Nigeria Boycotts South Africa, Halting Its Delegation’s Participation in Pan-African Parliament Activities

Nigeria suspends parliamentary visits to South Africa over xenophobic attacks, halting its delegation’s physical participation in Pan-African Parliament activities.

Nigeria’s National Assembly has suspended all official visits to South Africa and ordered a boycott of legislative engagements hosted by South African institutions in response to recurring xenophobic and Afrophobic attacks against Nigerians and other African migrants.

The directive also prevents Nigeria’s five-member delegation to the Pan-African Parliament from travelling to its headquarters in Midrand for plenary sittings, committee meetings and other official activities without the prior express approval of the National Assembly leadership.

Although the Pan-African Parliament is an organ of the African Union and not a South African institution, the suspension could significantly diminish Nigeria’s participation and influence in Africa’s continental legislature for as long as it remains in force.

The unprecedented parliamentary action applies to members of the Senate and House of Representatives, committees, officials and employees of the National Assembly. It extends beyond physical visits to virtual meetings, parliamentary exchanges, conferences, seminars, workshops and other engagements organized, hosted, sponsored or co-sponsored by South African legislative authorities.

However, because the Pan-African Parliament is an African Union organ, the prohibition on virtual engagements hosted by South African legislative institutions does not necessarily extend to online PAP activities. The restriction clearly affects physical attendance at PAP activities in South Africa, subject to the leadership’s power to grant express approval.

The decision was contained in a circular dated 27 August 2026 and signed by the Clerk to the National Assembly, Kamoru Ogunlana. It was publicly announced on 11 September by the spokesperson of the House of Representatives, Hon. Akin Rotimi.

The directive represents one of Nigeria’s strongest institutional responses yet to persistent attacks on its citizens in South Africa. It also signals that a crisis previously managed largely through diplomatic consultations is now beginning to affect formal relations between the democratic and parliamentary institutions of Africa’s two leading powers.

National Assembly cites killings, displacement and destruction of property

In the circular titled “Suspension of Official Visits to the Republic of South Africa and Boycott of South African-Hosted Legislative Activities and Engagements,” the National Assembly said its attention had been drawn to continuing reports of violence, intimidation, destruction of property and other forms of hostility directed at Nigerians and other African nationals.

It expressed particular concern over reports that Nigerians and other foreigners had been killed, injured, displaced or forced to abandon their homes, businesses, investments and property.

The legislature also questioned the apparent failure to prosecute some of those responsible, despite repeated appeals to South African authorities to provide effective protection for foreign nationals.

“The National Assembly considers the safety and protection of Nigerian citizens abroad a matter of serious national concern and reaffirms that the rights and dignity of Nigerians must be protected wherever they reside or conduct legitimate business,” the circular stated.

The suspension applies to:

a.      All official visits to South Africa by the National Assembly, its committees, lawmakers, officials and staff;

b.      Conferences, seminars, workshops, meetings and parliamentary exchanges organized or hosted by the Parliament of South Africa or other South African legislative authorities;

c.      Physical, virtual and online legislative engagements hosted from South Africa;

d.      Existing invitations and proposed programmes involving the Nigerian and South African legislatures.

Participation in any affected engagement during the suspension will require the prior express approval of the leadership of the National Assembly.

According to the directive, the measures will remain in force until further notice and will be reviewed in light of developments concerning the protection of Nigerians in South Africa.

Parliament says boycott is a warning, not a rupture in relations

Explaining the decision, Hon. Akin Rotimi described it as a strong expression of concern over the safety, dignity and welfare of Nigerians living and conducting lawful businesses in South Africa.

The action is limited to the legislative arm and does not automatically prohibit visits or meetings by Nigeria’s executive branch. Reuters reported that the restriction does not apply to official government engagements.

The National Assembly has also sought to distinguish its protest from a complete severance of relations. It maintained that parliamentary diplomacy and inter-legislative cooperation remained important but must be built upon mutual respect and a shared commitment to protecting life, property and lawful enterprise.

This distinction is significant. Nigeria is not ending diplomatic relations with South Africa; it is withholding parliamentary cooperation as a form of political pressure.

The measure therefore sends a direct message to South Africa’s Parliament: cordial inter-parliamentary relations cannot continue unaffected while citizens of one partner country face recurring violence in the other.

Suspension extends to Nigeria’s participation in Pan-African Parliament activities

The directive also has potentially far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s participation in the activities of the Pan-African Parliament, which is headquartered in Midrand, South Africa.

