Afrophobia and South Africa’s role in the protection of Human Rights Defenders in Africa

Published: 17 August 2026

Author: Dr Sehlule Sibanda, Postdoc Research Fellow, African Universities Hub for Human Rights

Introduction 

The emergence of populist anti-migrant politicians who weaponise migrants as a campaign strategy, and mobilisation by movements such as Operation Dudula and March and March, threatens to diminish South Africa’s image and position as a sanctuary country for African human rights defenders (HRDs) at risk. The history of violence against African migrants dates back to the late 1990s, and the country has witnessed an escalation in these attacks since 2008. The current widespread protests and incidents of violence against ‘illegal migrants’ mark a shift from sporadic attacks to sustained anti-migrant mobilisation, as some of the movements threaten to conduct protests for the next six months. This anti-migrant mobilisation raises the question of whether the country can retain its status as a sanctuary for the persecuted, particularly HRDs whose safety is highly dependent on relocation when faced with persecution and other risks in their countries. 

This article argues that rising Afrophobia is eroding South Africa’s constitutional values and shrinking the democratic space needed to protect human rights defenders. 

From Sanctuary to Hostility 

South Africa’s constitutional values placed the country in a strong moral position on the continent. Benefiting from international solidarity during its struggle against apartheid, SA embraced ideals of multilateralism, human rights and African solidarity. Having been a pariah state for too long following sanctions imposed on the apartheid regime, the country sought to position itself firmly within the African continent. Domestically, this was facilitated by rights-based policies and the idea of the ‘Rainbow Nation’, coined by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to symbolise racial and ethnic diversity in South Africa. Although the idea of the Rainbow Nation was not initially intended as a strategy for immigrant integration, but rather as part of the nation-building process following the demise of the apartheid regime, it is grounded in principles of equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. These ideals are enshrined in the Constitution, which guarantees the protections of the Bill of Rights to all people within the country’s borders, regardless of nationality. 

SA’s international legal commitments complement the country’s constitutional commitments. SA is a signatory to a range of international legal obligations relating to the protection of migrants. These include the Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951) and its Protocol (1967); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). Through these international laws, SA is required to protect refugees and asylum seekers from any form of persecution or refoulement, to provide access to fair asylum procedures, not to discriminate on the grounds of race, nationality, or ethnicity, and to guarantee equality before the law. This positions the country as a potential place for individuals fleeing persecution and potential risk, including HRDs. 

Despite SA’s obligations under international law and the protection provided to foreign nationals constitutionally and under progressive laws protecting the rights of foreign nationals, sometimes these laws are not properly implemented, leaving foreign nationals vulnerable and unable to enjoy their rights. This has been evident in the ill-treatment of migrants by government institutions such as the Department of Home Affairs and public hospitals, as well as by security personnel such as the police. These issues are well documented by human rights organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Scalabrini, and the Helen Suzman Foundation, some of which have successfully challenged departments such as the Department of Home Affairs in court for unfair practices. 

The failure to uphold these legal protections has occurred alongside persistent violence against African migrants. As reported by Xenowatch, between 1994 and 6 July 2026, post-apartheid South Africa recorded 1343 violent ‘Afrophobic’ incidents, resulting in 703 deaths. While these acts are labelled as xenophobic attacks by Xenowatch, this piece has used the term Afrophobia because these acts have largely targeted black African migrants and not foreigners in general. Afrophobia is a form of prejudice and hatred towards African migrants. The persistence of such violence raises important questions about SA’s ability to uphold its constitutional and international obligations. 

Political mobilisation has further intensified the hostile environment. Anti-migrant movements and populist politicians that have emerged in recent years are increasingly weaponising migrants for political gain. While anti-migrant movements exercise their rights to participate and enjoy freedom of speech and protest, court rulings have made it clear that these rights cannot be invoked when one engages in acts that violate others’ constitutional rights, eg., in the case of Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia and Others v Operation Dudula and Others (2025). The use of derogatory labels such as “Kwere Kwere” and “Gweja”, along with intimidation of African migrants and forcibly removing them from health care facilities and workplaces, dehumanises them and violates their constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and access to health care. Consequently, ‘Afrophobia’ continues to plague South Africa, and the current mass protests against perceived ‘illegal migration’ have fuelled fear, anxiety, and suspicion among African migrants in the country. 

