What was intended as a gesture of goodwill between Japan and four African nations has instead resulted in a social and political firestorm.
The uproar began earlier this month after the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) introduced a cultural exchange initiative that designated four regional Japanese cities as symbolic “hometowns” for Mozambique, Nigeria, Ghana, and Tanzania.
The programme, revealed at the conclusion of
the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) in Yokohama, was designed to encourage exchange through educational projects, volunteer initiatives and community activities.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
For example, students and sports teams from partner countries would be hosted, while Japanese volunteers would travel to Africa to assist in local development efforts.
The overarching aim, according to JICA, was to deepen cooperation and revitalise Japanese municipalities facing declining populations and economic stagnation.
African Union Commission Chairperson Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, Angolan President Joao Lourenco, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former Japanese prime minister Fumio Kishida and leaders from African countries wave during a photo session for the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD IX) in Yokohama, near Tokyo, Japan, August 20, 2025. File Image/Pool via Reuters
But within days of the announcement, what was meant as cultural diplomacy spiralled into confusion and anger, fuelled by misleading media reports and mistranslations.
What should have been a story about international cooperation quickly turned into a lightning rod for anxieties about immigration and nationalism in Japan.
What led to the misunderstanding in Japan?
The controversy stemmed from how the initiative was presented and subsequently reported. In Tanzania, a headline in the Tanzania Times declared that “Japan dedicates Nagai city to Tanzania.”
On Japanese social media, the word “dedicates” was rendered as sasageru – a term that, to some readers, carried connotations of “sacrificing” the city to another country.
Meanwhile, in Nigeria, government officials released a statement suggesting that Kisarazu, one of the four selected cities, would be open to Nigerians who wanted to live and work in Japan.
The statement also mentioned the creation of a “special visa category for highly skilled, innovative, and talented young Nigerians.”
Although the announcement was later deleted and replaced with a correction, the impression that new migration pathways had been opened spread quickly.
Together with fragments of other inaccurate media coverage across Africa, these claims gained traction online. In Japan, posts on social platforms amplified the narrative that local authorities were preparing to “hand over” towns to foreign nationals.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
One widely shared post on X (formerly Twitter) alleging that Kisarazu was “seriously considering handing over the city to Africans” drew more than 4.6 million views.
How did the Japanese cities react?
Local governments in the four participating cities were inundated with a flood of angry phone calls and emails.
In Sanjo, Niigata Prefecture, a city official described the situation, telling AFP, “Our team of 15 officials spent a whole day handling hundreds of phone calls and thousands of emails from residents.”
The official confirmed that the city had received about 350 phone calls and 3,500 emails within just a few days.
Imabari, in Ehime Prefecture, faced a similar volume of inquiries, fielding roughly 460 calls and 1,400 emails. Residents repeatedly asked whether the city had adopted a new immigration policy or was preparing to host large numbers of African migrants.
Kisarazu and Nagai reported comparable experiences, as ordinary citizens expressed alarm about what they thought were sudden changes in residency rules.
The backlash not only disrupted day-to-day municipal operations but also highlighted the speed at which misinformation can overwhelm local administrations.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS ADHow did Japanese city mayors respond?
Faced with widespread panic, the mayors of the designated cities were compelled to issue formal reassurances. Yoshikuni Watanabe, mayor of Kisarazu, reminded citizens that the city had previously engaged in international cooperation by hosting Nigerian athletes during the postponed Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
He clarified the scope of the hometown partnership, pointing out its focus on youth and sports.
“Our initiatives will involve cooperating in the education of young people based on discipline through baseball and softball, and it’s not a programme that will lead to relocation or immigration,” Watanabe said.
Similarly, Sanjo’s mayor, Ryo Takizawa, rejected rumours that the arrangement included immigration measures. In a public statement, he explained, “It is not true that the city has requested to accept migrants or immigrants from Ghana, and the city has no plans to make such a request in the future.”
Both leaders stressed that the partnerships were about symbolic ties and mutual learning, not policies on residency or migration.
How did Tokyo handle the situation?
The controversy grew large enough that Japan’s central government had to intervene. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi dismissed the claims of immigration pathways as groundless.
“There are no plans to promote accepting immigrants or issue special visas,” he said at a press briefing.
Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its own statement, clarifying that while the programme may involve short-term interns or exchange participants, these individuals would return to their home countries once the training was completed.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
“There are no plans to take measures to promote the acceptance of immigrants or issue special visas for residents of African countries, and the series of reports and announcements concerning such measures are not true,” the ministry declared.
To prevent further confusion, the ministry and JICA called on African governments and media outlets to issue corrections. The Nigerian government complied, deleting its initial statement and later posting a revised version with no mention of special visa categories.
JICA reiterated on its website that several media organisations had “published articles containing inaccuracies and potentially misleading information,” and said it was pressing for immediate corrections.
How has this situation exposed Japan’s relationship with immigration?
Even after clarifications from city leaders, ministries, and JICA, social media continued to host waves of sceptical and often xenophobic commentary.
Some users demanded that JICA itself be abolished, claiming the agency was out of touch with ordinary Japanese citizens. Others accused the government of concealing immigration plans.
Posts expressed worries about crime, overstretched public resources, and social disruption – reflecting broader anxieties about immigration in Japan.
A number of the comments contained overtly racist and discriminatory language directed at African nations and people.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The uproar over “Africa hometowns” highlighted Japan’s complex relationship with immigration.
The country has long been considered ethnically and culturally homogeneous, with foreign residents making up just a small proportion of the population.
According to government statistics, the number of foreign residents increased from 2.23 million a decade ago to 3.77 million today – about 3 per cent of Japan’s total population of more than 120 million.
Despite this small proportion, immigration has become a contentious issue. Japan faces a shrinking workforce and one of the fastest-ageing populations in the world.
Businesses and policymakers have increasingly recognised the need for foreign workers, yet public resistance remains strong. For many Japanese citizens, particularly in rural areas, the idea of immigration is tied to fears about cultural change, job competition and safety.
This climate has given rise to political movements capitalising on those concerns. The Sanseito party, a right-wing populist group,
recently gained traction in national elections by running on a platform of “Japanese First.”
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Its leader, Sohei Kamiya, declared during a campaign speech in July, “Right now, Japanese people’s lives are getting harder and harder.” He warned that “foreign workers who couldn’t find good jobs would increase crime” and cautioned that “more and more foreigners are coming (to Japan).”
What next for the Japan’s “Africa hometowns” intiative?
The uproar has overshadowed the original purpose of the programme, which was to build goodwill and foster mutual understanding between Japan and African countries.
At TICAD in Yokohama, discussions focused on trade, development, and security cooperation – themes that received little attention in Japanese media compared with the controversy that followed.
With a declining birth rate and a labour market under strain, the government increasingly relies on tourism and limited foreign labour to sustain economic vitality. Yet each policy tied to foreign nationals risks becoming entangled in political and social disputes.
Experts caution that Japan may be entering an era in which the immigration debate becomes far more central to its politics.
For JICA, the immediate task is reputational repair. The agency has stated it will continue pressing partner governments and media outlets to fix misreporting.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It insists that the “hometowns” programme is limited to symbolic and cultural partnerships, including volunteer exchanges, educational projects, and sports programs. No immigration pathways are involved.
Nonetheless, lingering distrust remains among some members of the Japanese public, who continue to voice suspicion online.
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
AloJapan.com