Nigeria’s five representatives to the Pan-African Parliament are first and foremost members of the Nigerian National Assembly designated to represent the country at the continental legislature. Because the circular suspends “all official visits to the Republic of South Africa” by the National Assembly, its committees and lawmakers, members of Nigeria’s PAP delegation cannot travel to Midrand for plenary sessions, committee meetings, regional caucus activities, workshops or other official PAP engagements while the directive remains in force unless they obtain the prior express approval of the leadership of the National Assembly.

This consequence arises from the location of the Pan-African Parliament rather than from any institutional control exercised by South Africa over it. The PAP is an organ of the African Union established under the Treaty establishing the African Economic Community and the Protocol to the Treaty establishing the African Economic Community relating to the Pan-African Parliament. It is not part of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. South Africa merely hosts its permanent seat under arrangements with the African Union.

Accordingly, the Nigerian suspension should not be interpreted as a boycott of the Pan-African Parliament itself or as a withdrawal from Nigeria’s obligations to the continental institution. Nevertheless, because most PAP plenary sessions, committee meetings and other statutory activities are held at its headquarters in Midrand, the practical effect is to prevent Nigeria’s delegation from attending such activities physically without special authorization.

The distinction is particularly important regarding virtual meetings. The circular expressly extends the boycott to online engagements “hosted from or by South African legislative institutions.” Since the Pan-African Parliament is an African Union organ rather than a South African legislative institution, participation in a virtual PAP meeting would not appear to be automatically prohibited solely because the PAP secretariat operates from South Africa. Such participation may, however, require clarification or specific direction from the National Assembly leadership.

Implications for Nigeria’s continental parliamentary representation

Nigeria is one of Africa’s most populous and politically influential countries and has traditionally played an important role in the Pan-African Parliament. The inability of its five-member delegation to attend sittings in Midrand could therefore weaken Nigeria’s voice in continental parliamentary deliberations.

If the suspension continues, Nigeria could be absent or underrepresented during consideration of resolutions, committee reports, model laws and debates relating to peace and security, trade, migration, human rights, climate change and the implementation of Agenda 2063.

The boycott may also affect the participation of Nigerian members who hold positions in PAP committees, caucuses or other parliamentary structures. Their absence could limit their ability to vote, contribute to reports, influence committee recommendations or represent Nigeria’s interests in decisions affecting the continent.

This produces a difficult institutional dilemma. The National Assembly is entitled to protect its members and to protest the failure to safeguard Nigerians in South Africa. At the same time, a prolonged absence from the Pan-African Parliament could unintentionally reduce Nigeria’s influence within an African Union organ established to promote continental integration and amplify the voice of African peoples.

The National Assembly may therefore need to establish a specific procedure for its PAP delegation. Options could include granting case-by-case approval for essential statutory sittings, permitting full virtual participation where possible, or asking the African Union and PAP leadership to convene some meetings outside South Africa until the security concerns are satisfactorily addressed.

PAP should not remain silent on Afrophobic violence

The situation also places a responsibility on the Pan-African Parliament itself. An institution created to promote African unity, human rights, democracy and continental integration cannot treat organized hostility against Africans in its host country as an issue lying entirely outside its mandate.

The PAP should engage both the Nigerian and South African authorities, seek verified information about the attacks and consider a fact-finding or parliamentary oversight initiative. Its relevant committees could examine the treatment of African migrants, the adequacy of existing legal protections and the effectiveness of national and continental mechanisms for preventing xenophobic and Afrophobic violence.

It should also facilitate dialogue between the National Assembly of Nigeria and the Parliament of South Africa. Such parliamentary diplomacy could help formulate measurable steps for restoring cooperation, including an early-warning mechanism, protection for threatened communities, investigation of reported killings and regular reporting on arrests and prosecutions.

South Africa’s status as host of the Pan-African Parliament carries both symbolic and practical responsibilities. The seat of Africa’s continental legislature should be a place where parliamentarians and citizens from every African country can gather without fear of hostility based on nationality.

The prospect that one of Africa’s most important national delegations may be unable to participate freely in PAP activities because of insecurity in the host country should therefore concern the entire African Union not Nigeria and South Africa alone.

South African Government calls Nigeria’s decision “unfortunate”

South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Ronald Lamola, described the National Assembly’s decision as “unfortunate” but insisted that it had not, at least for the moment, affected formal bilateral relations.

