A post shared by FindingSolace on X has triggered a wide-ranging debate among Nigerians and other Africans on migration, patriotism, governance, and what truly makes a country worth returning to after studying abroad.

The writer recounted experiences from a master’s programme attended by students from different African countries, all of whom belonged to the same African Student Association. Among them were Namibian students enrolled in education-related programmes, whose circumstances stood in sharp contrast to those of their Nigerian counterparts.

According to the post, the Namibian students had their tuition fully covered by their government and also received a monthly stipend of about €1,000. Nigerian students and others from West and East Africa, however, were largely self-sponsored or dependent on limited university scholarships.

While many Nigerians struggled with part-time jobs, strict budgeting, and financial responsibilities back home, the Namibian students were said to enjoy student life more freely, travelling and socialising without the same pressures.

After graduation, the Namibian students organised a farewell party and then returned home. The writer noted that every Namibian who had come for a master’s degree went back to Namibia. Only one PhD student stayed longer, and that was solely to complete her programme before returning immediately afterward.

Curious about this decision, the author said they asked two Namibian friends, separately, why they were not interested in remaining abroad. Both reportedly responded that there was no incentive to stay. They described Namibia as offering better quality of life, good pay, and opportunities to travel, adding that they could always return abroad for holidays. One reportedly laughed at the idea of staying in a cold country when life was more enjoyable back home.

The post resonated widely, especially among Nigerians in the diaspora, many of whom see migration as a necessity rather than a lifestyle choice. The author questioned Nigeria’s long-held “Giant of Africa” label, suggesting it reflects past achievements rather than present realities. They recalled a time when Nigerians sponsored by their government to study abroad often returned home willingly, a pattern that appears far less common today.

The reactions that followed were mixed and, at times, sharply divided.

Olamide Oni argued that comparing Nigeria unfavourably to other countries risks normalising despair rather than promoting reform. According to him, Nigeria’s core problem is leadership and institutional failure, not a lack of talent or potential. He maintained that accountability, not self-contempt, is what drives national progress.
Strikethem4real pushed back on the idea that the Namibian case was exceptional, noting that many Nigerian students still study abroad on government sponsorships and that students from parts of Northern Nigeria often return home after completing their education.
Nemesis challenged the claim that Nigeria has “unmatched human capital,” arguing that population alone does not translate to capital without education and skills. He cited literacy concerns as evidence that numbers alone are insufficient.

Black Squirrel offered a different perspective, suggesting that the decision to stay abroad or return home depends more on conditions and opportunities than patriotism. He referenced Chinese students who enjoyed government support yet chose to remain abroad after graduation, arguing that return rates alone are not a definitive measure of a country’s success.

In response, FindingSolace rejected the comparison with China, pointing out differences in population size, migration rates, and historical context. According to the author, only a small percentage of Chinese citizens emigrate, and many willingly return home, making direct comparisons with Nigeria misleading.

Several respondents echoed the sentiment that functioning systems shape citizens’ loyalty. Goitsemodimo, who studied in Russia, recalled that colleagues from Botswana and South Africa were eager to return home after their programmes, a mindset he found difficult to relate to as a Nigerian.

Emeka Chuks, who visited Namibia for training, described the country as one that visibly prioritises citizen welfare, noting that patriotism often emerges naturally from good governance.
Some reactions were more emotional. Kandali, identifying as Namibian, said the post brought her to tears, while Ms_EasyVestor described it as heartwarming and reflective of realities Namibians sometimes take for granted. Sampa Kabwela argued that Namibia offers little economic or social incentive for mass emigration, describing it as a functioning country with working systems, even while acknowledging the presence of poverty.
Others took issue with what they perceived as “demarketing” Nigeria.

Muhsin Onyedikachukwu pointed out that Nigerian state governments have sponsored large numbers of students abroad who later returned home, questioning why Namibia was being elevated in the comparison. Dr. John Walker Oritse added historical context, noting that many Nigerians sponsored abroad in the 1960s and 1970s returned home and later became the very leaders shaping today’s Nigeria.

Across the discussion, one recurring theme stood out: patriotism appears to be less about slogans and more about lived experience.

As AstrumVitae and Mannie observed, many Nigerians remember or have heard of a period when the country attracted returnees rather than pushing citizens away, reinforcing the idea that national pride often follows performance, not rhetoric.

Whether one agrees with FindingSolace or not, the conversation has reopened a sensitive but necessary discussion about governance, opportunity, and why some African countries retain their citizens while others continue to lose them in large numbers.