Opinion
HURIWA questions FG’S evacuation plan for Nigerians fleeing xenophobia in South Africa; demands justice, compensation*
By George Mgbeleke
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has received with mixed feelings the announcement by the Federal Government of Nigeria regarding the planned evacuation of over 1,000 Nigerians from South Africa following the resurgence of xenophobic attacks against African migrants, including Nigerian citizens.
In a statement signed by National Coordinator,Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko the group said, “While we commend the Federal Government for eventually assuming responsibility for the transportation costs of the affected Nigerians and facilitating their safe return home, HURIWA believes that the evacuation exercise, standing alone, is grossly inadequate and fails to address the far-reaching humanitarian, economic, diplomatic, legal and moral dimensions of this recurring tragedy.
“Indeed, the proposed evacuation raises more questions than answers.
The first and perhaps most fundamental question is: What becomes of the accumulated wealth, businesses, investments, landed properties, shops, vehicles, equipment, bank deposits and other assets painstakingly acquired by Nigerians who are now being compelled by fear, insecurity and targeted hostility to abandon their lives in South Africa?
“Many of these Nigerians did not arrive in South Africa yesterday. They have lived there for years and, in many cases, for decades. They have paid taxes, established businesses, employed workers, contributed to local economies and built lives through hard work and enterprise. If these citizens are now being forced out by organised xenophobic violence, does the Nigerian government have a framework for pursuing restitution, compensation and legal protection for their assets?
“Will their losses simply be written off as collateral damage while government celebrates the evacuation of victims from a hostile environment?”
HURIWA submits that evacuation without compensation amounts to managing the consequences of injustice while ignoring the injustice itself.
Secondly, what becomes of the thousands of Nigerians who have established families in South Africa?
Many Nigerians are legally married to South African citizens and have children who possess dual heritage and whose identities are intertwined with both countries. These are not merely immigration statistics; they are families, spouses, children and communities.
Has the Nigerian government negotiated safeguards for these mixed-nationality families?
What becomes of the Nigerian husband whose South African wife cannot immediately relocate?
What becomes of the South African spouse whose Nigerian partner is forced to leave?
What happens to children whose education, healthcare, social relationships and future are rooted in South Africa?
What legal and humanitarian mechanisms are being put in place to prevent the fragmentation of families and the emotional trauma that often accompanies forced displacement?
Thirdly, HURIWA is compelled to ask whether Nigeria has fully exhausted the diplomatic mechanisms available through the African Union, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the United Nations system and other international human rights platforms before resorting to mass evacuation.
Nigeria is not an insignificant nation on the African continent.
Nigeria played pivotal roles in the liberation struggles of Southern Africa. Nigerian taxpayers contributed enormously to anti-apartheid campaigns. Nigeria sacrificed diplomatic, economic and political resources in support of the freedom and dignity of Black South Africans during the dark years of apartheid.
It is therefore deeply troubling that decades after apartheid, Nigerians and other Africans continue to face violent hostility in a country whose liberation Nigeria vigorously supported.
The question therefore is this: Has Nigeria sufficiently leveraged its historic moral authority and diplomatic influence to compel South Africa to discharge its constitutional and international obligations to protect every lawful resident within its territory regardless of nationality?
The recurring xenophobic attacks in South Africa are not merely criminal incidents. They represent repeated assaults on the ideals of African unity, Pan-African solidarity and human dignity.
Even more disturbing is the perception across Africa that perpetrators of xenophobic violence often act with a sense of impunity because accountability remains weak and consequences are minimal.
HURIWA therefore demands that the Nigerian government publicly disclose the diplomatic measures it has initiated to ensure accountability from South African authorities.
Has Nigeria demanded compensation for victims?
Has Nigeria sought guarantees against future attacks?
Has Nigeria requested the prosecution of perpetrators and organisers of xenophobic violence?
Has Nigeria demanded an independent investigation into allegations that some security institutions have either failed to act decisively or have looked the other way while foreign nationals were targeted?
These are legitimate questions that require immediate answers.
Furthermore, HURIWA believes Nigerians deserve to know whether the Federal Government has considered proportionate economic and diplomatic responses to the persistent victimisation of its citizens.
South African businesses continue to thrive in Nigeria under the protection of Nigerian laws and security institutions. Their investments are protected. Their personnel operate freely. Their commercial interests are safeguarded.
Yet, Nigerian citizens in South Africa continue to live under the recurring shadow of xenophobic violence.