Lamola told SABC News that Pretoria had not received formal communication from the Nigerian Government about the suspension. He noted that the announcement had been made by Nigeria’s National Assembly rather than the executive branch.

“What I’ve read is that it’s the National Assembly of Nigeria that says they are suspending any form of participation or visits. But our understanding, we have not received any formal or official communication in that regard,” he said.

He warned against allowing the controversy to undermine the wider relationship between Africa’s two major powers.

“It does not, at this stage, affect the bilateral relations between the two countries. It will be very unfortunate if that will be, because these are the two big giants of the African continent that need to work together,” Lamola added.

The South African minister said Pretoria remained willing to engage with Nigerian authorities. He confirmed that South Africa had received and verified a list of approximately 100 Nigerians reportedly killed in the country and remained open to examining the circumstances surrounding their deaths.

Lamola, however, also referred to concerns about alleged criminal activities involving some Nigerian nationals in parts of Pretoria and Johannesburg. That argument has featured repeatedly in South African discussions about migration.

Nigeria’s position is that suspected criminality cannot justify collective punishment or vigilante violence. Individuals accused of offences must be arrested, investigated and prosecuted through the legal system, irrespective of their nationality.

Recent killings deepen the crisis

The parliamentary boycott has been followed by reports of two more Nigerian deaths in South Africa.

Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs identified the victims as Bishop Taiwo Michael Fakunle and James Uchechukwu Nwankwo.

Fakunle was reportedly killed at his residence in Kensington, Johannesburg, on 4 September. Nwankwo died the following day in Somerset, Cape Town, allegedly after being subjected to what the Nigerian Government described as “gruesome interrogation techniques” by members of the South African Police Service.

The Federal Government condemned the killings and demanded immediate, thorough and transparent investigations aimed at identifying and prosecuting those responsible.

The Foreign Ministry said the alleged involvement of law-enforcement personnel in Nwankwo’s death was especially disturbing because security agencies charged with protecting life should not aggravate an already fragile climate facing foreigners.

Nigeria also disclosed that a proposed Memorandum of Understanding establishing an early-warning mechanism had been signed by Abuja but was still awaiting South Africa’s signature. The mechanism is intended to enable the two governments to identify emerging threats and intervene before anti-migrant mobilization develops into widespread violence.

The Nigerian Government said it had already brought the recurring attacks before ECOWAS and the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union and was considering additional concrete measures to obtain South Africa’s cooperation.

Nearly 100 Nigerian deaths reported since 2022

Nigeria’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sola Enikanolaiye, said during talks with Lamola in Abuja in July that at least 98 Nigerians had been killed in mob attacks, hate-related violence and alleged extrajudicial killings in South Africa since 2022.

Nigerian officials had also documented incidents in which police were allegedly unwilling or unable to intervene, raising questions about the effectiveness of state protection.

At those talks, Nigeria made clear that it did not condone crimes committed by its nationals abroad. It insisted, however, that criminal allegations must be handled through due process rather than violence directed against individuals or entire migrant communities.

“If there are criminals, the solution is not to kill them. Get them arrested, prosecuted,” Enikanolaiye said during the July discussions. Reuters reported that South Africa reaffirmed its opposition to xenophobia, racism and discrimination.

The talks initially appeared to offer a pathway towards de-escalation. Pretoria reportedly promised to prosecute those responsible for attacks, while Nigeria began compiling claims for property losses suffered by its citizens.

The two countries also discussed stronger police protection in high-risk areas, an early-warning system and measures to reduce inflammatory rhetoric. Lamola insisted that the violence was neither sponsored nor condoned by the South African Government. Both sides pledged to pursue criminality through lawful processes.

The subsequent parliamentary boycott suggests that, from Abuja’s perspective, dialogue has not produced sufficiently visible protection or accountability.

Thousands of Nigerians evacuated

The human cost extends beyond those killed or injured. At least 1,695 Nigerians had reportedly been voluntarily evacuated from South Africa in 2026 amid the latest wave of anti-immigrant hostility. Other African countries, including Ghana, Malawi and Mozambique, have also repatriated citizens.

The Associated Press reported that South African Government figures showed almost 90,000 migrants had either been voluntarily repatriated or deported since the crisis began. Figures compiled from migrants’ countries of origin reportedly put the number at about 178,000. The wide disparity illustrates the scale and complexity of the displacement.

