Joshua Maponga Sparks Backlash With Apartheid Claim On Foreigners In South Africa

Zimbabwean Pan-Africanist and former church leader Joshua Maponga has ignited heated debate across the region after claiming that foreign nationals are inadvertently helping to sustain structural inequality in South Africa, a statement that has triggered backlash and renewed conversations on migration and labour politics.

By Advent Shoko 

Maponga, who previously lived and worked in South Africa, made the controversial remarks while discussing rising tensions around jobs, wages, and xenophobic violence targeting African migrants. He said:

“Foreigners enable the Apartheid system to thrive… they accept lower salaries and suffocate the local South Africans. In the bigger scheme of things, it’s fueling injustice on a tight job market. Xenophobia is criminal… but remember an empty stomach knows no politics…”

While strongly condemning xenophobic attacks, Maponga’s framing has divided opinion, with critics arguing that it risks oversimplifying complex economic realities and unintentionally reinforcing harmful narratives against migrant communities.

He also issued a direct message to Zimbabweans living abroad, urging a rethink of migration strategies amid economic hardship at home. He added:

“Come home Zimbabweans… the time for lies is over… honestly speaking… you were planning to come after making money… I guess the plans have to be adjusted… choose life,” he added.

The comments land at a sensitive moment in South Africa, where tensions around unemployment and migration continue to fuel periodic outbreaks of xenophobic violence. The country remains home to hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans who crossed the border over the past two decades, largely driven by economic collapse and political instability back home.

Analysts say Maponga’s remarks reflect a growing and uncomfortable debate in Southern Africa, the intersection of migration, labour competition, and inequality, but warn that such framing can easily be misinterpreted in already volatile environments.

As reactions continue to pour in across social media and political spaces, the controversy underscores a deeper regional question: how to balance economic survival, regional mobility, and social cohesion without deepening existing divides.