South Africa must demonstrate commitment to justice, not only to restore trust but also honour its obligations under international law.
The imperative of continental diplomacy
Diplomacy is central to addressing xenophobia. Ghana’s petition to the African Union and ECOWAS’s support exemplify how African nations can leverage regional and continental institutions to confront human rights violations. Continental diplomacy must move beyond rhetoric to enforce accountability, ensuring that South Africa upholds its obligations and that victims receive justice.
Can South Africa be held regionally accountable?
AU member states can hold South Africa accountable through regional human rights mechanisms under the African Union, notably the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which investigates communications received from individuals, NGOs and states, and issues recommendations; the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the regional judicial organ, can exercise authority over South Africa through two primary jurisdictional mechanisms: contentious jurisdiction for legal disputes and human rights violations, and advisory jurisdiction for legal opinions.
The African Court’s contentious jurisdiction allows it to interpret and apply the African Charter, the Court Protocol, and other ratified instruments, with cases brought by State Parties, the African Commission, or recognized intergovernmental bodies; individuals and NGOs may only file directly if the state has accepted Article 34(6). By contrast, its advisory jurisdiction permits opinions on legal matters related to human rights instruments, open to AU states, organs, or recognized organizations, but excludes issues already under review by the African Commission. Additionally, the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child can address violations affecting children caught in xenophobic attacks, ensuring their protection under continental law.
Together, these bodies form a framework through which AU member states can challenge South Africa’s conduct, press for accountability, and reinforce Africa’s collective commitment to human dignity and non-discrimination.
South Africa’s xenophobic violence starkly contradicts the Pan‑African solidarity that sustained its liberation struggle. Nations like Ghana, Nigeria, and others sacrificed resources, offered safe havens, and championed justice against apartheid, yet today their citizens face hostility and displacement. These attacks undermine regional trade, fracture trust, and violate obligations under the ICCPR, African Charter, and AU Constitutive Act. Diplomatic petitions to the AU, ECOWAS, and ICC highlight xenophobia as a continental crisis demanding accountability. For Africa’s unity and dignity to endure, South Africa must prosecute offenders, compensate victims, and recommit to justice under international and regional law.
Cecilia Akoko Attiogbe Atayi is JURIST’s West Africa Chief of Staff. Cecile Akoeley Attiogbe Atayi is a staff writer. Both are law students in their final year of study at the University of Cape Coast Faculty of Law (GH).
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
