Ghana has turned down a substantially larger, broad-based financial offer from MTN to help citizens returning from xenophobic attacks in South Africa, in a striking contrast with Nigeria, which accepted a more targeted package of free SIM cards, data and cash for individual returnees.
MTN Ghana offered GH¢20 million (about $1.7m) for affected Ghanaians, but Accra said it had already secured funding for evacuation and reintegration and would shoulder the cost itself.
In Nigeria, MTN provided free SIM packs and data worth ₦50,000 for each returnee, alongside a pledged ₦100,000 cash payment, which Nigerian authorities incorporated into the wider support programme.
The difference is significant because the two interventions carried different forms of weight. Ghana’s offer was vastly larger in headline financial terms, but Nigeria’s was more directly tied to individual returnees and their immediate needs. Ghana had already evacuated more than 1,000 citizens and introduced its own reintegration measures, including emergency assistance and grants, while Nigeria’s government ultimately evacuated 1,490 Nigerians in five phases, with additional returns subsequently taking place. Ghana’s rejection therefore appears less a judgement on the value of MTN’s offer than a deliberate assertion that the state should remain financially responsible for citizens displaced by a crisis abroad.
For Nigeria, the decision to accept MTN’s assistance was also politically pragmatic. The Federal Government has led the evacuation and repeatedly condemned attacks on Nigerians, while warning that continued violence could force it to consider further measures against South Africa. President Bola Tinubu has called for a united African response to the attacks, while Abuja has insisted that South Africa has a responsibility to protect Nigerian nationals living legally in the country. Accepting MTN’s support did not mean surrendering that diplomatic position; rather, it allowed a company with substantial operations and Nigerian stakeholders to supplement government assistance at a moment when returnees needed practical help.
That distinction has mattered because MTN itself became part of Nigeria’s xenophobia debate. Some Nigerian lawmakers called for tougher economic measures against South African companies, with proposals to nationalise or revoke the licences of MTN and DStv and use their proceeds to compensate Nigerians who suffered losses. But the Senate subsequently rejected the proposal to nationalise South African companies and use their proceeds for compensation. MTN’s assistance to returnees consequently gives the company a stronger case for arguing that its Nigerian operation should not simply be treated as an extension of the South African state.
Yet the Nigerian acceptance should not be mistaken for a resolution of the deeper problem. A SIM card, data bundle and ₦100,000 cannot replace a destroyed business, lost property or a livelihood abandoned because of fear. Nigeria has already brought home 1,490 citizens through its main evacuation programme, while Ghana has continued its own repatriation effort. The central test for Abuja now is whether diplomatic pressure on Pretoria will produce prosecutions, credible protection for Nigerians who remain in South Africa and a meaningful mechanism for addressing the losses suffered by those forced to return.
Ultimately, Ghana’s rejection carries the greater political and symbolic weight, while Nigeria’s acceptance demonstrates the greater emphasis on immediate, individual assistance. Accra is saying that the government can and will finance the welfare of its citizens; Abuja has chosen to combine state responsibility with corporate support. For Nigerian readers, the lesson is less about choosing between MTN and the government than about demanding both: companies should provide meaningful help when their customers and communities are caught in a crisis, but corporate generosity must never substitute for the South African government’s duty to protect Nigerians—or for the Nigerian government’s duty to secure justice and lasting protection for its citizens abroad.