While HURIWA is not advocating reckless retaliation, we insist that diplomacy must be accompanied by consequences where repeated violations occur without meaningful corrective action.
No nation that values its citizens should appear indifferent when those citizens are repeatedly subjected to violence, intimidation and displacement abroad.
Another critical concern is the fate of the more than 1,000 Nigerians expected to return home.
What specific reintegration framework has the Federal Government developed for them?
How many jobs have been created for them?
What financial support packages have been approved?
What business recovery schemes have been established?
What psychological counselling and trauma-support programmes have been designed for victims who may have witnessed violence, lost loved ones, lost businesses or suffered severe emotional distress?
The return of displaced citizens should not mark the end of government responsibility; rather, it should signal the beginning of a comprehensive rehabilitation process.
Anything short of that would amount to transporting victims from one crisis into another.
HURIWA therefore calls for the immediate establishment of a Presidential Task Force on the Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Returnee Nigerians from South Africa, comprising relevant ministries, financial institutions, private-sector stakeholders, civil society organisations and diaspora representatives.
Such a body should be mandated to develop emergency economic assistance programmes, access-to-credit facilities, vocational support initiatives, business recovery grants and long-term reintegration strategies.
Finally, HURIWA warns that the recurring pattern of xenophobic violence against Africans in South Africa represents a grave threat to continental integration and the vision of a united Africa.
Africa cannot preach unity while Africans are hunted, intimidated and displaced in fellow African countries because of their nationality.
The dignity, security and rights of every African must be protected wherever they reside on the continent.
The Federal Government of Nigeria must therefore move beyond evacuation and pursue a comprehensive strategy anchored on justice, accountability, compensation, diplomatic firmness, protection of family rights, economic rehabilitation and the defence of the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens. Indeed, these values should incorporated or rather become the centrepiece of Nigeria’s foreign policy direction and engraved in the constitution that is being amended.
Nigeria owes its citizens nothing less.
Opinion
They Ruin Our Schools, School Their Kids Abroad
By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
This is certainly the season of intense competition among politicians in Nigeria to show off their foreign-educated children in the mass media, for whatever reason.
Perhaps they do this to let the rest of us—the wretched of the earth, in the words of Frantz Fanon, the French psychiatrist and political philosopher—know that they are building political empires and grooming successors who will take over from where they stopped destroying Nigeria.
Some of these politicians were once governors who purportedly built state universities but would never send their own children to those institutions. This is indeed their season and, from our observations, these politicians are increasingly educating their children abroad because Nigerians have failed to insist on accountability and transparency in government. This is why they send their children overseas for schooling and have started showing them off in the media for the rest of the people to see.
Most recently, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr. Nyesom Wike, was seen in what appeared to be a private jet alongside his political acolytes and associates, flying to the United Kingdom, where his daughter graduated from one of the country’s expensive universities.
Mr. Wike ensured that the graduation ceremony of his only daughter featured prominently across mainstream media in Nigeria. After all, many newspapers have been repeatedly patronised by the Federal Capital Territory Administration under his leadership to showcase the roads and flyovers built since he became minister. These generous advertisements have generated substantial revenue for the newspapers, which are now, in turn, repaying those favours—funded with public money—by prominently displaying to millions of ordinary Nigerians that Wike’s daughter has graduated overseas.
The minister and his associates also organised lavish wining and dining sessions, which were extensively reported with photographs in the Nigerian media.
Mind you, Save the Children recently published a report stating that 36.2 million Nigerians across 26 states are facing acute hunger. Yet, the political elite continue to celebrate their children’s graduations and rub these flamboyant parties of wining and dining in our faces. Many other serving political office holders have also recently showcased their foreign-educated children in newspapers.
This was followed by the Governor of Anambra State, whose younger daughter also graduated from a university in the United Kingdom. The Governor’s wife issued a lengthy press statement in which she praised her daughter to the high heavens.
The only apparent exception among these celebrations of foreign education is the Governor of Osun State, whose daughter graduated from a Nigerian-based university owned by her uncle, the father of musician David Adeleke (Davido).
Many senators, members of the House of Representatives, and governors have children who hold second passports. Likewise, the son of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Seyi Tinubu, travelled last month to watch the recently concluded FIFA Club World Cup with his family, where they sat in the VIP section. Seyi was shown on television conversing with the American-born TikTok personality IShowSpeed, who was informed that Seyi is Nigeria’s First Son because he is the son of the current President. Amusingly, the American social media influencer jokingly asked Seyi to persuade his father to give him a Nigerian passport.
