By Daniel Nii Okine – For Sankofaonline
When Julius Malema speaks, the world is conditioned to expect fire. He has built a brand on radicalism—on calling out injustice, colonial residue, and the violence of the powerful against the powerless. That is precisely why his recent comments on the evacuation of Ghanaians from South Africa are not just disappointing; they are dangerous, hypocritical, and morally hollow.
In one breath, Malema admits that some South African police officers stand by while foreigners are beaten, creating the impression that the state is acquiescing to violence. In the next, he criticizes Ghana’s decision to evacuate its citizens, claiming the response was “not necessary” and that it paints all South Africans with the same extremist brush. He suggests Ghana should have pursued “dialogue and diplomatic engagement” instead.
Let us be clear: if the situation were not extreme, 800 Ghanaians would not have volunteered to be evacuated. No citizen abandons livelihood, community, and hard-earned stability in a foreign land on a whim. People run when they feel unprotected. People flee when the state in which they reside either cannot or will not guarantee their safety.
Malema cannot have it both ways—he cannot acknowledge state complicity in violence and, in the same breath, condemn a sovereign state for acting to protect its citizens from that very violence.
When the state looks away, it is not neutral
Malema himself concedes that some South African police officers “look on whilst foreigners are beaten,” making it appear as if the state is acquiescing. That is not a minor admission; it is an indictment.
- When law enforcement stands idle in the face of mob violence, the state is not neutral—it is complicit.
- When foreigners are hunted, humiliated, and brutalized while uniforms stand by, the message is unmistakable: your life is negotiable, your dignity expendable.
In such a context, what exactly does Malema expect Ghana—or any responsible government—to do? Issue strongly worded statements while its citizens bleed? Draft communiqués while families in South Africa sleep in fear?
Diplomacy is not a substitute for protection. Dialogue is not a shield against a brick, a knife, or a burning tyre. When the threat is immediate and the pattern of violence is clear, evacuation is not an overreaction; it is the bare minimum of responsible governance.
Ghana’s duty is to Ghanaians first
Malema’s criticism of Ghana’s response betrays a fundamental misunderstanding—or a convenient disregard—of what a state owes its citizens.
The primary duty of any government is the safety and security of its people. Everything else—diplomacy, regional solidarity, Pan-African rhetoric—comes after that.
When 800 Ghanaians step forward and say, “We want to leave; we no longer feel safe here,” Ghana has only two morally defensible options:
- Act swiftly to bring them home, or
- Abandon them to a hostile environment and hope for the best.
Ghana chose the former. Malema, astonishingly, seems to prefer the latter—wrapped in the language of “dialogue” and “diplomatic engagement.”
Let us not be deceived by lofty phrasing. A call to delay evacuation in favour of endless talks is, in practice, a call to leave vulnerable people in harm’s way while politicians posture and negotiate. That is not Pan-Africanism. That is negligence dressed up as principle.
The false accusation of “extremism”
Malema claims that Ghana’s response “creates an extremist situation,” as though the act of evacuating citizens is an attack on South Africa or a blanket condemnation of all South Africans. This is a deliberate distortion.
Evacuation is not an insult; it is a precaution. It does not say, “All South Africans are violent.” It says, “Enough violence has occurred, and enough impunity has been observed, that we cannot gamble with our citizens’ lives.”
Ghanaians know very well that not all South Africans are xenophobic. We know there are South Africans who stand up for foreigners, who march against xenophobia, who speak out at great personal risk. But we also know this:
- Good South Africans do not erase the responsibility of the South African state.
- Individual kindness does not cancel institutional failure.
To suggest that Ghana’s evacuation decision paints all South Africans as extremists is to miss—or to deliberately obscure—the point. Ghana is not judging the soul of South Africa; Ghana is responding to the reality on the ground. And the reality is this: foreigners are being attacked, and the state has failed to consistently and decisively stop it.
Pan-Africanism cannot coexist with tolerated xenophobia
Malema has long styled himself as a Pan-Africanist, a champion of African unity against imperialism and Western domination. But Pan-Africanism that does not fiercely reject xenophobia is a fraud.
You cannot preach African unity while foreigners are hunted in your backyard.
You cannot shout “Africa for Africans” while Africans are unsafe on African soil.
You cannot condemn colonial borders and then tolerate violence against those who cross them in search of opportunity.
If Malema is serious about Pan-Africanism, his outrage should not be directed at Ghana for evacuating its citizens. His outrage should be directed at:
- The mobs who attack fellow Africans.
- The police who stand by.
- The political leadership that has failed, year after year, to uproot xenophobic violence at its core.
True Pan-Africanism demands that South Africa be a place where a Ghanaian, a Nigerian, a Zimbabwean, a Mozambican can live without fear—not a place where they must calculate escape routes and evacuation options.
800 volunteers do not lie
Numbers tell their own story. Eight hundred Ghanaians did not just quietly slip onto a bus or a plane because of “media exaggeration” or “diplomatic overreaction.” They volunteered to be evacuated because they felt unsafe.
- You do not uproot your life lightly.
- You do not abandon your job, your business, your rented room, your church, your friends, unless the fear has become heavier than the hope.
Malema’s attempt to downplay this reality is not just insensitive—it is intellectually dishonest. If the situation were as manageable and non-extreme as he suggests, the numbers would reflect that. They do not.
The evacuation is not a Ghanaian overreaction; it is a Ghanaian response to South African under-protection.
Ghana will not apologize for protecting its own
Let this be said without ambiguity:
- Ghana does not owe Julius Malema or South Africa an apology.
- Ghana does not owe any South African politician an explanation for choosing life over rhetoric.
What Ghana owes is to its citizens—their safety, their dignity, their right to live without terror. If that means organizing evacuation flights, buses, or convoys, then so be it. That is what responsible states do.
If South Africa wishes to avoid such evacuations in the future, the solution is not to lecture Ghana on diplomacy. The solution is to ensure that no foreigner—Ghanaian or otherwise—ever again feels compelled to flee because the police “look on whilst foreigners are beaten.”
A call to moral clarity
This moment demands moral clarity, not political gymnastics.
- Xenophobic violence is wrong.
- State inaction in the face of such violence is unacceptable.
- Evacuating citizens from danger is not extremism; it is duty.
Julius Malema cannot selectively radicalize himself—fierce against Western imperialism, but suddenly cautious and dismissive when the threat comes from within African borders. That is not courage; that is convenience.
Ghana has chosen to stand with its people. That choice is non-negotiable.
If Malema and others truly believe in African unity, let them start by ensuring that no African, anywhere on this continent, ever has to beg to be evacuated from another African country in order to stay alive.
Until then, Ghana will act—and we will not be shamed for doing what is right.
