Former Enugu State House of Assembly member and former South East spokesman for President Bola Tinubu, Denge Josef Onoh, has rejected a reported demand by the South African government for Nigeria to reimburse about R292 million, equivalent to approximately $18.5 million, in expenses linked to the repatriation of foreign nationals.
Onoh described the reported financial demand as a matter that requires serious diplomatic and legal scrutiny, arguing that Nigeria should not automatically accept responsibility for expenses incurred by another sovereign country during immigration enforcement operations.
The controversy followed reports that South Africa had approached Nigeria, Malawi and Ethiopia over costs associated with accommodating, transporting and repatriating foreign nationals during recent immigration enforcement activities...READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE .
The reported expenses are said to include transportation, temporary accommodation, repatriation facilities and personnel costs incurred by South African authorities while processing foreign nationals for return to their respective countries.
Reacting to the development in a statement issued from Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Onoh called on the Nigerian Government to demand a clear explanation from Pretoria regarding the legal and diplomatic basis for the reimbursement request.
He argued that a country’s decision to enforce its immigration laws does not automatically create a financial obligation for the governments of the foreign nationals affected by those operations. According to him, any request for payment must be examined against applicable international laws, regional agreements and bilateral arrangements between the countries involved.
Onoh maintained that Nigeria should not simply accept the reported bill without first determining whether South Africa has a legitimate legal basis to demand such reimbursement.
He also urged the Federal Government to use the situation as an opportunity to address wider concerns surrounding the treatment of Nigerians and other African migrants in South Africa.
According to him, the diplomatic discussion should not be limited to the repatriation expenses. He called for greater attention to the protection of Nigerian citizens, businesses and properties in South Africa, particularly amid longstanding concerns about discrimination, xenophobia and attacks against foreign nationals.
Onoh further suggested that Nigeria should engage with Malawi, Ethiopia and other countries reportedly affected by the reimbursement request to develop a coordinated diplomatic position.
Such coordination, he argued, would allow the affected countries to properly examine the reported expenses and determine whether the claims are supported by sufficient documentation and a recognised legal framework.
The development comes against the backdrop of heightened tensions between Nigeria and South Africa over the treatment of Nigerians living and doing business in the country.
Nigeria has historically maintained strong diplomatic ties with South Africa and played a significant role in supporting the country’s liberation struggle during the apartheid era. Onoh believes that this history should remain part of the broader conversation surrounding relations between both countries.
He argued that Nigeria’s historical contribution to South Africa’s liberation should not be ignored when discussing the responsibilities and obligations governing relations between the two countries.
The controversy over the reported $18.5 million demand could therefore become another issue requiring diplomatic engagement between Abuja and Pretoria.
For Nigeria, the immediate concern is to establish exactly what expenses are being claimed, who is legally responsible for them and whether the reported amount is supported by relevant agreements between the countries.
The matter also highlights the complicated challenges surrounding migration within Africa, particularly when countries carry out large scale immigration enforcement operations involving citizens of neighbouring or partner nations.
As the issue develops, attention is expected to focus on the response of the Federal Government and whether Nigeria will accept, challenge or seek to renegotiate the reported reimbursement demand.
For Onoh, however, the position is clear: Nigeria should not assume financial responsibility for the reported repatriation expenses without first receiving a proper legal and diplomatic explanation from South Africa.
