Should South Africa Compensate Nigerians Who Lost Everything?

When people migrate, they do not only carry passports. They carry dreams, labour, sacrifice, family expectations, savings, businesses, and years of personal struggle. So when Nigerians in South Africa are forced to return home after anti-immigrant tensions, and some say they left behind homes, shops, goods, and businesses, the question becomes both emotional and legal: should South Africa compensate them?

The answer is not as simple as anger may suggest. It requires balance, diplomacy, law, evidence, and humanity.

According to reports, Nigeria said it would seek compensation for businesses and properties abandoned by Nigerians returning from South Africa, while South Africa has ruled out compensation, arguing that people who own legitimate property can use normal legal and market processes to sell or recover their assets. ([Daily Trust][1])

That is where the real issue begins. If a Nigerian voluntarily leaves South Africa but still has legal title to a property or registered business, then compensation from the state may not automatically apply. The person may need to sell the asset, appoint a legal representative, or pursue private claims. But if a person fled because of violence, threats, destruction of property, discriminatory conduct, or inability to access lawful protection, then the matter becomes bigger than ordinary property disposal.

This is why Nigeria’s diplomatic approach is important. The first step should not be noise. It should be documentation. Who lost what? Was the property legally acquired? Was there police protection? Was there destruction, seizure, looting, intimidation, or denial of access? Were victims given legal remedies? Without evidence, compensation becomes a political slogan. With evidence, it becomes a diplomatic and legal case.

International law recognises that states have responsibilities towards foreign nationals within their territory. Diplomatic protection allows a state to take up the case of its nationals when they suffer injury abroad as a result of internationally wrongful conduct, although such claims usually require proof and, in many cases, the exhaustion of local remedies. ([United Nations Office of Legal Affairs][2])

This means Nigeria can raise the issue, but South Africa will also be entitled to ask: what exactly happened, who caused the loss, and what legal process has been followed?

South Africa’s position is not entirely without logic. No government can simply pay compensation to every foreign national who leaves behind property unless there is proof of state responsibility, unlawful confiscation, failure to protect, or denial of justice. A migrant who abandons a shop because of fear may have a moral claim, but a legal claim needs evidence.

At the same time, South Africa must also recognise that xenophobic violence is not an ordinary migration matter. If foreign nationals are attacked, threatened, displaced, or unable to safely access their businesses, then saying “sell your property through the market” may sound legally neat but morally incomplete. A market only works when people are safe enough to participate in it.

There are international examples that show how complex compensation can be. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations Compensation Commission was created to process claims for losses resulting from Iraq’s unlawful invasion and occupation. That was a very different situation, involving armed conflict and clear international responsibility, but it shows that compensation becomes possible when there is an established process, documentation, and recognised legal basis.

Another example is Uganda’s expulsion of Asians under Idi Amin in 1972. Thousands were forced to leave behind property and businesses. Decades later, Uganda took steps to restore or compensate some properties, partly as a way of rebuilding trust and attracting investment. The lesson is clear: when a country develops a reputation for insecurity or arbitrary loss of property, investor confidence suffers long after the crisis has passed.

South Africa is not Uganda under Idi Amin, and this situation is not the Iraq-Kuwait war. But the principle remains: **when migrants and investors believe their lives, property, and dignity are unsafe, a nation’s reputation is affected.**

For Nigeria, this issue should also lead to self-reflection. We must protect our citizens abroad, but we must also build stronger systems at home so that returnees are not treated as failures. Reintegration matters. Returnees may come back with skills, networks, experience, and entrepreneurial capacity. If properly supported, they can become contributors to the economy rather than victims of circumstance.

The deeper lesson is that diaspora protection cannot begin only when there is a crisis. It must be continuous. Nigerians abroad need stronger consular support, better legal awareness, proper documentation, diaspora registration systems, emergency communication channels, and trusted mechanisms for reporting threats or losses.

For Nigerians living abroad, there are also practical lessons. Always regularise your immigration status. Register businesses properly. Keep proof of ownership. Avoid informal arrangements where possible. Maintain digital copies of documents. Have legal representation. Stay connected with Nigerian missions and diaspora organisations. In times of crisis, documentation can become the difference between a claim and a complaint.

So, should South Africa compensate Nigerians who lost everything?

The balanced answer is this: **South Africa should not be expected to pay blanket compensation without verification, but legitimate losses caused by violence, unlawful action, failure of protection, or denial of justice should be properly investigated and addressed through diplomatic and legal channels.**

Nigeria should pursue the matter firmly, but diplomatically. South Africa should respond not defensively, but responsibly. Both countries are too important to Africa to allow migration tensions to damage bilateral relations. The goal should not be confrontation. The goal should be justice, protection, and prevention.

The Jermaine Perspective

This matter is bigger than compensation. It is about how African countries treat Africans who move across borders in search of opportunity.

Governments must protect citizens abroad without promoting hostility between nations. Host countries must enforce immigration laws without allowing xenophobia or violence. The diaspora must understand that migration requires legal documentation, financial planning, and risk awareness. Citizens must resist the temptation to turn complex migration challenges into hatred against any nationality.

The future of African migration must be built on dignity, legality, cooperation, and shared prosperity.

Because migration should never mean losing everything.

And no African, wherever they live on the continent, should ever be made to feel that their life, labour, or dignity does not matter.

https://youtu.be/AWK97-j5WyM?si=ApCCnbpjdm4iKKkz