South Africa Rejects Continental Pressure Over Foreign National Protection
South African delegation defends migration policy against continental criticism at Pan-African Parliament.
Mdumiseni Ntuli stood before the Pan-African Parliament on Thursday, July 30, 2026, and pushed back. Hard.
Leading South Africa’s delegation, Ntuli objected to the very framing of two motions that called on the continental body to condemn attacks on foreign nationals in South Africa and urged Pretoria to strengthen protections for all persons regardless of nationality, ensure perpetrators face justice, and support an independent African Union fact-finding and monitoring mechanism to assess the scale, causes and humanitarian impact of reported attacks.
Ntuli’s central argument was direct: characterizing South Africans as xenophobic lacked factual or evidentiary foundation. He cautioned fellow Pan-African Parliament members against making divisive statements while claiming to serve the continent’s interests. The real driver of migration pressures, he said, was not prejudice but the continent’s prevailing economic crisis. South Africa draws people from across Africa precisely because it offers economic hope and opportunity that many other nations cannot provide.
That framing shifted the burden. Rather than a country with a xenophobia problem, Ntuli presented South Africa as a destination bearing disproportionate weight for a challenge that demands a coordinated continental response involving multiple African nations. He reaffirmed that the South African government explicitly rejects violence, intimidation, and attacks against foreign nationals of any origin, and assured the chamber that law enforcement agencies remain vigilant and capable of maintaining public order.
Ntuli also raised procedural objections. South Africa, he argued, should have been given the opportunity to present its position before debate commenced, and the delegation would have preferred to contribute to the motion’s text. He further objected to the proposal for a Pan-African Parliament fact-finding mission to South Africa on a matter already under consideration by the African Union Executive Council, which had adopted its own position on the issue. The Pan-African Parliament, established in March 2004 to ensure full participation of African people in the continent’s economic development and integration, serves as the AU’s legislative body.
Meanwhile, Mergan Chetty, another member of the South African delegation, widened the lens. He argued that difficulties associated with illegal migration are neither unique to South Africa nor confined to Africa, but represent a broader phenomenon affecting many developing nations worldwide. Economic stagnation across the continent, Chetty noted, has prompted several countries to adopt protective measures designed to preserve economic opportunities for their own citizens.
His example was concrete. Ghana’s Investment Promotion Centre Act reserves certain economic activities exclusively for Ghanaian citizens and Ghanaian-owned enterprises. South Africa, Chetty argued, holds an equally legitimate responsibility to protect the economic interests of its citizens while continuing to uphold the rule of law and respect for human rights.
The delegation’s core message held consistent across both speakers: South Africa categorically rejects violence while defending its right to manage migration in ways that serve both continental solidarity and its own citizens’ welfare. Full details of the South African position are available at https://www.parliament.gov.za/press-releases/media-statement-south-african-pap-members-defend-countrys-position-during-debate-migration-motions.
Whether the two motions advance, stall, or are amended now depends on how the broader Pan-African Parliament membership weighs those arguments against the humanitarian concerns that put South Africa in the dock in the first place.
Q&A
What specific protections did the Pan-African Parliament motions call for?
The motions urged South Africa to strengthen protections for all persons regardless of nationality, ensure perpetrators of attacks face justice, and support an independent African Union fact-finding and monitoring mechanism to assess the scale, causes and humanitarian impact of reported attacks.
How did Mdumiseni Ntuli characterize the root cause of migration pressures?
Ntuli argued that the real driver of migration pressures was not prejudice but the continent's prevailing economic crisis, and that South Africa draws people from across Africa because it offers economic hope and opportunity that many other nations cannot provide.
What example did Mergan Chetty provide to support South Africa's position?
Chetty cited Ghana's Investment Promotion Centre Act, which reserves certain economic activities exclusively for Ghanaian citizens and Ghanaian-owned enterprises, to argue that South Africa holds an equally legitimate responsibility to protect the economic interests of its citizens.
What procedural objections did South Africa raise during the debate?
Ntuli objected that South Africa should have been given the opportunity to present its position before debate commenced, that the delegation would have preferred to contribute to the motion's text, and that a Pan-African Parliament fact-finding mission overlapped with proceedings already under consideration by the African Union Executive Council.