Will South African xenophobia derail the drive for continental unity?

In June, at a London conference, government officials, investors, and business leaders praised the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) as the world's largest free trade area, encompassing over 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP of over $3.4 trillion. An initiative called Invest Durban proposed transforming the city into a bustling hub of finance, tourism, and skyscrapers, all fueled by the same AfCFTA market.

However, the streets of Durban were witnessing a different narrative. Foreign black Africans were being confronted with anti-migration activists and ordered to return home, with a deadline looming on June 30. Nkosikhona Ndabandaba, an anti-migrant activist, expressed a vision where foreign AfCFTA workers could reside and labor, while indigenous South Africans would reap the financial benefits akin to their Gulf counterparts.

Both Ndabandaba and the Invest Durban idea presented the same economic model but envisioned different beneficiaries: globally mobile investors in London versus indigenous citizens in Durban. The conversation overlooked the 1.3 billion ordinary AfCFTA participants - traders, builders, nurses, engineers, and entrepreneurs - whose mobility would ultimately decide the success or failure of AfCFTA.

This raises a deeper contradiction in contemporary Pan-Africanism: while global investors receive incentives, fellow Africans often face suspicion, bureaucracy, or violence. This situation highlights a glaring gap in Pan-African ethics – while political leaders promote unity and continental institutions advocate integration, social media fuels national rivalries, digital hostility, and ethnic chauvinism.

Simultaneously, economic hardships are directed towards mobile Africans. The African Union acknowledges the diaspora as Africa's Sixth Region, yet social tensions are escalating amid xenophobia. As the continent assembles a continental market, African interpersonal relations seem to be deteriorating, creating a toxic pan-African space.

The disintegration of post-independence political settlements and colonial borders has led to renewed loyalty to older political communities, ethnic nations, kingdoms, language areas, and historic civilisations. While recovering these histories is not undesirable, the danger lies in cultural identity becoming political exclusion, determining who belongs, who deserves opportunity, and who is deemed an outsider.

The shift from anti-colonial solidarity to post-independence competition has further exacerbated these tensions. Africa needs a shared ethical framework alongside mobility. African hosts have traditionally offered hospitality, but this comes with reciprocal expectations, not permanent entitlement. Similarly, visitors must respect the law, contribute to society, honor local customs, and recognize that hospitality depends on mutual obligation.

These are not merely immigration issues; they are civilizational questions. The AfCFTA's greatest weakness lies in its moral foundation. It aims to create a single African market before establishing a single African moral community. While treaties can establish markets, trust requires a shared ethic of reciprocity, hospitality, mutual obligation, and respect.

Without developing this ethical foundation alongside economic integration, Africa risks a common market where capital moves freely, but Africans remain divided by fear, resentment, and periodic violence.