JOHN ALECHENU writes that beneath the recent deportation row between Nigeria and South Africa is their struggle for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council
South Africa’s decision to deport 125 Nigerians, using the flimsy excuse that they had fake yellow fever vaccination cards was the latest in a series of attacks on Nigerians.
The Nigerians in question had valid visas, which were issued after a rigorous screening exercise.
Interestingly, a valid yellow card is a prerequisite for the issuance of visas to Nigerians wishing to travel to South Africa.
In the past, such infractions were allowed to pass without as much as a finger lifted in protest.
It was the norm to have either the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or some low level diplomat announcing “our condemnation” of such acts and the matter laid to rest in the spirit of African brotherhood.
All this appears to have changed. To the delight of most Nigerians; the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Olugbenga Ashiru, with support from President Goodluck Jonathan, took the unusual, but firm decision to act.
After summoning the South African envoy to Nigeria, Ambassador Kingsley Mambolo, to receive Nigeria’s protest letter, the Federal Government paid the South Africans in their own coin. As at Thursday, 119 South Africans were deported at the point of entry- Lagos. How and when did relations between two of black Africa’s regional powers degenerate to this level has remained a puzzle to many. The reason for this puzzle has a long history.
Nigeria and Nigerians made huge material and financial sacrifices in the 1970’s and 80’s during the struggle to liberate South Africa from the clutches of an oppressive white minority rule. Bright, young, black South Africans were given scholarships to study in Nigerian Universities, just as successive military administrations armed and sustained the military wing of the African National Congress in a bid to achieve this objective.
Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Ambassador Martin Uhuomoibhi, recalled that as young diplomats and civil servants, “we sacrificed part of our salaries to the course of the struggle.”
It was normal for Nigerians like all other Africans, who recognised and fought against apartheid to expect to be treated humanely when visiting the enclave either for business or pleasure. This expectation soon turned to despair not long after the first multi-racial elections swept white supremacists out of office and ushered in the first set of black leaders. Xenophobic attacks by black South Africans on migrant workers from neighboring countries became pronounced.
This came to light soon after the administration of Africa’s living legend, ex-President Nelson Mandela, came to an end in 1998.
According to a 2004 study published by the Southern Africa Migration Project, the ruling ANC attempted to overcome the horrors of the discriminatory past; by building new forms of social cohesion.
The report, however, said “One unanticipated by-product of this project has been a growth in intolerance towards outsiders. Violence against foreign citizens and “African refugees has become increasingly common and communities are divided by hostility and suspicion.”
“The study was based on a citizen survey across member states of the Southern African Development Cooperation and found South Africans expressing the harshest anti-foreigner sentiment, with 21 per cent of South Africans in favour of a complete ban on entry by foreigners and 64 per cent in favour of strict limitations on the numbers allowed.”
Although those in diplomatic circles argue that President Goodluck Jonathan and President Jacob Zuma enjoy a cordial working relationship, the reality on ground appears to portray a different thing.
It is an open secret that both Nigeria and South Africa seek to represent the continent as Permanent member of the prestigious United Nations Security Council.
Some pundits, who are conversant with intrigues in diplomatic circles, observe that South Africans appear to have a deliberate albeit unwritten policy, to whittle down Nigeria’s influence not only in West Africa, but on the continent.
An example worthy of mention is the Ivorian political debacle.
Jonathan, who was then ECOWAS Chairman, led the regional block to demand that Laurent Gbagbo (who lost the country presidential poll), respect the results or risk military action.
The South Africans succeeded in breaking ECOWAS ranks by wooing Ghana to reject the military option which it earlier agreed to in principle. Zuma, preferred a “political settlement” to the dispute of power-sharing arrangement in place in Kenya and Zimbabwe.
As if this was not enough, South Africa deployed one of its war ships off the coast of Ivory Coast, in what many analysts described as a brazen act of aggression aimed at undermining ECOWAS in general and Nigeria in particular.
This was even after Nigeria played mediatory roles which helped to resolve the Kenyan and Zimbabwean electoral disputes.
Nigeria did so without undermining regional efforts made by the South African Development Cooperation.
The Arab Spring, which consumed erratic Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Gaddafi, provided another opportunity for both countries to cut the chase and call a spade by its name.
World leaders as well as regional blocks took positions they believed would best serve their national interest.
Nigeria led a majority of African states, especially members of the Economic Community of West African States, to give support for the then rebel Transitional National Council.
Zuma as Chairman of the African Union would have none of it. He was a personal friend of the Libyan dictator; he tried but failed to rally fellow African countries to deny recognition to the NTC.
The resultant spat was so pronounced that the ruling African National Congress of South Africa, lashed out at Nigeria.
Secretary-General of the ANC, Mr. Gwede Mantashe, accused Nigeria of “jumping the gun” by supporting the TNC as true representatives of the Libyan people at a time the AU chairman, and South African President, Zuma was seeking “a negotiated settlement.”
Nigeria’s Presidential Spokesman, Rueben Abati, took him on and declared that Nigeria had no apologies for taking the position it took.
Observers have noted South Africa’s incessant incursion into what some consider Nigeria’s territory on the continent.
All of these, they argue, were parts of an orchestrated plot by South Africa to whittle down Nigeria’s influence in order to advance its own. At various times over the last five years, South African Immigration and Police authorities have actively participated in the humiliation of Nigerians. Last December, between the 3rd and 4th to be precise, the South African Police Service stormed the Nigerian consulate and attempted to force their way in. This action was in breach of all known diplomatic and international conventions. Little was heard about the matter until the latest face off.
Ashiru, who had at some point in his career as diplomat served as Nigeria’s High Commission to South Africa, had noted that, while leaders of both countries enjoyed a cordial relationship, two institutions: the South African Police and Immigration Service had remained hostile to Nigerians.
“During my time there, I took a hard stand against the maltreatment of Nigerians,” he recalled.
Ashiru said Nigerians deserved to be treated better, maintaining that the deportation of Nigerians on such a flimsy excuse was unacceptable.
He told the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs at an interactive session over the matter that the Jonathan administration would “not stand for this.”
The Minister declared: “This is the first time in my entire career in the Foreign Service where a supposedly friendly country would send 125 Nigerians back home on the flimsy excuse that they are carrying fake yellow cards.”
He noted that the rule of diplomacy made room for less barbaric approach.
The minister stressed that “Even if those deportees were actually carrying fake yellow cards, the worst the South African authorities could have done was to have quarantined them and given them the necessary inoculation.”
Nigeria, he added, would “react in a mature and calculated way to this assault on our people, we will deliberately show we mean business.”
Perhaps for the first time in recent memory, Nigerians are moving towards a consensus to end what many see as the negative stereotyping and collective assault on anything and everyone Nigerian.
Thankfully, the latest episode has been laid to rest with South Africa tendering an apology and Nigeria accepting the same.
Ashiru used the episode to admonish Nigerians on the need to be more circumspect when travelling to other countries.
He promised that government would play its part by ensuring that no Nigerian was unjustly
treated but called on Nigerians to obey the laws of the land anywhere they found themselves.
Ashiru said “While we as a government have a responsibility to protect you, you also, as Nigerians and travellers, should behave and don’t do anything that will portray Nigeria in a bad light.”
A lot more is required to change the “reality” not just the “perception” about Nigeria and Nigerians.
There is no denying the fact that, a few Nigerians have run a foul of the law in foreign lands including South Africa.
Some have been tried and convicted for crimes ranging from petty stealing, rape, drug dealing and even murder in South Africa.
However, the misdemeanor of a negligible few should not serve as excuse to target an entire nation for ill-treatment.