Xenophobia in Africa cannot be reduced to a single country, according to the perspective developed in this video. Its aim is to recall several episodes of expulsions, stigmatization or violence targeting foreign populations, or people simply perceived as foreign, in different African states.
The video begins in particular with criticism directed at South Africa over acts of violence and rejection toward migrants. It does not downplay the unacceptable nature of these acts, but raises a broader question: have other African countries also experienced policies or movements directed against communities from elsewhere?
The examples cited mainly concern Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya. They are presented as distinct situations linked to specific economic, political and security contexts.
Ghana and Nigeria: a series of expulsions
The first case discussed concerns relations between Ghana and Nigeria. The video explains that between the 1950s and 1960s, Ghana was experiencing a period of economic prosperity. Workers from several West African countries went there to seek employment, particularly in activities related to cocoa, mining and gold.
In this context, the Nigerian presence in Ghana is said to have grown significantly. The video states that it rose from around 57,000 people in 1950 to 160,000 in 1963. These arrivals are associated with the existence of economic opportunities in the country.
In 1969, according to the account presented, Ghanaian political leaders attributed part of the employment difficulties to the presence of foreign workers, particularly Nigerians. The video highlights the role such rhetoric can play in an electoral context: it can portray immigrants as responsible for the lack of opportunities for citizens.
The consequence mentioned is the departure of around one million people from Ghana to Nigeria. The video presents this episode as an expulsion or forced departure of Nigerians and other foreigners, against a backdrop of economic and political tensions.
The reversal in Nigeria
A few years later, the dynamic was reversed. The video indicates that Nigeria was then experiencing economic growth linked to the discovery of oil. Africans from different countries, including many Ghanaians, moved there to work.
It explains that some held jobs neglected or considered unattractive by part of the local population, including gardening, car washing and carpentry. But Nigeria’s economic situation later deteriorated, according to the video.
In 1983, Nigerian authorities reportedly ordered the departure of a very large number of foreign or undocumented people. The video refers to up to two million Africans expelled, the majority of them Ghanaians, while also mentioning the figure of one million people driven out of the country during that period.
The departure of the Ghanaians left a lasting expression in the collective memory: “Ghana Must Go.” The video links this name to the large bags used by many expelled people to carry their belongings on their return. It also states that violence accompanied these events and that some people reportedly died.
The Ghana-Nigeria example is used to show that rhetoric and measures rejecting foreigners can spread from one country to another, sometimes during periods when the economy deteriorates and migrants become scapegoats.
Uganda: the expulsion of Asians under Idi Amin Dada
The video then addresses the case of Uganda in 1972, under the presidency of Idi Amin Dada. He reportedly gave Indian and Pakistani populations 90 days to leave the country.
The account recalls that Indian workers had arrived during the colonial era, particularly as part of the construction of a railway line linking Mombasa, Kenya, to Kampala, the Ugandan capital. After independence, some reportedly returned to India or the United Kingdom, while others remained in Kenya and Uganda.
According to the video, the Asian communities that remained in Uganda owned businesses, shops, restaurants and their own living areas. President Idi Amin Dada accused them in particular of forming a separate community and transferring capital out of the country, to India or Great Britain.
The expulsion decision is presented as a desire to regain control of the national economy. Businesses formerly owned by Asians were then reportedly handed over to Ugandans. However, the video states that this takeover took place without sufficient preparation and that many activities ultimately failed.
This section highlights an essential distinction: rhetoric about economic independence or national sovereignty can be accompanied by decisions targeting entire groups on the basis of their origin. In the video’s account, this is precisely what makes this episode relevant to a discussion of xenophobia.
Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya: national identity and collective suspicion
Côte d’Ivoire is briefly mentioned through the notion of “Ivoirité.” In the video, it is summarized as the idea of giving priority to Ivorians over other people. The topic is not developed further, but it is included in the list of African debates in which national belonging can become a criterion for distinction or exclusion.
Kenya is also mentioned in connection with tensions targeting Somali populations. The video stresses one point: not all Somali people present in Kenya are necessarily Somali nationals. Some are Kenyan, born in the country, with ancestors established in these territories before the current borders were drawn.
According to the testimony and images reported in the video, Somalis or people identified as such were reportedly targeted, threatened, beaten or arbitrarily arrested. This stigmatization is linked to security issues following an attack at a shopping mall in Kenya attributed to members of Al-Shabaab, described in the video as Somali.
The risk highlighted is that of conflation: being Somali, or being perceived as Somali, can be enough to become suspicious in the eyes of some people. The video thus recalls that a real or presumed origin can expose even citizens themselves to discriminatory treatment.
A question linked to crises and opportunities
The video’s conclusion does not present xenophobia as exclusively South African. On the contrary, it argues that several African countries have experienced practices or rhetoric hostile toward foreigners over time.
The author puts forward an economic interpretation: when opportunities decline or a country’s situation worsens, some people may accuse migrants of taking jobs, resources or opportunities for social advancement. This idea is framed as a question rather than an established rule for all countries or all situations.
The episodes discussed above mainly show that issues of migration, nationality, security and access to work can become sources of tension. They invite us to avoid generalizations targeting entire communities, whether they are foreign, long-settled immigrants or citizens of the country who are associated with an external origin.
FAQ
Which countries are cited in the video about xenophobia in Africa?
The video mainly discusses Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Côte d’Ivoire and Kenya. South Africa is also mentioned as the starting point of the debate.
What does the expression “Ghana Must Go” mean?
In the video, this expression is linked to the expulsion of Ghanaians from Nigeria in 1983. It also refers to the large bags used by many expelled people to carry their belongings when they left.
Why are Somali populations mentioned in the Kenyan case?
The video explains that Somali people, including Kenyans of Somali origin, may have been associated with security threats and targeted following an attack attributed to Al-Shabaab.
Video source: “HERE IS THE LIST OF XENOPHOBIC COUNTRIES IN AFRICA” on YouTube.
