In South Africa, African Traders Face Pressure Despite Their Citizenship

Xenophobia in South Africa is not always limited to the administrative status of the people targeted. The case of an entrepreneur of Ethiopian origin who owns a grocery store and identifies himself as a South African citizen illustrates deeper tensions surrounding national belonging, the right to work and local economic competition.

Having lived in the country for 26 years according to his own statements, the man says he has held South African documents since 2006. Yet during a confrontation over his business, his citizenship status reportedly did not put an end to demands that he close his establishment. In his view, the issue was therefore no longer simply irregular immigration, but his African origin and his place in the community.

A local shop at the centre of the conflict

Neighbourhood grocery stores are a business frequently run by African entrepreneurs living in South Africa, particularly Ethiopians according to the account reported. These shops sell everyday goods, including bread, milk, sugar, butter, jam and other common food items. In some cases, they are located in working-class neighbourhoods.

In the case mentioned, several people reportedly approached the owner with a clear demand: close the shop or hand it over. The entrepreneur reportedly tried to show his documents and point out that he was a South African citizen, taxpayer and member of the local community. Some of those present reportedly dismissed these arguments, insisting on the future of the business rather than his personal status.

This incident raises an essential question: when a person has been naturalised and holds the country’s documents, can they still be treated as a foreigner because of their origins? The trader concerned believes that this is precisely what is happening to him.

Legal citizenship and a sense of belonging

The trader says that his experience demonstrates the possible gap between citizenship in administrative terms and social recognition on the ground. Despite his documents, he reportedly heard that he did not belong there and that the country belonged exclusively to people regarded as local.

He replies that the country is his as well. His argument is straightforward: he has lived there for decades, works there, pays taxes there and holds South African nationality. Nevertheless, some participants reportedly continued to describe him as a foreigner.

The disagreement is therefore not merely an administrative matter. It sets two views of belonging against each other. The first is based on citizenship, length of residence and economic activity. The second, as reflected in this incident, appears to rest on origin, language, appearance or birth in the country.

The issue of sectors reserved for South Africans

According to the reported information, certain local activities are said to be reserved for South Africans, including grocery retail, the sale of products such as tomatoes, and some salons. This rule was invoked in the context of the dispute over the shop.

But the owner challenges the idea that it can be used against him without taking his naturalisation into account. He asks why his right to operate a business is being questioned when he says he is legally South African. He also questions how other traders, particularly white traders, are treated: are they subject to the same demands regarding their nationality and right to work?

These questions are raised as a denunciation of unequal treatment. On their own, they do not establish the behaviour of the South African population as a whole. However, they show how checks or demands targeting foreigners may be perceived as selective when they appear to affect mainly certain African groups.

“Taking my business is killing me”: an expression of economic distress

During the exchange, the entrepreneur repeatedly uses the expression “killing me”. He does not use it to claim that an explicit death threat was made against him. Instead, he explains that losing his business after years of work would mean the destruction of his economic life.

For him, taking a shop away from someone who has invested time, money and effort amounts to depriving them of their livelihood. His interlocutors reportedly replied that nobody was talking about killing him and that the issue was solely the closure of the business. This difference reveals two opposing interpretations: on one side, a demand presented as commercial or community-based; on the other, dispossession experienced as a major attack on dignity and work already accomplished.

The man refuses to be intimidated. He stresses that all human beings have the same blood and calls for equal respect. His position is that his nationality, the length of time he has lived in the country and his work should be enough to guarantee his right to live and do business without being treated as an intruder.

The precedent of a Congolese woman’s hair salon

Another case is also reported: that of a Congolese woman who was allegedly asked to leave her hair salon so that a South African woman could work there. The business owner reportedly explained that she had invested $10,000 in her activity. She was offered 10,000 rand, presented as equivalent to around €600, to take over the business.

Believing that this offer was far below her investment, she reportedly refused. According to the account, she then chose to destroy her own salon rather than leave it to others along with her customers, equipment and the efforts she had made to develop it. The premises reportedly remained closed afterwards.

This second example, like that of the grocery store, highlights the weight of investments made by migrant or naturalised entrepreneurs. Behind a demand to leave, there can sometimes be years of work, funds invested and a customer base built gradually over time.

Police checks perceived as discriminatory

The account also describes experiences of road checks perceived as targeted. It is claimed that some police officers begin by addressing drivers in a local language, then use more familiar language in order to assess whether they are genuinely from the country. When a person does not sufficiently master the language or slang, their origin is reportedly questioned more closely.

In such situations, more thorough vehicle searches are sometimes reportedly carried out, according to the account. Those concerned feel that they are suspected because of their nationality or appearance, while residents regarded as local are less exposed to these practices. This is a reported perception, highlighting the lack of trust and sense of vulnerability felt by some African residents.

Not confusing irregular immigration with the rejection of Africans

Public debate can distinguish between controlling irregular immigration and rejecting foreigners. However, the reported cases point to a clear limit: when a naturalised, documented citizen who has lived in the country for a long time is still described as a foreigner, the argument of irregular status is no longer enough to explain the hostility.

The fight against irregular immigration should not be used to erase the rights of people who hold legal status or the country’s nationality. For the African entrepreneurs concerned, the issue also involves the security of their investments, their right to work and their recognition as full citizens.

FAQ

Why is this Ethiopian trader being challenged despite his citizenship?

He says he has been a South African citizen for many years, but some interlocutors still regard him as a foreigner and demand the closure of his grocery store.

Does the conflict concern only irregular immigration?

The account suggests that it does not. The trader argues that his documents and legal status are being ignored, fuelling his feeling that he is being targeted because of his origins.

What is at stake for local African-owned businesses?

These activities represent investments, jobs and years of work. Pressure to close or take over such businesses can result in considerable financial losses for their owners.