Perhaps this request was informed by the perception in parts of the Western world that African political leaders wield enormous powers and often act without due regard for due process. That may explain why the influencer jokingly requested a Nigerian passport from Seyi.
But why are politicians who wield power in Nigeria unwilling to trust either public or private universities within the country to educate their children?
Ironically, the politician who owns Baze University in Abuja was also shown in the media celebrating the graduation of one of his children abroad, despite operating one of Nigeria’s most expensive private universities.
The simple reason governors and ministers send their children to schools abroad is that they have easy access to enormous financial resources. In Nigeria, winning elections and holding public office have come to be seen as tickets to unearned wealth, and sadly, this is what many politicians have made public office represent.
This reality becomes evident when we examine some of the cases filed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) against politicians who have fallen out of favour with the ruling party. We are repeatedly shown how some of these politicians amassed enormous wealth to our detriment while they were supposed to be serving the public.
Recently, the Federal High Court in Abuja ordered the permanent forfeiture of 48 properties linked to former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami (SAN), to the Federal Government.
Delivering judgment, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) had successfully established that the assets were reasonably suspected to have been acquired with proceeds of unlawful activities, while the respondents failed to provide satisfactory evidence of legitimate sources of income used to acquire them.
Among the forfeited assets are Rayhaan University and its facilities in Kebbi State, Rayhaan Radio, luxury hotels, residential buildings, commercial plazas, filling stations, warehouses, factories, large parcels of land, and several other high-value properties spread across Abuja, Kebbi, and Kano States.
The ruling followed an interim forfeiture order granted earlier this year, after which the EFCC invited interested parties to challenge the action. Although Malami and several associates contested the forfeiture, the court ruled that they failed to discharge the legal burden required to overturn the Commission’s case.
The judgment marks one of the most significant non-conviction asset forfeiture decisions secured by the EFCC in recent times.
The disturbing reality is that politicians holding public office often use their positions to corner enormous privileges for themselves, and their proximity to unmerited wealth is unmistakable.
They train their children in European and American schools and then splash photographs of their children’s graduations before us, almost as if to ask, “What can you do about it?”
We are, therefore, trapped in a Catch-22 situation, where the very people responsible for destroying, undermining, and destabilising not only our educational system but also the nation’s broader social and strategic infrastructure send their children to some of the most expensive universities in the Western world while doing virtually nothing to repair the broken schools attended by millions of ordinary Nigerians.
This pathetic situation can only change if citizens resolve to transform the country’s political culture by refusing to be bribed into voting for the same politicians who continue to preside over the deterioration of Nigeria’s educational and governance systems.
From available data and the overwhelming weight of evidence, many ordinary Nigerians appear content to accept the crumbs that fall from politicians’ tables and then repeatedly vote them back into lucrative political offices—not to serve the people but to continue enriching themselves at the public’s expense.
Unfortunately, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has yet to undertake sustained public enlightenment campaigns against vote-buying. Consequently, we may continue to witness these routine media displays of politicians proudly celebrating the foreign university graduations of their children.
Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the Founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
Opinion
Zamfara Bleeds Again: HURIWA Urges President Tinubu to Declare a State of Emergency and Restore Constitutional Order
Zamfara Bleeds Again: HURIWA Urges President Tinubu to Declare a State of Emergency and Restore Constitutional Order
By George Mgbeleke
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) is deeply outraged by the latest massacre of at least 23 innocent farmers in Sauna/Ruwan Gora community of Talata Mafara Local Government Area of Zamfara State. This latest atrocity is yet another grim reminder that Zamfara has become a vast killing field where terrorists exercise authority with near impunity while innocent citizens continue to pay the ultimate price.
HURIWA in a statement signed by its National Cordinator,Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko extends its heartfelt condolences to the bereaved families and stands in solidarity with the people of Zamfara who have endured years of relentless killings, kidnappings, village burnings, displacement and destruction of livelihoods.
This latest massacre is not an isolated incident. It is part of a sustained campaign of terror that has persisted for over a decade despite repeated military operations and enormous public expenditure on security.
According to recent assessments by Amnesty International, hundreds of people have been killed in Zamfara within the last two years alone, while hundreds more have been abducted. The organisation further reported that since the onset of the security crisis, hundreds of communities have been sacked and vast areas across 13 local government areas remain under the influence or control of armed bandits, creating one of Nigeria’s gravest humanitarian emergencies.