Anti-migrant groups have organized protests and issued unofficial deadlines demanding that undocumented foreigners leave South Africa. In some incidents, demonstrators have reportedly entered communities, removed foreign nationals from their homes and businesses or handed them over to police.

Documented migrants and lawful business owners have also reportedly been caught in the violence, undermining the claim that such campaigns are directed solely at irregular migration or criminal activity.

Ramaphosa promises crackdown on xenophobic groups

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has publicly condemned anti-foreigner violence and warned that private groups have no authority to enforce immigration laws.

In June, he promised firm action against organizations inciting xenophobic attacks and accused some groups of exploiting public anxiety about crime, unemployment and inadequate public services for political or criminal purposes.

Ramaphosa acknowledged that migrants were being scapegoated for South Africa’s socioeconomic difficulties. His government announced measures including stronger law enforcement, immigration-law reforms, dedicated immigration courts and regional cooperation.

The difficulty for Pretoria is no longer the absence of condemnations. The central question is whether its condemnations are being translated into prevention, arrests, prosecutions and compensation.

Repeated assurances lose credibility when attacks recur, victims remain without justice and groups are able to issue threats or expulsion deadlines openly.

Calls for tougher action grow in Nigeria

Former Nigerian Aviation Minister Femi Fani-Kayode has also criticized Pretoria’s handling of the situation, alleging that eight Nigerians have been killed in South Africa since the beginning of 2026 and that four of the deaths involved South African police officers.

He called on South African authorities to protect Nigerians and prosecute those responsible for killings and threats.

Fani-Kayode also raised concerns about reports of another unofficial deadline for African migrants to leave South Africa by 30 September. He warned that Nigeria’s patience was wearing thin and argued that South Africans living and operating businesses in Nigeria were not subjected to comparable organized attacks.

His figures and allegations require investigation by the competent authorities, but they reflect the increasing anger in Nigeria and the growing political pressure for measures beyond diplomatic statements. His intervention followed the reported deaths of Fakunle and Nwankwo.

Why the parliamentary boycott matters

Nigeria and South Africa are among the continent’s most influential states. Both play central roles in the African Union, the African Continental Free Trade Area, BRICS-related cooperation and continental peace and security initiatives.

Their parliaments also participate in the Pan-African Parliament, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and other inter-parliamentary networks.

A prolonged boycott could therefore disrupt cooperation on trade, migration, regional integration, peacebuilding and democratic governance. It could also encourage other African legislatures to reassess their engagements with South Africa if attacks on their nationals continue.

The decision transforms xenophobic violence from a consular and security issue into a matter of parliamentary diplomacy. It asserts that legislative cooperation cannot be separated from the treatment of African citizens on the ground.

However, the boycott will be effective only if it is connected to clear and measurable demands. These should include:

1.      Signature and implementation of the proposed bilateral early-warning mechanism;

2.      Independent investigations into reported killings involving police or other security personnel;

3.      Publication of arrest, prosecution and conviction data relating to attacks on foreign nationals;

4.      Protection plans for migrant communities and foreign-owned businesses in high-risk areas;

5.      A mechanism for documenting losses and considering compensation;

6.      Regular reporting to both the Nigerian and South African parliaments;

7.      Joint engagement with the African Union on xenophobia, Afrophobia and intra-African migration.

Pretoria must answer with action

South Africa is entitled to enforce its immigration and criminal laws. Nigeria must also cooperate in addressing crimes committed by any of its nationals abroad.

But immigration enforcement cannot be outsourced to mobs, vigilantes or political movements. Nor can allegations against some individuals justify violence against an entire nationality or against African migrants generally.

For many Nigerians, the issue is no longer whether the South African Government condemns xenophobia. Pretoria has done so repeatedly. The real test is whether it can prevent attacks, restrain vigilante groups, investigate security personnel, prosecute offenders and guarantee equal protection under the law.

The National Assembly’s boycott is both a warning and an opportunity. It raises the political cost of inaction while leaving room for engagement and restoration of parliamentary relations.

South Africa’s description of the measure as “unfortunate” does not answer the concerns that produced it. The quickest way to reverse the boycott is not diplomatic irritation but demonstrable accountability.

Until Nigerians and other African nationals can live and conduct legitimate businesses in South Africa without fear of intimidation, dispossession or violence, relations between the continent’s two leading powers will remain vulnerable to recurring crisis.