The Senior Advocate of Nigeria wants Abuja to use economic pressure and continental legal channels to protect Nigerians facing recurring xenophobic violence
Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has urged the Federal Government to consider economic sanctions against South African companies operating in Nigeria as part of a tougher response to recurring xenophobic attacks targeting Nigerians and other African migrants in South Africa.
Also read: Xenophobia and the abandonment of foreign policy…
Falana made the call in Ilawe Ekiti on Saturday while speaking with journalists after a reception held in honour of the late Alawe of Ilawe-Ekiti, Oba Adebanji Alabi.
He argued that diplomatic protests alone might not be enough to compel the South African government to take decisive action against perpetrators and protect Nigerian citizens and their businesses.
The lawyer said Nigeria should apply the principle of reciprocity in its dealings with South Africa, particularly where Nigerians continue to face violence, intimidation and the destruction of their livelihoods.
“The Federal Government will have to employ diplomatic action, but beyond that, it should also adopt economic measures against South African companies operating in Nigeria,” Falana said.
“International diplomacy is about reciprocity. If they chase out Nigerians and destroy their businesses, Nigeria has a duty to act. South African companies here should be sanctioned where there are alternatives.”
Falana specifically cited telecommunications giant MTN, suggesting that Nigerian consumers could consider switching to competing providers where alternatives exist.
“Where there are alternatives, Nigerians should be encouraged to migrate from MTN because there are alternatives. That is one way South Africa will know that Nigeria is serious,” he said.
His remarks come amid renewed concern over the treatment of Nigerians and other African nationals in South Africa.
Falana has previously described the violence as a recurring pattern involving killings, physical assaults, arbitrary arrests, torture, looting, destruction of businesses and forced displacement.
In May 2026, Falana petitioned the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, calling for urgent intervention over what he described as persistent threats to the safety and security of Nigerians and other African nationals in South Africa.
He also asked that the matter be referred to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights for binding adjudication.
The senior lawyer said Nigeria’s approach should therefore extend beyond diplomatic channels and include stronger legal mechanisms.
He argued that Nigerian citizens should be able to directly seek justice before the African Court, similar to the access available to individuals before the ECOWAS Court in Abuja.
“There is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha, Tanzania, established by the African Union to address human rights abuses in member states,” Falana said.
“Nigeria has refused to allow its nationals access to that court by failing to deposit the necessary instruments.”
Falana urged the Federal Government to remove the barrier without further delay, arguing that victims of serious human rights violations should have access to effective continental remedies.
“If Nigerians could approach the African Court in the same way citizens can approach the ECOWAS Court in Abuja, South Africa would have been dragged before the court by victims of xenophobic attacks,” he said.
The call for economic pressure echoes a broader debate in Nigeria over how the country should respond to attacks on its citizens in South Africa.
In May, the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise cautioned against retaliatory measures targeting South African investments, warning that actions such as revoking operating licences or nationalising assets could damage bilateral relations, weaken investor confidence and undermine African economic integration.
Falana, however, pointed to Nigeria’s own history of taking decisive economic action against apartheid-era South Africa. He recalled that Nigeria nationalised British Petroleum interests in the 1970s as part of its opposition to apartheid.
“In the 1970s, because of apartheid in South Africa, Nigeria nationalised British Petroleum. It should also be possible today to nationalise some South African investments in Nigeria if necessary,” he said.
The latest dispute comes as Nigeria and South Africa remain two of the continent’s most influential economies and political powers, with significant commercial and people-to-people ties.
The relationship has repeatedly been tested by xenophobic attacks, diplomatic tensions and concerns over the safety of Nigerian nationals living and doing business in South Africa.
Falana’s position also reflects his broader push for stronger accountability through African institutions.
In his May petition, he called for an independent investigation, accountability for perpetrators, compensation and reparation for victims, guarantees of non-repetition and structural reforms to strengthen protection for foreign nationals.
For the Federal Government, the challenge is to balance a forceful response with the need to protect Nigeria’s economic interests and preserve long-standing ties with South Africa.
While tougher measures could send a powerful signal, analysts and business groups have warned that indiscriminate retaliation could also affect Nigerian consumers, investors and companies.
Falana’s intervention nevertheless adds fresh urgency to a debate that has persisted for years: how far Nigeria should go in defending its citizens abroad when diplomatic engagement appears unable to stop repeated attacks.
Also read: Xenophobia: Africa must unite, not divide
As xenophobic violence continues to test relations between Africa’s two major powers, the response from Abuja could determine whether the latest crisis becomes another cycle of diplomatic protests or a turning point towards stronger legal and economic action.
Oreoluwa is an accountant and a brand writer with a flair for journalism.