Independent conflict monitoring by ACLED, as referenced by the European Union Agency for Asylum, recorded about 760 violent security incidents in Zamfara between January 2024 and August 2025, resulting in approximately 2,806 fatalities. The report described Zamfara as one of Nigeria’s most dangerous states, with violence affecting every local government area.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) also continues to document repeated mass displacements across the state. In one incident in June 2026 alone, attacks in Gummi Local Government Area displaced nearly 8,800 residents, illustrating the devastating humanitarian consequences of the continuing violence.
These statistics paint a disturbing picture of a state where constitutional governance is steadily giving way to the authority of armed criminal groups.
HURIWA is therefore compelled to ask: how many more innocent Nigerians must die before extraordinary constitutional measures are considered?
The association believes that the deteriorating security situation in Zamfara now meets the threshold of a grave emergency requiring decisive federal intervention.
Accordingly, HURIWA calls on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to invoke the relevant constitutional provisions for the declaration of a state of emergency in Zamfara State, just as extraordinary constitutional measures were taken in Rivers State under a different set of circumstances. If constitutional institutions can be suspended to address political instability, it would be difficult to justify withholding similar intervention where thousands of lives have been threatened by sustained terrorist violence.
HURIWA therefore urges the President to consider measures that would allow the Federal Government to take direct control of security coordination in the state for a defined period, strengthen military and intelligence operations, restore civil authority in occupied communities and protect the fundamental rights to life and security guaranteed under the Constitution.
The association stresses that any constitutional measures adopted must strictly comply with the provisions of the Constitution, remain temporary, be subject to legislative oversight and focus primarily on restoring public safety and democratic governance.
HURIWA further notes with concern that notorious bandit kingpin Bello Turji rose to prominence partly because previous attempts at negotiating peace with armed groups created opportunities for several criminal leaders to consolidate influence, regroup and expand their operational networks instead of laying down their arms permanently. Security experts have repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of those initiatives, arguing that while intended to reduce violence, they often enabled some criminal groups to rearm and strengthen their hold over vulnerable communities.
The latest massacre demonstrates that piecemeal responses have failed. Zamfara requires sustained military pressure, improved intelligence gathering, effective border surveillance, prosecution of terror financiers, protection of farming communities, humanitarian support for displaced persons and the complete restoration of lawful government authority throughout the state.
The Federal Government must equally investigate every allegation of official collaboration with criminal networks and ensure that any public officer found aiding or protecting terrorists faces the full weight of the law.
Nigeria cannot continue to normalise the mass slaughter of its citizens.
History will judge today’s leaders not by the number of condolences they issue after every massacre, but by the courage and effectiveness of the actions they take to stop the bloodshed.
The time for half measures has passed. Zamfara deserves peace. Nigerians deserve security. The Constitution demands no less.
Opinion
Why ‘They’ Hate General Christopher Musa
By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
The Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (rtd.), made the front pages of major newspapers on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, after becoming the target of agents of misinformation and disinformation who spread the false rumour that he had tendered his resignation to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
Those who fabricated the story circulated a message in the Hausa language, which they falsely attributed to the Minister, across various social media platforms. The Minister, who had the good fortune of moving from the prestigious office of Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff—the highest-ranking serving Army General in the country—to the equally significant position of Minister of Defence upon his retirement, could not understand how, when, or to whom he had supposedly communicated his “resignation.” An individual using a name and profile photograph circulated the Hausa-language message claiming that the Minister of Defence had confirmed his resignation.
The Minister dismissed the report as nothing more than a fabricated tale. Indeed, many Nigerians who saw the story did not take it seriously, as social media is often awash with unverified reports, misinformation, and outright falsehoods that are later corrected when those concerned issue official denials or report such content to the relevant platforms.
Fundamentally, many Nigerians believe it is rare for public office holders to voluntarily resign from highly paid political appointments. In the public perception, most office holders leave only when removed by the appointing authority. Consequently, few people believed the original story. When General Musa publicly debunked the rumour, Nigerians were therefore not surprised. While the public may have dismissed the report, the Minister himself expressed shock and wondered why anyone would wish him to abandon such an important office, which had been entrusted to him by President Bola Tinubu.
As expected, the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa (rtd.), said on Tuesday that he was “shocked” by reports of his supposed resignation and vowed to take legal action against those responsible for spreading the false information.
General Musa said he had no idea where the rumours originated. Responding to questions after a closed-door meeting with President Bola Tinubu at the Presidential Villa in Abuja, the former Chief of Defence Staff said:
“I am not going anywhere. I have never discussed this. I don’t even know who the person is that brought that information. But whoever it is, we will take legal action against them.”
