In South Africa, Naturalised Shopkeepers Face Pressure to Close Their Businesses

Xenophobia in South Africa is also described through very tangible conflicts: access to a shop, the ability to work, recognition of an identity document, or the right to remain in a neighbourhood where one has lived for many years. Shopkeepers from other African countries, including those who hold South African citizenship, report facing pressure intended to force them to close their businesses.

These situations raise a central question: what does citizenship actually protect when a person continues to be seen as foreign because of their origin? The accounts discussed highlight entrepreneurs who have invested in small local businesses and who face demands to close, intimidation or challenges to their presence.

A shop challenged despite citizenship

The case of an Ethiopian shopkeeper illustrates this tension. Having lived in South Africa for 26 years, he says he has held South African documents since 2006. When confronted by a group that came to discuss his grocery shop, he seeks to assert his status as a citizen, his belonging to the local community and the fact that he pays taxes in the country.

In the reported exchange, these factors do not appear to end the conflict. The people involved focus on the shop and demand that it close. The shopkeeper understands this move as an attempt to take control of his business, his stock and the customer base he has built over the years.

His insistence on his documents reveals a broader difficulty: having an administrative status does not necessarily guarantee social recognition. A person may be naturalised, work legally and have lived in a neighbourhood for a long time, while still being reduced to their foreign origin.

The debate over foreigners and commercial activity

Small businesses are at the centre of many reported tensions. Ethiopians are notably present in neighbourhood grocery shops, where they sell everyday goods such as bread, milk, sugar, butter and jam. These businesses provide an income, but they can also become targets when their success is seen as competition.

Some narratives portray these conflicts as opposition to irregular immigration. Yet the situations described also involve people holding South African documents. This gap fuels the accusation that the issue is not limited to compliance with immigration rules, but more broadly affects Black Africans who have come from other countries on the continent.

However, it is important to distinguish between individual behaviour, groups involved in certain incidents and the South African population as a whole. Accounts of pressure and hostility do not justify attributing the same attitude to every resident of a country. They do, however, show that people may encounter forms of rejection in certain local settings.

“This is our country”: citizenship called into question

In the reported conflict, the shopkeeper states that South Africa is also his country because he is a citizen. This claim is challenged by people who continue to describe him as a foreigner. The phrase “this is our country” then becomes a tool of exclusion: it no longer concerns only the legality of a business, but the very legitimacy of its owner to live and work there.

The shopkeeper expresses the feeling that losing his business would mean losing the work and investments of a large part of his life. For him, the threat is not limited to the closure of premises. It affects his economic security, his dignity and his ability to continue supporting himself.

The exchanges are marked by a profound lack of understanding. On one side, the owner points to how long he has been there, his documents and his business. On the other, the demand for closure appears to take precedence over those arguments. Reference to South African nationality therefore does not seem sufficient to defuse the dispute.

The precedent of a Congolese-owned hair salon

Another reported case concerns a Congolese woman who owned a hair salon. She is said to have invested around $10,000 in the establishment. People allegedly asked her to leave so that a South African woman could work there instead.

According to this account, she was offered compensation of 10,000 rand to give up the salon, an amount presented as equivalent to around €600. The shopkeeper is said to have refused, believing that the offer did not match the money invested in the business. She then reportedly destroyed her own salon rather than leave it to those who wanted to take possession of it.

The establishment reportedly remained closed afterwards. This account highlights the asset-related dimension of these conflicts: behind a business are savings that have been invested, a customer base, equipment, expertise and sometimes several years of work. Asking someone to leave without addressing their investments ignores this economic reality.

Police checks perceived as discriminatory

The reported tensions do not concern businesses alone. Testimonies also refer to roadside checks in which a driver’s presumed origin may influence how the intervention unfolds. In these accounts, police officers are said to begin by addressing motorists in a local language in order to assess their familiarity with it.

When a person does not respond like a local resident or is assumed to be of foreign origin, they say they may face more questions, a more thorough vehicle inspection or a search for irregularities. These experiences are presented as a constant reminder that, for some people, possessing documents is not enough to be treated as fully belonging to the country.

These testimonies describe a sense of vulnerability. On their own, they do not make it possible to characterise all police checks or conclude that there is a uniform practice. They nevertheless show why equal treatment is essential for naturalised citizens and residents from other African countries.

Protecting work, investments and dignity

The reported cases are a reminder that xenophobia can take economic as well as verbal forms. It may be expressed through pressure on a business owner, challenges to their documents, an attempt to take over a profitable activity or differential treatment during a police check.

In this context, the issue is not solely about immigration or neighbourhood commerce. It also concerns respect for citizenship, the protection of investments and the safety of people who have built their lives in South Africa. When an individual is legally a citizen, the debate over their right to work should not be reduced to their country of origin.

Frequently asked questions about xenophobia in South Africa

Can a naturalised person still be considered a foreigner?

In the reported situations, yes. People with South African documents say they continue to be described as foreigners because of their origin, accent or background.

Why are small businesses at the heart of these tensions?

Grocery shops and hair salons are visible activities involving investments, stock and a customer base. Their success can generate rivalries and become a pretext for demands that they close or be replaced.

Do these conflicts concern only undocumented people?

The accounts discussed include people who say they hold South African documents or have been naturalised. They therefore suggest that the rejection described does not exclusively target people without legal status.