Many African taxpayers indirectly contributed to South Africa’s freedom by supporting governments that invested resources in the liberation struggle. Across the continent, ordinary citizens viewed apartheid not merely as South Africa’s problem but as Africa’s collective burden. That history carries a moral lesson.
Patriotism is one of the noblest virtues a citizen can possess. At its best, it inspires people to protect their country’s sovereignty, defend its institutions, and work tirelessly for the welfare of fellow citizens. Yet patriotism loses its moral force when it becomes an excuse for hostility, exclusion, and the dehumanization of others. There is a fundamental difference between loving one’s country and cultivating hatred toward those who come from beyond its borders.
This distinction is one that appears increasingly blurred in the rhetoric and activism of Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma. Through her campaigns championing the slogan “Put South Africans First” and her opposition to undocumented immigrants accessing public services, she has presented herself as a patriot defending South Africa’s interests. To many frustrated citizens battling unemployment, poverty, crime, and failing public services, such a message naturally resonates.
However, beneath the surface of this seemingly patriotic campaign lies a dangerous departure from the ideals that have historically defined Africa’s collective identity. Rather than strengthening South Africa, the politics of blaming immigrants risks weakening the very moral foundation upon which the country’s democracy was built. More significantly, it undermines the Pan-African spirit that helped secure South Africa’s own liberation from apartheid.
Africa’s history cannot be understood through the narrow lens of colonial borders. Long before European powers partitioned the continent during the nineteenth century, African societies traded, migrated, intermarried, and coexisted across vast territories. The borders that now separate Nigeria from Benin, Zimbabwe from South Africa, or Zambia from Botswana are largely colonial inventions that divided peoples with shared languages, cultures, and histories.
To embrace an ideology that portrays Africans from neighboring countries as outsiders unworthy of compassion is therefore to reject centuries of African interconnectedness.
The philosophy of Ubuntu remains one of Africa’s greatest moral contributions to humanity. Popularly expressed as “I am because we are,” Ubuntu recognizes that human dignity is inseparable from our relationships with others. It teaches compassion, empathy, mutual respect, and collective responsibility. Ubuntu does not ask where a person was born before recognizing their humanity. It does not discriminate between nationalities before extending kindness.
This philosophy shaped the moral vision of leaders such as Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and Oliver Tambo, who consistently reminded the world that justice cannot be selective. Their struggle against apartheid was never simply about replacing one privileged group with another. It was about affirming the dignity of every human being.
Against the foregoing backdrop, campaigns aimed at preventing immigrants from accessing hospitals, schools, and other essential public services represent a troubling contradiction. Healthcare is not merely a government benefit; it is a basic human necessity. Education is not simply a privilege; it is an investment in society’s future. Denying children access to learning because of their nationality punishes the innocent while solving none of the structural challenges confronting South Africa.
No country is under any obligation to abandon immigration laws or neglect border security. Every sovereign nation has the legitimate right to regulate migration, protect its territorial integrity, and enforce its laws. South Africa is no exception.
However, there is a profound difference between enforcing immigration laws through lawful institutions and encouraging public hostility toward immigrants. The former reflects responsible governance. The latter risks legitimizing xenophobia, vigilantism, and violence.
South Africa has repeatedly witnessed tragic consequences when anti-immigrant sentiment boils over into mob attacks. Businesses owned by foreign nationals have been looted, homes destroyed, and lives lost. Many of the victims have been fellow Africans who travelled to South Africa seeking opportunities, safety, or simply a better future.
These recurring outbreaks of violence have damaged South Africa’s international reputation and strained diplomatic relations across the continent. They have also raised difficult questions about whether the ideals that once inspired Africa during the anti-apartheid struggle are gradually being replaced by narrow nationalism.
Ironically, South Africa’s own history should serve as a powerful reminder of why solidarity matters. During apartheid, numerous African countries opened their borders to South African freedom fighters. Nigeria provided substantial financial assistance to the liberation struggle and became one of apartheid’s fiercest diplomatic opponents. Zambia, Tanzania, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Botswana all played crucial roles by hosting exiles, training camps, and liberation movements despite the enormous political and military risks involved.
Many African taxpayers indirectly contributed to South Africa’s freedom by supporting governments that invested resources in the liberation struggle. Across the continent, ordinary citizens viewed apartheid not merely as South Africa’s problem but as Africa’s collective burden. That history carries a moral lesson.
While today’s South Africans cannot be held personally responsible for decisions made by previous generations, neither should they forget the immense solidarity extended to them when their nation needed Africa most. Gratitude should not translate into open borders or uncontrolled migration, but it should encourage empathy rather than hostility.
The economic frustrations driving anti-immigrant campaigns are genuine. South Africa continues to grapple with stubbornly high unemployment, deep inequality, unreliable electricity, rising living costs, and persistent corruption. Millions understandably feel abandoned by political leaders who have failed to deliver inclusive economic growth.
Yet blaming immigrants offers an easy target instead of confronting the more difficult realities. Immigrants did not create systemic corruption. Immigrants did not capture state institutions. Immigrants did not design ineffective economic policies. Immigrants did not cause years of poor governance or widespread public sector inefficiency. These problems have domestic political origins that require courageous political solutions.
Isaac Asabor is a Public Policy Analyst.
