On Monday, Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal travel advisory urging citizens to avoid non-essential travel to South Africa until further notice, citing attacks by groups presenting themselves as anti-immigrant vigilantes that had resulted in injuries, looting, and the forced takeover of foreign-owned businesses.
The advisory followed the arrival at Kotoka International Airport on 27 May of 300 Ghanaians evacuated on a government-chartered Ethiopian Airlines flight, the first batch of over 800 who had registered for voluntary repatriation after weeks of anti-immigration protests in Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and the Eastern Cape. Ghana has also petitioned the African Union Commission to place the matter on the agenda of its Eighth Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Cairo on 24 to 27 June, describing the attacks as an urgent continental concern. South Africa’s foreign ministry called the AU referral “regrettable.”
That last detail says something. A government that condemns xenophobia in public but objects to the matter being raised at a continental level is managing its image more than it is managing the problem. The gap between those two things is exactly what Ghana’s advisory is designed to make visible.
A Travel Advisory With Meaning
Travel advisories are never only about safety. They are political signals. Ghana’s warning says, in effect, that South Africa can no longer be assumed to offer ordinary security to fellow Africans travelling, working, or trying to build a life there. That is a serious reputational blow for Pretoria, and it carries more weight than a routine Western embassy caution. It comes from another African state implicitly questioning South Africa’s treatment of Africans.
The repatriation itself added uncomfortable detail. South Africa’s Home Affairs commissioner confirmed that 90 per cent of the 300 evacuees were undocumented, with many having overstayed their permits. That figure has been used by South African officials to reframe the crisis as an enforcement problem rather than a protection failure. The framing is understandable. It does not explain why 55 shacks were torched in Mossel Bay with people still inside them, or why Mozambican national Dolinda Mabunda told local media she fled with nothing after her home was set alight around her.
Xenophobia Is Becoming Regional
What makes Ghana’s advisory larger than a bilateral spat is that it is part of a widening African response. Mozambique said on Tuesday that five of its nationals were killed directly in xenophobic attacks in Mossel Bay on Friday, with two more dying in a road accident while fleeing. South African police confirmed two Mozambican deaths.
Around 800 Mozambicans were caught up in the Mossel Bay violence; 300 returned home by their own means on Saturday and 500 more were being sheltered in the Western Cape awaiting repatriation. Nigeria summoned the South African High Commissioner in Abuja and announced its own repatriations after two Nigerian nationals were killed by South African security operatives last month. Kenya, Malawi, Lesotho, and Zimbabwe have all issued cautions to their citizens. The pattern is no longer limited to isolated attacks or one angry township.
The immediate trigger for the latest wave is a citizen-led group called March and March, which issued an ultimatum demanding that undocumented foreign nationals leave South Africa by 30 June. The group has no official backing and has been condemned by authorities. That condemnation has not stopped vigilante clusters from going door-to-door checking documents, forcing foreign-owned shops to close, and, in Mossel Bay, burning homes.
The state’s capacity or willingness to intervene before violence rather than after it is precisely what neighbouring governments are now questioning.
South Africa’s Problem is Now Diplomatic
President Ramaphosa has condemned xenophobia and directed law enforcement to protect all residents. That line is understandable, but it no longer looks sufficient. The problem is not only that South Africa has an immigration dispute: many countries do.
The problem is that state authority appears too weak or too ambiguous to stop that dispute from repeatedly collapsing into mob coercion, deaths, looting, and forced flight. Once that happens often enough, other governments start acting as though South Africa cannot guarantee basic civic order for people who arrive within its borders.
There is also a bitter irony that sits beneath all of this. South Africa benefited for decades from pan-African solidarity during the anti-apartheid struggle. The ANC was housed, funded, and protected across the continent. Migrants from elsewhere in Africa are now being scapegoated for crime, housing pressure, and unemployment in the same country that once asked the continent for shelter. Ghana’s travel advisory does not make that argument explicitly. It does not need to. The act of issuing it makes the point clearly enough.
A Continental Signal
For Ghana, the advisory is a protective measure and a diplomatic judgment at once. It tells citizens to stay away, but it also tells Pretoria that this is no longer a matter of internal image management. Six African governments have now issued warnings or summoned South African diplomats in the same week.
That is not a chorus of complaint. It is a signal that South Africa’s treatment of African migrants is starting to affect its standing on the continent it once helped to lead.
A state does not lose regional standing only through war or economic collapse. Sometimes it loses it because its neighbours stop trusting it to protect the people who arrive in good faith. South Africa is not there yet. But the distance is shortening faster than Pretoria seems to recognise.
Keep up with Daily Euro Times for more updates
Read also:
Visa Denial: When Borders Become Weapons
Carrefour Expands in Africa: Supermarkets Meet Street Markets
Troubled Waters: Return of Piracy and Somalia’s Governance
