Senator Adams Oshiomhole’s call for the Federal Government to revoke the operating licences of South African companies such as MTN and MultiChoice, in reaction to renewed xenophobic attacks against Nigerians in South Africa, exposes a dangerous misunderstanding of how nations must respond to cross-border crises.
His anger is understandable; his prescription is reckless.
While the xenophobic killings of Nigerians and other Africans in South Africa are unconscionable and demand a firm response, Oshiomhole’s suggested economic retaliation amounts to hitting Nigeria harder than the intended target.
Yes, his frustration is shared by many Nigerians who feel the South African government has been lax in curbing xenophobia.
However, his rhetoric plays well to raw nationalist emotion but fails the test of strategic reasoning. Nationalizing or revoking licenses is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.
South Africa’s Failure is Real, but So is Nigeria’s
It is true that the South African government has, over the years, failed in its duty to protect foreign nationals who contribute immensely to its economy, Nigerians inclusive.
In more than a decade of recurrent attacks, hundreds of Nigerians have been maimed or killed, properties worth millions destroyed, and businesses forced to shut down while local authorities look away.
The images of law enforcement officers standing idle as mobs brutalise African migrants remain a disgrace to a country that once depended on Africa’s solidarity to end apartheid.
But Oshiomhole’s tirade conveniently ignores another truth: Nigeria has itself failed its citizens long before they sought survival in Johannesburg, Pretoria, or Cape Town.
It is not South Africa’s fault that thousands of Nigerians flee unemployment, insecurity, and poor governance at home in search of dignity abroad. When livelihoods collapse in one’s homeland, migration becomes an act of survival.
The Nigerian state, not South Africa, bears responsibility for creating those conditions.
Economic Nationalism or Economic Self‑Sabotage?
Revoking MTN and MultiChoice’s licences would do little to punish South Africa; it would kneecap Nigeria’s own economy.
MTN Nigeria is not a foreign outpost draining local wealth as Oshiomhole suggests, it is a Nigerian company in legal and financial reality.
Listed on the Nigerian Exchange, MTN Nigeria accounts for 89.5 million mobile subscribers and approximately 82.5 million active internet users, according to Q1 2026 data released by the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC).
The operator added 2.3 million new subscribers in the first quarter, driven by strong growth in data, about 55 million active users and fintech services, maintaining over 51% market share.
It contributes nearly 5% of Nigeria’s GDP through telecommunications, tax payments, and employment.
In 2026 alone (covering the 2025 financial year), MTN paid ₦878.7 billion in taxes and levies, and proposed a total of ₦419.91 billion in dividends to shareholders (comprising an interim dividend of ₦5 per share and a final dividend of ₦15 per share).
As of mid-2025, MTN Nigeria directly employs over 2,500 Nigerians directly, with a broader ecosystem creating jobs for over 2 million people, indirectly through vendors and digital services.
The company, led by a 95% Nigerian executive team, has expanded its high-paying roles significantly, with over 650 staff earning at ₦2.4 million monthly as of Q1 2026.
To nationalise such an enterprise or revoke its licence would not only erode investor confidence but also wipe out billions in pension and equity value held by ordinary Nigerians.
The country is already struggling to attract foreign investment; adding arbitrary expropriation to the list of risks would push it closer to economic isolation.
Similarly, Oshiomhole’s call to revoke MultiChoice’s DStv licence betrays ignorance of recent facts. MultiChoice Group’s majority ownership was acquired in April 2025 by France’s Canal+, a subsidiary of the Vivendi conglomerate.
It is now a French-controlled company, not a South African vehicle. Boycotting DStv to “punish South Africa” thus misses the mark entirely. Moreover, MultiChoice Nigeria employs thousands and pays significant taxes, even amidst legitimate concerns about pricing and consumer protection.
What Nigeria Should Do Instead
Displeasure over xenophobic killings requires a mature, lawful, and effective response—not economic vandalism disguised as patriotism.
Nigeria should pursue three parallel actions:
First, demand accountability and restitution through bilateral agreements and international tribunals. Nigeria and South Africa signed an Investment Protection Agreement in 2000, which provides a framework for compensation when nationals’ businesses are destroyed during civil unrest. This legal path is both dignified and enforceable.
Secondly, engage diplomatically and regionally, using the African Union and SADC platforms to make xenophobia a continental offence worthy of sanctions, not another headline that fades after outrage cools.
And, fix the conditions driving emigration. Nigerians seek better livelihoods abroad because they cannot find them at home. If the government focused half as much energy on job creation, entrepreneurs, and security as it does on populist rhetoric, our citizens would not be trapped in other nations’ hostility.
Leadership Requires Thinking Beyond Emotion
Senator Oshiomhole, a veteran labour leader, once marched for justice against foreign exploitation. But in this instance, his posture mirrors the same impulsive xenophobia he claims to be fighting, an economic xenophobia that would damage Nigerians first.
His proposal would punish Nigerian investors, employees, and consumers while leaving South Africa’s political elite untouched.
South Africa must indeed be condemned for its shameful indifference toward recurring xenophobic violence. Yet Nigeria must respond with principle, not vengeance.
Targeting companies won’t solve a diplomatic or social crisis, it will deepen it. Nigeria and South Africa share one of the most significant intra-African business relationships.
Over 120 South African firms operate in Nigeria across critical sectors, telecommunications, retail, banking, and hospitality, providing millions of jobs, driving investments, and supporting everyday economic activity.
At the same time, Nigerian companies, though fewer, have established a growing presence in South Africa in banking, aviation, manufacturing, and fintech, further strengthening economic ties between both countries.
Attacking or sanctioning these companies in response to xenophobic tensions risks hurting the very people such actions aim to protect.
These businesses employ thousands of Nigerians and South Africans, support supply chains, and contribute significantly to government revenues. Disrupting them could lead to job losses, reduced investor confidence, and broader economic instability on both sides.
More importantly, these companies are not the architects of xenophobia or diplomatic disagreements.
They are economic bridges, symbols of African integration and cooperation. Undermining them would weaken not just bilateral relations, but also the broader vision of a connected and economically resilient Africa.
A more strategic response lies in diplomacy, policy engagement, and the protection of citizens through institutional channels, not economic retaliation that ultimately harms ordinary people.
In moments of tension, restraint and reason must prevail over reaction.
Leadership is not about shouting the loudest or revoking licences; it is about defending citizens intelligently, enforcing accountability through the rule of law, and refusing to let populist fury become national policy.
In the end, the real question is not whether South Africa values Nigerian lives, but whether Nigeria itself does.
