By Titus Eleweke, Wednesday, July 08
The Nigerian renowned human rights lawyer and lead counsel for the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has criticised the South African Government over what he described as the human rights abuses and mistreatment of Nigerians residing in the country.
According to Ejiofor, in his Midweek Musings titled “State-Sponsored Terrorism in the Guise of Xenophobia? Time for the African Union to Hold the South African Government Accountable for Its Actions, and Why Discerning Nigerians Must Not Allow the Raging PFIPC Scandals to Divert Attention from the Safety of Their Fellow Citizens Abroad,” he said the time has come for African leaders to rise above diplomatic platitudes and demonstrate that the ideals of African solidarity extend beyond ceremonial declarations.
He stated that the protection of every African on African soil is not merely a political obligation but a fundamental responsibility.
The human rights lawyer noted that, by every objective measure, discerning Nigerians have watched with profound concern the raging PFIPC scandal currently dominating the nation’s political landscape.
“The allegations surrounding the Presidential Economic Promotion Council and the attendant public debate have understandably occupied the front pages.
“Yet, the historical pattern of political scandals in Nigeria teaches us that political scandals, regardless of how sensational, often fade into oblivion—sometimes without accountability, sometimes without consequence, and frequently without institutional introspection.
“The same will likely be the fate of the present debate. Give it one more month and it will be consigned to the things forgotten and past. This is Nigeria for you. Chi-fo anu ozo. A nation of endless tragedy,” he said.
According to him, it was for this reason that he deliberately refrained from joining the debate.
He explained that his decision was not because the issues were unimportant, but because another matter of far greater consequence continues to unfold beyond Nigeria’s borders.
Ejiofor said the matter concerns the dignity, security, property, and lives of Nigerians residing in the Republic of South Africa amid recurring incidents of xenophobic violence.
He stated that one of the most disturbing developments was the public remarks attributed to a spokesperson for the South African Government regarding Nigerians whose businesses and properties were allegedly abandoned or taken over following waves of xenophobic attacks.
According to Ejiofor, rather than reassuring the international community that South Africa remains committed to protecting all lawful residents, irrespective of nationality, the spokesperson’s reported remarks appeared dismissive and deeply insensitive.
He argued that, if accurately reported, such comments would represent a departure from the diplomatic restraint expected of public officials and would fall below the standards expected of a constitutional democracy.
Ejiofor further stated that it is both regrettable and dangerous when an entire nationality is broadly associated with criminality, stressing that such sweeping generalisations offend the principles of justice, equality, and civilised governance.
According to him: “International law could not be clearer.
“Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that every person is entitled to the rights and freedoms recognised therein without discrimination of any kind.
“Article 7 further guarantees equality before the law and equal protection against discrimination.
“Article 17 protects every person’s right to own property and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of that property.
“Similarly, Articles 2, 3, 5, 12 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantee equality before the law, respect for human dignity, freedom from discrimination, freedom of movement, and the right to property.
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights equally obliges State Parties to ensure equal protection of the law without discrimination and guarantees freedom of movement and equal treatment under Articles 2, 12 and 26.
“Furthermore, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination imposes an unequivocal obligation upon States to eradicate racial discrimination in all its manifestations and to guarantee equality before the law irrespective of national origin.”
He said that these are not merely lofty academic ideals; rather, they are binding international obligations voluntarily assumed by modern democratic states, including the Republic of South Africa.
Consequently, he argued that any environment in which foreign nationals become recurring targets of organised xenophobic attacks, while their businesses are destroyed or abandoned without effective protection or meaningful accountability, raises serious questions about the discharge of those international obligations.
Ejiofor also said that no discussion about South Africa’s democratic journey can ignore the immense sacrifices made by Nigeria and several other African nations during the anti-apartheid struggle.
According to him, Nigeria invested enormous diplomatic capital, financial resources, and political goodwill in support of South Africa’s liberation.
He added that history has documented those contributions and expressed disappointment that, in his view, they have not been adequately reflected in the treatment of some Nigerians living in South Africa.
He stated : “Every lawful Nigerian abroad deserves the full protection of diplomatic engagement. Their nationality should never become a licence for intimidation. Their investments should never become trophies of lawlessness. Their humanity should never become negotiable.
“The time has therefore come for African leaders to rise above diplomatic platitudes and demonstrate that the ideals of African solidarity extend beyond ceremonial declarations.
“Justice delayed emboldens intolerance. Silence legitimises impunity.
“And indifference, history teaches us, is often the most dangerous accomplice of injustice.
“The protection of every African on African soil is not merely a political obligation.
“It is a legal duty.
“It is a moral imperative.
“It is the ultimate test of whether Pan-Africanism is a living principle or merely an attractive slogan.”