Congolese Woman Says She Was Forced Out of Her Salon in South Africa

A Congolese entrepreneur named Nadine says she was forced to face pressure targeting her hair salon in South Africa. Contrary to information initially reported, she states that she is not Mozambican but a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), originally from South Kivu.

According to her account, several people came to her establishment and asked her to make way for South African owners. Nadine says she refused to hand over the keys to her business without compensation for the investments she had made. She says she ultimately preferred to destroy the salon’s installations herself rather than abandon them.

A hair salon built through personal investment

Nadine explains that she personally invested in fitting out her salon. She mentions equipment, mirrors, furniture, and all the installations needed for the business. She estimates that she spent more than 120,000 rand to create and equip the business, an amount she says represented around $7,000.

Her business was therefore not simply based in rented premises: she had installed her equipment there, developed her work, and employed people. She also says she had paid the rent for the premises shortly before the events, amounting to 12,000 rand according to her statements.

This situation is at the heart of her refusal. For her, handing over the keys without acknowledgment of what had been invested would have meant losing her business, her equipment, and the effort devoted to her work.

Requests to leave attributed to people who came to the salon

According to Nadine, people first came on a Friday to ask who owned the salon. After identifying herself as the person in charge of the establishment, she says she was told that foreigners would no longer be allowed to own this type of business in the area concerned.

She reports that these people announced the arrival of new South African owners. A few days later, they allegedly returned while the salon was already serving clients, demanding the keys and asking for access to the premises.

In her account, Nadine says she was questioned about her status. She states that she replied that she was not an illegal asylum seeker and that she came from the DRC. This clarification is important because it distinguishes her own situation from the issue of people with irregular immigration status, which is often raised in debates concerning foreigners in South Africa.

She nevertheless maintains that, on the ground, certain actions or pressures can target foreign entrepreneurs beyond the sole question of administrative status. This assessment reflects her experience and her interpretation of the events she says she went through.

Negotiations over compensation

A woman presented as a potential successor to the salon was reportedly brought to the site. Nadine says she suggested discussing directly, woman to woman, a price that could allow the business and its equipment to be transferred.

She says she initially mentioned the 120,000 rand she had invested, then indicated that she could accept 50,000 rand. According to her account, that amount would have allowed her to transfer the installations and equipment, while even making it easier to continue the business with the employees already in place.

Nadine says she also considered continuing to work there after the takeover, but claims that a man present rejected that possibility. According to her, he did not merely want a change of ownership: he allegedly demanded that she stop working in the salon herself.

The person who was meant to take over the establishment then reportedly said that she needed to consult the man who had accompanied her, apparently unaware, according to Nadine, that financial compensation would be requested.

An offer of 10,000 rand considered insufficient

Nadine reports that she was then offered no more than 10,000 rand. She considered it far below the value of her investments and the rent she says she had just paid.

She says she tried to lower her demands further, ultimately proposing 40,000 rand. However, she says the pressure continued and that those present refused any negotiation. She recounts being ordered to hand over the keys and leave the premises.

Her account also describes an attempt to place clients and employees under the authority of the prospective new owner. For her, such a situation was unacceptable because the furniture, tools, and installations had been financed through her own work.

The decision to destroy the installations before leaving

Faced with the deadlock, Nadine says she refused to hand over the salon in the condition in which she had built it. Material associated with her account shows an establishment that was heavily damaged and closed after her departure.

Her action prompted mixed reactions. Some see it as an expression of refusal to be stripped of an investment without a financial agreement. Others may question the exact circumstances, the responsibilities of the people involved, and the possible remedies that could have been considered.

One element remains central to the account: the salon was not taken over as a functioning business by the people who, according to Nadine, were supposed to work there. After the installations were destroyed and the premises closed, no workers were present there.

What this case raises

Nadine’s account highlights the vulnerability that foreign entrepreneurs may feel when facing pressure linked to their perceived or actual nationality, or to their immigration status. It also raises the question of the practical protection of investments made in small businesses.

The events described alone do not make it possible to establish the precise motives of all those involved. Nadine notably questions whether the aim was truly to replace a foreign entrepreneur with South African workers, or whether other motives were at play.

Above all, her account is a reminder that the issue is not limited to access to commercial premises. It also concerns safety, the right to work, recognition of investments, and the ability to defend one’s business against collective pressure.

FAQ

Who is Nadine?

Nadine describes herself as a Congolese entrepreneur from South Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She says she lives and works in South Africa.

Why was her hair salon destroyed?

According to her account, Nadine chose to destroy the installations in her salon after refusing to transfer them without compensation to people who were demanding that she leave the premises.

Does Nadine say she is in the country illegally?

No. In her account, she says she is not an illegal asylum seeker and states that she is from the DRC.