When Nations Clash Over a Businessman: The Danpullo-FNB Saga and Cameroon’s Diplomatic Stand

By Romanus Okoye

It began like any other high-level business transaction. In 2017, El Hadj Ahmadou Baba Danpullo, one of Cameroon’s most prominent businessmen, secured a loan of R520 million from First National Bank (FNB), a subsidiary of FirstRand Bank in South Africa.

The loan was intended for the acquisition of 1 Thibault, an iconic building in Cape Town. The agreement required monthly repayments of R10 million over a ten-year span, a condition Danpullo claims he consistently met.

However, just three years into the agreement, events took an unexpected turn. In 2020, FNB approached the South African courts to liquidate Danpullo’s assets, claiming breach of financial obligations. This marked the beginning of a legal and diplomatic storm. Danpullo, who owns multiple properties and businesses across Africa, was stunned by the move. He asserted that the liquidation was not only unjust but also tainted with racial and xenophobic undertones.

According to him, the bank misled the court into believing that he was insolvent, despite evidence to the contrary. As the court granted the liquidation, the matter quickly escalated beyond the borders of South Africa.

In Cameroon, the reaction was swift and loud. The news rippled through government corridors and legislative chambers, triggering outrage among lawmakers and members of the public alike. Parliamentarians decried the treatment of Danpullo as an affront to Cameroon’s national pride, describing it as an orchestrated economic ambush.

From there, diplomatic interventions followed. Cameroon’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs reached out to its counterpart in South Africa, urging for dialogue and a reassessment of the case.

Even President Paul Biya, known for his restrained involvement in such matters, reportedly intervened by initiating communication with President Cyril Ramaphosa. Cameroon’s diplomatic mission in Pretoria submitted formal complaints and pressed for a high-level meeting to de-escalate the tension.

While diplomatic efforts gained traction, the legal team representing Danpullo mounted a counteroffensive, this time from Cameroon. In what seemed like a mirror retaliation, they pursued local court orders to freeze assets belonging to South African companies operating in Cameroon. This included MTN Cameroon, one of the country’s largest telecom service providers, and Chococam, a consumer goods company under the Tiger Brands portfolio.

As these companies struggled under the weight of asset seizures and frozen accounts, pressure mounted on the South African government and business community. MTN Cameroon, with its 15 million subscribers, faced serious disruptions. Customers were left in confusion, and service stability began to waver. South African investments in Cameroon were suddenly exposed to legal and reputational risk, a consequence many in the business community had not anticipated.

Amid these tensions, appeals for justice extended beyond the courts and diplomatic channels. Cameroonian civil society organizations rallied in defense of Danpullo. Letters were sent to South African human rights groups, while bar associations raised concerns over potential bias in the court processes that enabled the liquidation. Activists appealed to Pan-African ideals, warning that the saga could undermine the unity and trust needed to promote intra-African investment.

In their view, the targeting of an African businessman by a powerful South African institution sent the wrong message at a time when the continent is seeking deeper economic integration through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).

Business leaders and trade associations in Cameroon began to reconsider the future of South African corporate presence in their country. Many warned of a brewing hostility that could reshape investment relations. As tensions deepened, calls intensified for FirstRand Bank and the South African judiciary to engage constructively with Danpullo’s team and reassess the conditions that led to the liquidation.

A temporary sigh of relief came in April 2025 when the Cameroonian court of appeal lifted the freezing order on MTN Cameroon’s accounts. The court ruled that Danpullo’s legal team had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the continued restriction. While this decision allowed MTN to resume full operations, it did not signal the end of the dispute.

Danpullo’s lawyers maintained that their client had suffered significant financial and reputational losses, and further legal steps remained on the table unless a negotiated settlement was reached.

What started as a single property loan dispute has evolved into one of the most significant business-related diplomatic clashes between two African countries in recent memory. Cameroon, through its actions and appeals, has shown that its citizens—especially those with economic influence—will not be left to the whims of foreign systems, however sophisticated they may appear. The case continues to challenge the delicate balance between upholding the rule of law and respecting the dignity and rights of foreign investors.

In the end, this is no longer just Danpullo’s story—it is a broader African story. One that questions the fairness of our legal and financial institutions, the treatment of investors across borders, and the very spirit of African economic solidarity. As the courts and governments on both sides continue to weigh their options, the continent watches, knowing that the outcome may set a precedent far beyond the towers of Cape Town or the streets of Yaoundé.