Whenever xenophobic attacks erupt in South Africa, public outrage in Nigeria often goes beyond diplomacy, with many calling for the closure of South African businesses operating in the country.
The latest attacks have once again fuelled such demands, reviving debate over whether economic retaliation serves Nigeria’s national interest.
However, some business professionals and media practitioners have warned that forcing South African firms out of Nigeria could inflict greater economic damage on Nigeria than on South Africa.
They spoke in separate interviews in Lagos on Monday while reacting to calls by some Nigerians for the shutdown of South African companies.
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s food service industry hits $11.09bn in 2025 – Moniepoint
The reactions followed threats by the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) to shut down the operations of MTN Nigeria and MultiChoice over renewed xenophobic attacks against Nigerians and other African nationals in South Africa.
NANS National President, Comrade Babatunde Akinteye, had urged Nigerians to close their Stanbic IBTC Bank accounts and boycott other South African-owned businesses if the attacks continued.
Mrs Seyi Adeshiyan, a banker, said diplomatic disagreements should not be confused with investment decisions.
“Once a company is registered in Nigeria, employs Nigerians, pays taxes and complies with our laws, it becomes part of our economy. If we chase away investors because of political disagreements, we risk creating uncertainty that affects every foreign investor,” she said.
She warned that Nigerian workers, suppliers and consumers would suffer most through job losses, cancelled contracts and reduced competition.
Adeshiyan said Nigeria should pursue justice through diplomatic, legal and regional platforms while strengthening its investment climate and demonstrating respect for the rule of law.
Mr Ayooluwa Olushoga, a general contractor and project manager, also opposed calls for South African companies to leave, describing the proposal as counterproductive.
He said Nigeria could firmly protect its citizens abroad without sacrificing jobs, tax revenues and investments generated by businesses operating legally within the country.
Olushoga added that while the government must protect Nigerians overseas, citizens living abroad should also respect the laws of their host countries to avoid worsening local tensions.
Mr Yemi Adepetun, ICT Editor at The Guardian, said a blanket expulsion of South African firms could hurt Nigeria’s fragile economy and trigger retaliatory measures.
“A blanket expulsion harms Nigerian workers and tax revenue more than it punishes South Africa. Instead, use bilateral agreements, consular rapid response teams and visa reciprocity while demanding concrete action on citizens’ safety,” he said.
He also advocated stronger support for Nigerians abroad through emergency assistance, legal aid and closer cooperation under African Union frameworks.
Similarly, Ms Tosin Monijesu, a caterer, said the situation should encourage greater Nigerian ownership of strategic sectors instead of forcing foreign companies to shut down.
She said the conversation should shift from asking whether South African companies should leave Nigeria to how Nigerians can build the financial capacity to own and compete in industries largely dominated by foreign firms.
According to her, the government should encourage public listings, joint ventures and gradual equity participation by Nigerian investors, pension funds and institutional investors.
“Ownership matters because profits, decision-making and long-term investments become more rooted in the local economy. That approach creates wealth, preserves jobs and strengthens Nigeria’s economic independence without sending a negative signal to investors,” she said.
Mr Samson Akintaro, an Editor at Nairametrics, said any government response should place Nigeria’s economic interest first.
He warned that actions perceived as hostile to foreign investment could discourage prospective investors and weaken confidence in the country’s business environment.
Akintaro recommended stronger diplomatic measures, including recalling Nigeria’s ambassador to South Africa, instead of policies capable of hurting Nigeria’s economy.
Mrs Bunmi Farotimi, a businesswoman, said public anger over the repeated attacks was understandable but should not determine national policy.
“Public policy cannot be driven solely by emotion. We have to ask whether such a decision would improve the safety of Nigerians abroad or simply create new economic problems at home,” she said.
She advocated carefully targeted diplomatic and regulatory measures while urging the government to strengthen local businesses, improve infrastructure and diversify the economy.
Also speaking, Mrs Royal Ibeh, a Tech Editor at BusinessDay Newspapers, said South African companies such as MTN, MultiChoice and Stanbic IBTC had become important contributors to Nigeria’s economy through jobs, taxes and investments.
“These companies give jobs and money to Nigeria. The best way is to use strong diplomacy with South Africa, not close businesses quickly. We need both: protect our people and keep the economy strong,” she said.
Ibeh said Nigeria should pursue high-level diplomatic engagement and seek support through the African Union to end the attacks.
She added that the government should attract more investors from other countries and strengthen the domestic economy to reduce dependence on South African investments while creating more jobs for Nigerians.
The respondents, though approaching the issue from different perspectives, agreed that Nigeria should respond firmly to xenophobic attacks through diplomacy and strategic economic policies rather than measures that could weaken its own economy.
