There is an ongoing debate over the sincerity of the apology offered by Jeff Radebe, the special envoy sent to Nigeria by President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, following violent attacks on Nigerians. My position is clear and above reproach. South Africa’s apology to Nigeria was insincere, tardy, and was not made in the true spirit of brotherly relations. South Africa delivered the apology most unwillingly in response to international outrage over the way the government handled the treatment of African people in South Africa.
There cannot be an apology without compensation for destruction of lives and property of Nigerians in South Africa. Nigeria must make a strong point that there are consequences for irresponsible behaviour by South African citizens and for the fact that Ramaphosa’s government responded rather too late. Some eminent Nigerians such as former President Olusegun Obasanjo have advocated legal action against South Africa. I endorse that view. 
President Muhammadu Buhari and Ramaphosa are scheduled to meet in early October to resolve issues in a soured relationship in which South Africa has continually shown disrespect for, and hostility toward, Nigerian citizens in South Africa. There is anger in Nigeria. Many people have expressed outrage that Buhari granted audience to the special emissary despatched by Ramaphosa to assuage Nigeria’s rage.
There are reasonable grounds for Nigeria to reject South Africa’s apology. First, the apology came too late. Second, the so-called apology was insincere, duplicitous, and was not offered with remorse. It took Ramaphosa weeks to realise that the violence against Nigerian citizens and other Africans in South Africa were unspeakable, awful, objectionable, and violated international human rights laws.
For weeks, the South African government watched as the violence intensified, hoping that perhaps the hostility against Africans in the country would disappear or help the bumbling government to solve problems that have overwhelmed the country such as high levels of unemployment, rising crime, growing poverty, homelessness, and deteriorating infrastructure.
As the violence in South Africa escalated and, as senior government officials maintained silence, the international community responded forcefully, reminding Ramaphosa of his government’s obligation to protect the rights of all citizens in South Africa, whether those citizens are legitimate or illegal residents.
A government that kept silence in the face of attacks on foreigners must be deemed complicit in the violence. Ramaphosa was reminded by heads of foreign governments that keeping quiet in the face of human rights abuses directed against citizens of other African countries was not the hallmark of a responsible president.
Another reason why South Africa’s apology should be tossed into the sea is the role senior ministers in Ramaphosa’s government played in engineering and fanning the widespread violence prior to, during, and even after the violence had receded. One typical example was the cynical comment made by South Africa’s Defence Minister to the effect that Nigerians in South Africa were responsible for drug running and involvement in other criminal activities.
While we must admit that some Nigerians in South Africa, certainly not all of them, are involved in crime, it is incorrect to paint all Nigerians in South Africa with the brush of criminality.
In response to mounting international criticisms of South Africa’s abdication of its social and legal responsibilities to protect the lives and rights of other African citizens, Ramaphosa’s government officials deflected attention away from their appalling handling of the situation by blaming poor governance in African countries. It was a pathetic and half-baked strategy to avoid responsibility for the violence in South Africa.
Surely, many South African communities are run-down. They are impoverished. Many citizens live below the poverty line. Unemployment rate is high. Electricity supply is unstable. Many communities have no access to electricity. Healthcare facilities are stressed. There is no welfare scheme to cater for the poor and the less privileged. In a sense, the South African government was and still is in a bind. It cannot provide for the basic needs of the people. Law and order have broken down, which is why ordinary citizens have taken the law into their own hands. What they cannot get from their own government, they aim to extract from foreigners.
While Nigeria is also overwhelmed by the same problems identified in South Africa, it must be acknowledged that Nigerians are not known to engage in violent attacks against foreigners, and they have not accused foreigners of taking away their jobs.
In the heat of the debate over the violence in South Africa, there was the notion that African governments that failed to provide for the welfare needs of their citizens are equally blameworthy. For example, South Africa’s International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor argued that other African countries rather than South Africa alone should take responsibility for what was happening in South Africa. According to Pandor: “The condition of our continent must change, and we must send a clear message to our leaders that we expect this change not just in South Africa but in all the countries on the African continent.” She added: “No leader should be allowed to get away with allowing degradation and expecting someone else to provide a response to their countrymen and women.”
While Pandor might appear to have made a sound argument about African countries’ obligation to cater for the wellbeing of African citizens, she appeared to have shifted attention from the South African government’s obligation to protect foreigners from violent attacks by disgruntled South African citizens who have been deluded to believe that foreigners are the sole cause of unemployment, lack of infrastructure, poverty, and economic deprivation in their environment.
South Africa has forgotten so quickly that when it was subjected to the obnoxious and racist apartheid policies decades ago, Nigeria was one of the frontline African countries that put relentless pressure on the apartheid government that eventually led to the collapse of that dishonourable system. Nigeria in concert with other African countries ran to the aid of the African National Congress (ANC) in the fight against apartheid guided by the belief that every African country must act as their brother’s keeper.
Now that Nigeria is going through economic and social crucible, now that the country has regressed politically and militarily owing to weak leadership and poor governance, it is clear that South Africa has not returned in good faith a favour that Nigeria did to a brother country years ago.
Surely, many Nigerians were forced to run to other African and European countries in search of economic El Dorado. These were countries associated with tremendous wealth and great economic opportunities. These countries constitute an imaginary haven where some Nigerians believe they would encounter no hardship or pain or poor electricity or bad roads or ill-equipped public hospitals or marauding herdsmen or kidnappers or any of the ills that have afflicted people in Nigeria for many years.
Regardless of the situation in Nigeria, running to other countries in search of better life is never a good way to help build your own country. At the same time, the Nigerian government cannot shirk its responsibilities to look after its citizens