Former Enugu State House of Assembly member and ex-South-East spokesman for President Bola Tinubu, Denge Josef Onoh, has challenged a reported request by the South African Government for Nigeria to reimburse about R292 million, equivalent to roughly $18.5 million, reportedly spent on the repatriation of foreign nationals.
Onoh said the reported financial demand should not be treated as a routine reimbursement matter, insisting that Nigeria must first establish the legal and diplomatic basis for South Africa seeking payment from other countries.
In a statement issued from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Onoh argued that expenses associated with immigration enforcement, temporary accommodation, transportation and the return of foreign nationals require proper scrutiny before any government commits public funds.
His reaction followed reports that South African authorities had approached Nigeria, Malawi and Ethiopia over costs allegedly incurred during operations involving foreign nationals and their repatriation.
According to the reports, the expenses reportedly cover several areas, including transportation, temporary accommodation, repatriation arrangements and personnel-related costs.
Onoh maintained that Nigeria should formally request detailed information from Pretoria and establish exactly how the reported amount was calculated.
He said the matter should be examined against existing international agreements, regional arrangements and the obligations of a country hosting foreign nationals.
The former lawmaker also called for a broader diplomatic discussion between Nigeria and South Africa over the treatment of African migrants and the interests of businesses owned by nationals of other African countries operating in South Africa.
He argued that the issue should not be restricted to the cost of repatriating migrants but should also take into account the economic losses suffered by African nationals and businesses during episodes of unrest and instability.
Onoh said Nigeria, alongside other affected countries, could work towards establishing the extent of verifiable losses suffered by their citizens and businesses.
He stressed, however, that any financial assessment should be based on credible documentation rather than unsubstantiated claims.
According to him, Nigeria should insist that any financial obligation arising from the repatriation exercise must be backed by clear records, identifiable legal responsibilities and an agreed diplomatic process.
Onoh Calls For Coordinated African Response
Onoh further proposed consultations involving Nigeria, Malawi, Ethiopia and other affected countries to develop a common position on the reported repatriation expenses.
He said a coordinated approach would enable the countries involved to examine the matter collectively and avoid individual governments responding to the issue in isolation.
The former Enugu lawmaker also urged Nigeria to use diplomatic channels to address concerns surrounding the welfare and safety of Nigerians living and conducting business in South Africa.
He said bilateral engagement should cover migration, trade, investment and the protection of nationals, rather than focusing solely on the immediate disagreement over repatriation expenses.
Onoh’s position comes against the backdrop of the long and complicated relationship between Nigeria and South Africa.
While the two countries maintain strong economic and diplomatic ties, relations have periodically been strained by disagreements over migration, treatment of nationals and attacks against foreign-owned businesses.
Onoh therefore argued that the reported financial dispute should be handled carefully to prevent it from damaging the wider relationship between the two countries.
Nigeria’s Anti-Apartheid Role
A major part of Onoh’s argument centred on Nigeria’s historical role in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.
He recalled that Nigeria provided extensive political, diplomatic, humanitarian and financial support to the anti-apartheid movement before the collapse of white minority rule.
The claim that Nigeria spent more than $61 billion supporting the struggle has been cited in several historical and academic accounts. A peer-reviewed study on Nigeria’s foreign policy and its role in the anti-apartheid struggle similarly records the figure as a cumulative estimate covering the period from 1960 to 1995, rather than a single direct payment.
Historical accounts also document specific forms of Nigerian assistance to South African liberation movements. Nigeria supported the African National Congress and Pan Africanist Congress, contributed to relief efforts and provided opportunities for South African students and activists affected by apartheid.
Nigeria also established the Southern Africa Relief Fund, popularly associated with the “Mandela Tax”, through which civil servants and members of the public contributed to the anti-apartheid cause. Contemporary historical accounts cited by Nigerian media say contributions to the fund reached about $10.5 million by June 1977.
Onoh argued that this history should not be ignored when assessing the present-day relationship between Nigeria and South Africa.
He said Nigeria’s contribution to the liberation of South Africa was part of a broader African solidarity campaign and should provide important context for present diplomatic engagements.
However, the former lawmaker did not suggest that Nigeria’s past contribution automatically extinguishes any legitimate financial obligation that might arise from a properly established agreement.
Instead, his argument was that any demand involving public funds should be subjected to legal and diplomatic scrutiny.
Call For Protection Of Nigerians
Onoh also urged the Nigerian government to place greater emphasis on the protection of Nigerians residing and doing business in South Africa.
He said diplomatic engagement should address not only immigration matters but also the security of Nigerian citizens, protection of their property and the ability of Nigerian-owned businesses to operate without intimidation or unlawful interference.
He called for stronger bilateral mechanisms through which disputes involving nationals of both countries could be addressed before they escalate.
According to him, Nigeria and South Africa have too much history and economic interaction to allow disagreements over migration and repatriation costs to undermine their broader relationship.
He therefore advocated dialogue and consultation rather than confrontation.
The reported R292 million claim, if formally presented by South Africa, would require both countries to establish the precise nature of the expenditure, the legal basis for reimbursement and the responsibilities of each government under applicable agreements.
Until those details are made public and independently verified, the amount should be regarded as a reported claim rather than an established financial liability of the Nigerian Government.
Onoh’s intervention ultimately calls for the dispute to be handled through established diplomatic and multilateral channels, while ensuring that Nigeria’s interests and the welfare of its citizens in South Africa remain central to any negotiations.
He maintained that both countries should protect their longstanding ties and work towards practical solutions on migration, trade, investment and the safety of their nationals.
For Onoh, the objective should be to resolve the reported repatriation dispute without allowing it to become another source of tension between two of Africa’s most influential countries.