Naledi Pandor is not accepting the framing. The former international relations minister has rejected what she calls oversimplified criticism from Ghana and Nigeria over anti-migrant violence in South Africa, arguing that African leaders must first confront the economic and political failures pushing their own citizens to migrate.
Speaking on the African Renaissance Podcast with former EFF figure Dr Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, Pandor expressed disappointment that the two West African nations chose to center blame on South Africa rather than examine why so many of their citizens are drawn there. She framed the crisis as a continent-wide governance failure, not a problem reducible to South African xenophobia.
“What our leaders are not doing is asking themselves why so many of their nationality or citizens wish to be in South Africa, which is a fairly small economy,” Pandor said. “It means, therefore, that a number of countries on the African continent are not doing what they should in order to provide for their people.”
The remarks land as anti-migrant violence and rhetoric continue to escalate inside South Africa. Groups like March and March have called for undocumented foreign nationals to leave the country, and migrants have reported living in fear as hostility intensifies. Ghana and Nigeria have responded by condemning the violence, repatriating some citizens, and summoning South African diplomats. Two Ghanaian nationals have also petitioned the International Criminal Court to investigate whether years of xenophobic attacks could constitute crimes against humanity.
Pandor acknowledged the real tensions but argued that Ghana and Nigeria were sidestepping difficult questions about their own development shortfalls. Poor economic conditions, scarce opportunities, and human rights deficits at home, she said, are what drive people toward South Africa in search of work or asylum.
“You’re not getting the economies right and you don’t have freedom of association, freedom of expression and human rights,” she said. “The people are running to South Africa because those things exist here.”
She also pushed back against characterizing South Africa as inherently xenophobic, drawing a distinction between state policy and the specific organizations driving hostility on the ground. “I think that the leaders know that the government of South Africa is not behind what was happening here,” Pandor said. “They know that there are organisations like March and March, which are leading this anti-migrant attitude.”
By contrast, International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola has been making the same argument through official channels. Speaking at a media briefing in Pretoria last week, Lamola called for a comprehensive continental approach to migration that addresses root causes rather than isolating South Africa for criticism. He emphasized that migration is a phenomenon affecting multiple countries, with South Africa, Egypt, and Ivory Coast among the continent’s major destination nations.
Lamola’s position is that the conversation must shift toward economic development, regional integration, peace and stability, and democratic governance, rather than what he described as “naming and shaming” individual states. He pointed to a 2015 African Union commitment to convene a migration conference, arguing that commitment should now be implemented.
“Migration is a continental phenomenon whose consequences extend beyond the jurisdiction of any single state,” Lamola said.
He confirmed that South Africa would cooperate with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is expected to visit the country, and stressed that unemployment, economic inequality, climate change, and instability must be treated as the actual problem, not its symptoms.
“You cannot treat the symptom of the problem. You must treat the root cause to come up with a solution,” Lamola said.
The gap between the two sides is clear. Ghana and Nigeria want accountability for violence against their nationals now. Pretoria wants a broader continental conversation first. Whether the African Union’s long-delayed migration conference finally convenes, and what it actually produces, will determine whether that call for a structural solution amounts to anything more than a diplomatic deflection.