The Minister denied ever discussing resignation and said the reports were the handiwork of people uncomfortable with the administration’s improving security record.
“Whoever it is, we will take legal action against them. I am sure we will get them. He will come and explain who gave him such information.”
Musa described the rumours as a deliberate attempt to undermine public confidence in the administration’s security gains.
“We are surprised. I was shocked when I saw that. I don’t know where that came from.
“But you always expect that there will be people who will not be happy when things are going well. Security is improving, things are getting better, and for them, that is a sad development. They always want to make it look as if it is not so.”
He added that his private meeting with the President was a routine security briefing and that President Tinubu had expressed satisfaction with the military’s performance.
According to him:
“I just came back from briefing Mr President on the current security situation, and he is very happy with us. We are going to continue doing well.”
I believe General Musa has chosen not to speculate publicly about those behind the rumour. At the very time the false report was circulating, he had reportedly travelled to China on official duty. Likewise, the Minister of State for Defence was reportedly on an official trip to Turkey on matters relating to Nigeria’s national security.
In my view, there are two possible groups that may have been behind the rumour that General Musa had resigned.
First, General Musa’s appointment came as a surprise to many observers. He was not known as a card-carrying member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) before President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appointed him, reportedly on the basis of merit, competence, and his extensive military experience.
One group that may continue to oppose General Musa consists of hardliners within the APC who regard him as an outsider occupying a position they believed should have gone to one of their own within the party’s inner circle. It had been expected in some quarters that, after the departure of the former Minister of Defence, either another party loyalist or the Minister of State for Defence would be elevated to the position. That expectation was not realised, and some may therefore harbour resentment toward General Christopher Musa.
This is not intended to implicate the Minister of State for Defence. On the contrary, he appears to be a committed nationalist who, in my opinion, has no connection whatsoever with any alleged campaign against his colleague. He is himself reportedly facing political opposition from rivals in his home state who are unhappy with his close relationship with President Tinubu.
The second group, in my opinion, consists of hardline Islamists who were dissatisfied with the replacement of a Muslim minister by General Musa. Although Musa bears a common Muslim name and is from Northern Nigeria, he is a Christian. While he was born in Sokoto, one of the historic centres of Northern Nigeria, his religious identity and background distinguish him from those who may have expected the office to remain in Muslim hands.
According to this perspective, such religious hardliners may seek every opportunity to portray General Musa as ineffective or unsuccessful. Yet, despite being of Southern Kaduna origin, he continues to serve as Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
General Musa has also publicly advocated strong military action against Boko Haram, ISWAP, and other terrorist groups operating in Nigeria. It is therefore argued that extremist elements who oppose such measures would naturally view his leadership unfavourably.
Beyond religious and political considerations, there are also those within both political and military circles who are alleged to benefit from the persistence of insecurity in Nigeria. Such individuals, if they exist, would have little interest in seeing the Minister of Defence succeed in weakening terrorist networks through more aggressive military operations across the North-East, North-West, and North-Central regions.
As General Musa continues to monitor developments carefully—as the popular Nigerian expression goes, “there is nothing Musa no dey see for gate”—it is expected that the source of this latest episode of misinformation and disinformation may eventually be identified, allowing the law to take its course.
Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the Founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
-
Politics1 year agoGov Okpebholo moves to end Cultism *Threatens action against leading cult groups *Vows to demolish more cult houses in Edo State
-
Politics11 months agoASUU-NDU protest against FG loans, unpaid salaries,Non-Implementation of agreements …..says loans is generational slavery
-
Business & Economy11 months agoPC-NCG Issues Disclaimer on Purported Nigerian Coast Guard National Orientation Exercise In Anambra State
-
Entertainment2 years agoJubilation galore as Parishioners of CKC Kurudu celebrate their cultural heritage ….FG should exploit our Cultural heritage to unite Nigerians-Rev Fr Dim
-
Sports5 months agoBayelsa-born ex-football star’s son, Opuama donates spike shoes to Athletics Association
-
General News2 years agoReps hold public hearing on FMC Ugwuaji Awkunanaw
-
Law & Crime1 year agoLegal practitioner raises alarm over threat to his life by CSP Muhammed Abdulkareem
-
General News2 years agoCelebration galore as UDA Successfully Elected New Exco ……I will digitalize processes that will raise UDA to greater height -Comr. Okejiri
