It was a curious and disturbing parallel made more poignant by the timing. In the closing days of July, both Ghana and Tanzania were up in arms against the influx of foreign small-scale businesses in their countries. In the case of Ghana, the animosity was unofficial, not quite elevated to policy level beyond the restrictions applied over a decade ago against foreigners, specifically retail traders of whom the Igbo were noticeable. For Tanzania, the animosity was official, with Trade minister Selemani Jafo announcing wide-ranging restrictions against foreigners operating small businesses. Kenyans dominate that sector in Tanzania, and the restrictions were widely interpreted as targeting them. The Ghana Investment Promotion Centre (GIPC) Act 2013, revivified some two years ago, provides for, among other regulations, minimum capital requirements for foreigners amounting to one million dollars for small businesses, and limiting them to economic sectors they could operate in. Nigerians, particularly the Igbo, insisted they were the main target, even though the law is not country-specific.
Late last month, the problem recrudesced, this time with Ghanaian protesters singling out the Igbo for mention as the leading violators of the 2013 Act. They accused foreigners of sundry business crimes and violations, including immigration offences, non-payment or under-payment of business permits, falsification of business documents, tax evasion, and trading in substandard goods, etc. Ghana’s President John Mahama has, however, promised that Nigerians would not be discriminated against, but many foreigners recalled that since 2013, the problem and the discrimination had flared almost annually. For as long as the problem remained, and as long as a distinct group of people represents the face of the provocation, the periodic eruptions will persist. In fact, there does not seem to be an end to the push and pull. The Igbo, who are the face of the provocation in Ghana, must find a way through their unions, the Nigerian diaspora group, and diplomatic efforts to manage the problem. After all, as everyone knows, xenophobia, even in its mildest form, is ubiquitous.
Even though relations between the two East African Community (EAC) countries of Tanzania and Kenya have not been at their best, the recent flare-up over the foreign-run small-scale businesses in Tanzania began at the end of July, with no end in sight. Last week, according to Mr Jafo, foreign nationals (read Kenyans), are prohibited from owning or operating small-scale businesses in about 15 sectors, including tour guiding, beauty salons, gift shops, radio and television operations, mobile money transfers, etc. Predictably, Kenya has argued that though the cap fits Kenyan businessmen in Tanzania, they won’t wear it because it violates the principles of the EAC. More, Kenyan Trade Minister Lee Kinyanjui has called for the abrogation of the restrictions. According to him, it would have a negative effect on the economies of the two East African countries. In a statement he issued last week, he said, “It is therefore critical, in the spirit of EAC, that bilateral engagements be held to resolve these issues.” What is evident in all this is that, like the case between Nigeria and Ghana, Kenyan businesses stand to lose much more should the dispute persist.
Read Also: Tinubu’s 2027 re-election bid unstoppable- Adekanmbi
Interestingly, even within Nigeria, this discriminatory sentiment exists on a pernicious scale. During the pogrom that preceded the Nigerian civil war in 1967, protesters targeted the businesses of their antagonists, and have since continued to inflict similar punishment on local migrants who dominate certain sectors of the economies of host communities. In the absence of tenable political structures, the discrimination or punitive restrictions and regulations have begun to expand alarmingly into the political arena. It is a continuing challenge every jurisdiction must find creative ways of managing. Germany was unable to manage its skewed business relationship with affluent Jews before WWII, thus leading to the November 1938 pogrom or Night of Broken Glass (Kristallnacht). If regional economic groupings and competing countries struggle to manage such crises, they are even far more difficult to manage domestically because of its sometimes political ripple effects.
Kenya may have inadvertently provided the solution to the regulatory disputes provoked by foreign-owned businesses. In his reflections on the dispute instigated by Tanzanian regulations on foreign-owned businesses, Mr Kinyanjui suggested ‘bilateral engagements’ to resolve the problematic and mildly xenophobic responses. But regardless of whether these tough regulations are provoked by settler communities within a country or across squabbling countries, it is important to be sensitive about host communities. They must never be taken for granted. They have their fears and they suffer certain deprivations. Boastful foreigners who flaunt their wealth in the face of deprived locals will inevitably always cause their hosts to kick against economic domination, discrimination or oppression. It is a natural reaction, especially when there are underlying structural imbalances in the polity. While diplomatic engagements may resolve disputes between countries, such as between Ghana and Nigeria, and between Tanzania and Kenya, only political restructuring can obviate social and political eruptions capable of threatening state stability domestically.