South Africa faces severe socioeconomic challenges, including an escalating economic crisis. As of the first quarter of 2026, the unemployment rate stood at 32.7%, and youth unemployment at a staggering 45.8%. Therefore, citizens’ economic concerns and struggles are justified and understandable. However, scapegoating migrants for all social ills in the country is problematic. Unfortunately, this has become a trend in SA, where prevailing political rhetoric and discourse portray migrants, particularly those of African origin, as threats to job security, healthcare, housing and other social services. Yet there is limited empirical evidence supporting these claims. This scapegoating has led to the victimisation, abuse, threats, and even the killing of migrants, as illustrated by the attacks in Mossel Bay in the Western Cape at the beginning of June this year. 

Despite attacks and victimisation of African migrants, government officials, particularly the President, and anti-migrant movements dispute that South Africans are Afrophobic. As a result, there has been no sustainable solution to the crisis. As the current protests continue in various parts of the country, thousands of migrants continue to be attacked and displaced as protesters move door to door, removing them from their homes. This tarnishes the country’s image and contradicts its commitment to African solidarity and its moral standing on the continent and globally. The hostile environment resulting from Afrophobia extends beyond migration and may have implications for HRD protection in the country. 

What does this hostility imply for HRDs’ vulnerability? 

South Africa is central to regional protection systems for HRDs. Not only does its Constitution guarantee freedom of expression, association, and assembly, but it is also a leading destination for HRDs fleeing persecution in their countries. Several mechanisms and actors are involved in protecting HRDs in South Africa. The Constitution, the independent judiciary, and the refugee protection regime serve as the legal foundation for relocation and temporary sanctuary. In addition, there are other forms of protection provided by universities, such as the University of the Western Cape, civil society organisations (CSOs), and international partners. These actors have established various protection programmes for HRDs. South Africa’s stable political environment, strong institutions, and broad and vibrant civil society offer democratic elements absent in many African countries. HRDs, including opposition figures, LGBTQ+ activists, journalists, student activists, and scholar activists, from countries such as Swaziland, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Cameroon and Tanzania have sought refuge in the country for decades. 

However, the recent emergence of populist politicians weaponising migrants and anti-migrant movements may reverse and hinder what institutions have achieved. HRDs arriving in the country encounter the same victimisation as any other migrant from the African continent. HRDs are also not exempt from challenges such as cumbersome documentation processes, limited access to social services, and other forms of hostility that reproduce the risks they may be fleeing. This insecurity is exacerbated by the fact that in South Africa there have been cases of the killing of numerous South African HRDs in recent years, particularly those advocating for environmental rights and LGBTQ+ rights, and working against corruption. Thus, the current situation in the country worsens the vulnerability of visiting grassroots HRDs. A case in point is that of a Ghanaian political activist, Sabato, whom anti-migrant groups and the police allegedly attacked. While this may be a case of mistaken identity, it amplifies the vulnerabilities of HRDs in South Africa in the current climate. The recurring Afrophobia thus creates a hostile environment, compromising the future of HRD relocation and protection programmes in the country that are a lifeline for HRDs at risk. 

The implications for SA’s global position 

As a country that prides itself on being a global leader in promoting human rights, as demonstrated by its recent Gaza genocide case against Israel presented to the International Criminal Court (ICC), SA’s growing hostility towards African migrants threatens to diminish this position. In addition, amid contested democracy and shrinking civic space, where hybrid and authoritarian regimes are on the rise, particularly in Africa, SA’s democratic backsliding may have implications for the continent’s HRD protection mechanisms. HRD Protection mechanisms such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and the Focal Point on Reprisals in Africa, and State Reporting under the African Charter are heavily dependent on member states’ commitment to protecting civil society and vulnerable individuals. As such, democratic backsliding may not only reduce protection options for HRDs locally but also diminish SA’s moral standing, authority, and credibility as a human rights advocate globally. 

The SA Constitution and democratic institutions remain among the strongest in most African countries. However, constitutions themselves are not guarantors of rights; rather, it is the quality of political leadership, institutions, and the population’s respect for constitutional values. If Afrophobia persists, South Africa could suffer far more than reputational damage. This will harm not only migrants but also the large number of human rights activists whose work depends on South Africa as a safe sanctuary to retreat to when facing danger. In times of shrinking civic space across most of the continent, any failure to preserve its commitment to protecting those who are persecuted is one more door closing on defenders. This is why the cost of such failure would be felt beyond South Africa, affecting human rights protection in the region, as well as Africa’s unity and its commitment to democracy and human dignity. The issue is no longer whether South Africa can afford to protect vulnerable groups, but whether Africa and the international community can afford to watch South Africa ‘abandon’ the constitutional values which have always made it stand out from other countries as a beacon of human rights, democracy, and asylum for persecuted individuals. This is especially so given the reality of a shrinking civic space in the rest of Africa.