A Chinese restaurant in Nigeria has closed down after backing a discriminatory no black people policy.
The Haufei Restaurant & Mall in Victoria Island, Lagos, had been center of ample controversy following their business model where native Nigerians reportedly received dismal customer service.
According to Nairametrics, Nigerians had complained on social media that they were not permitted to dine in the restaurant, but were allowed to order take out.
One social media user commented: “Today some of my friends and I were turned away at a Chinese restaurant in Nigeria for being black.
“We were told they only allow Chinese people to dine in and we’d have to take out to eat their food. What a world we live in. I said who said so, they said the chef.
“I asked to speak to the Chef who only speaks Mandarin (I speak it as well). When I asked him he said sorry his boss who has traveled said non-Chinese people cannot dine in and it’s a recent policy.”
Another explosive tweet complained about the outlet’s policy: “THERE IS A CHINESE RESTAURANT IN NIGERIA THAT HAS REFUSED TO LET BLACK PEOPLE SIT AND EAT!! You can only takeout BUT CHINESE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO STAY AND EAT!!
“Nah they must have lost their damn minds!!”
THERE IS A CHINESE RESTAURANT IN NIGERIA THAT HAS REFUSED TO LET BLACK PEOPLE SIT AND EAT!! You can only takeout BUT CHINESE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO STAY AND EAT!!
Nah they must have lost their damn minds!!
It is Huafei Chinese on 33, Bishop Aboyade Cole VI pic.twitter.com/HCUJc2CmNt
— Tobie ✨ (@thegoldskittle) March 13, 2020
Since then, The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission “FCCPC” has shut down the restaurant.
Nigeria’s FCCPC Twitter account tweeted: “Today, FCCPC closed Haufei Restaurant & Mall 33 Aboyade Cole, VI based on credible intel & surveillance that the biz declines service to Nigerians. Staff of the biz admitted this is the policy & our operatives experienced same. Both now closed for further regulatory action.”
— FCCPC Nigeria (@fccpcnigeria) March 14, 2020
Some people believed that the regulatory body might not have fully closed down the establishment as there were reports of activity within the premises.