_1137.png?v=1788503569)
Breaking News
At a June Invest Africa conference in London's historic Guildhall, governments, investors, and business leaders, all spoke confidently about the opportunities presented by the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), now the world's largest free trade area by participating states, a market with over 1.3bn people and a combined GDP of over $3.4 trillion.
One presentation, Invest Durban, unveiled an ambitious vision of transforming the city into the 'Dubai of the Indian Ocean' - a gleaming hub of skyscrapers, finance, and tourism, feeding off the same AfCTA market.
Yet, at this moment, another reality was unfolding on Durban's streets. Black African 'foreigners' from elsewhere were once again confronted by the civic March and March anti-migration activists and ordered 'home', ahead of a looming 30 June deadline.
Days later, Nkosikhona Ndabandaba, an anti-migrant activist, explained his own vision for Durban's future. It was uncannily like Invest Durban, except he explicitly argued, that like Dubai, foreign AfCTA workers could return and perform the labour while indigenous South Africans, as owners of the country, would sit back and enjoy the wealth, like their Gulf counterparts.
Incredibly both Ndabandaba and Invest Durban were describing the same economic model - but imagining entirely different beneficiaries: in London, globally mobile investors and capital, while in Durban's streets were indigenous citizens.
Missing from both conversations were the ordinary 1.3bn people of AfCFTA: the traders, builders, nurses, engineers and entrepreneurs whose mobility will ultimately determine whether AfCFTA succeeds or fails.
Instead, many risk becoming a new continental labour force - welcomed when needed, resented when economies falter, afforded only limited rights, while capital and goods move seamlessly.
This contradiction exposes one of the deepest contradictions in contemporary Pan-Africanism: global investors receive incentives while fellow Africans often encounter suspicion, bureaucracy or violence
During a recent dialogue on African interpersonal relations, I suggested that, in the development of a pan-African consciousness, we have overlooked the question of a pan-African ethics.
Recent events in South Africa suggest that this omission is becoming increasingly costly. Political leaders celebrate African unity. Continental institutions promote integration.
The African Union recognises the diaspora as Africa's Sixth Region. Yet social media increasingly amplifies national rivalries, digital hostility and ethnic chauvinism, while economic hardship is redirected towards mobile Africans.
Relations deteriorating amid xenophobia
At the very moment Africa is constructing a continental market, African interpersonal relations appear to be deteriorating, creating a toxic pan African space.
Part of the explanation lies in the gradual disintegration of the post-Berlin Conference political settlement and colonial borders inherited at independence.
They are no longer, if they ever truly were, the only identities commanding loyalty. Across the continent there is a renewed recovery of older political communities - ethnic nations, kingdoms, language areas, and historic civilisations - which long pre-date the modern state.
Recovering these histories is neither surprising nor undesirable. The danger arises when cultural identity becomes political exclusion, determining who truly belongs, who deserves opportunity and who can legitimately be treated as an outsider.
The transition from anti-colonial solidarity to post-independence competition has only intensified these tensions. During the liberation era, Africans largely understood that their destinies were intertwined. Today, countries increasingly compete for investment, jobs and influence.
Africa needs a shared ethic
If AfCFTA is to become more than an economic treaty, Africa needs a shared civic ethic, alongside mobility. What obligations do hosts owe visitors? Across much of Africa, strangers are automatically offered food, water, shelter and protection. Yet hospitality has always carried reciprocal expectations rather than permanent entitlement.
Equally, what responsibilities do visitors owe their hosts? To respect the law, contribute to society, honour local customs and recognise that hospitality depends upon mutual obligation.
These are not simply immigration questions. They are civilisational questions. The liberation generation inherited borders. Our generation must decide, beyond investor driven capital, what kind of civilisation lives within these borders.
Currently, the greatest weakness of AfCFTA is not economic but moral. It seeks to create a single African market before creating a single African moral community. Markets can be established by treaties; trust cannot.
Trust depends upon a shared ethic of reciprocity, hospitality, mutual obligation and respect. Unless Africa develops that ethical foundation alongside its economic integration, we risk a common market, where capital moves freely while Africans remain divided by fear, resentment and periodic violence.
