|
Nigeria’s Visa Ban Truths And Half-Truths By Andrew Obinna Onyearu
On 8 April 2005, the nation received with surprise, the news that the United Kingdom Immigration had suspended consideration of applications for Visas for first time visitors between the ages of 18-30. This measure was first communicated to Members of Parliament by virtue of a letter dated 6 April 2005. In the letter, jointly signed by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke and the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Members of Parliament were informed that significant improvements had been made over the past 12 months to the United Kingdom’s delivery of a Visa service in Nigeria. They confirmed that opening of 32 courier-operated Visa centres across Nigeria meant that travellers to the United Kingdom could lodge their visa applications in a cost effective, convenient way. They indicated that the introduction of courier assisted Visa services in July 2004 along with efficiency measures in the posts in Lagos and Abuja enabled them to increase the number of Visas issued in Nigeria by almost 90%. They informed the MPs that between July and December 2004, 71,384 Visas were issued within that period compared to 38,282 in the corresponding period in 2003.
They went ahead to confirm that application rates were now running at about 18,000 per month in Lagos and 5,000 per month in Abuja. They stated that because of higher demand, estimating that Lagos had experienced an increase of 150% and an increase of 120% in Nigeria overall, Nigeria had become their busiest issuing post in the world. They confirmed that more staff had been provided to meet this unprecedented level of demand but that they were still unable to accommodate further staff without major building work. They indicated that planning for this had commenced, but that reconfigured Visa accommodation will not be delivered until the end of the year. They indicated that they had reluctantly decided that first time visitors between the ages of 18-30 should temporarily cease to be entitled to apply for Visas particularly as this age group attracts a high refusal rate and was the most resource intensive to deal with. They confirmed the exclusion of students as well as travellers under the Business Express Scheme and dependants of principal applicants who had travelled to the United Kingdom and complied with entry requirements within the last 5 years from those to whom the measure will apply.
Nigerians were predictably astonished by this development. Others associated with Nigeria abroad were correspondingly taken aback. In reality, what the United Kingdom Immigration Authorities were telling the world was that their difficulty in managing the infrastructural framework within which these applications were to be considered was the reason for imposing the suspension. In other words, confirmation by Foreign Office Officials that “capacity constraints” at Nigeria’s consular offices made it difficult to process legitimate applications has, for the first time in the United Kingdom’s history, been put forward as a reason to refuse to consider applications from individuals seeking to visit the United Kingdom.
These developments must be viewed in the United Kingdom against the next election on 5 May 2005. Central to that vote is the issue of immigration. Quite simply, the party with the more “comprehensive” immigration outlook will gain votes. It is in all respects, a very big electoral issue. The Labour Government has been severely criticised by the opposition for its mismanagement of immigration. The Conservatives, the leading opposition party, have sustained their criticism of the Government and what it suggests is its ineptitude in managing immigration. The Shadow Home Secretary, David Davies is recently quoted as saying that after 8 years of promises by the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to get a grip on immigration, the system remains in shambles. He further stated that:- “last summer, the government claimed the Visa process in Nigeria had been sorted out but less than a year later, they have had to close down the office”. This suggestion is not without merit. In August 2004, Chris Dix the Director of UK Visa Service in Nigeria told the Nigerian Vanguard Newspaper, with every degree of confidence that:-
“The bottom line is from now on, whoever you are, wherever you are, if you wish to apply for a UK Visa you can do so. You are also assured that your application will be processed in about a week or so provided you are well prepared, the Visa process will no longer delay family holidays or business trips”.
He also told that newspaper that he expected the rate of approved applications (at the time something in the region of 70%) to continue.
This volte-face was as astonishing in its delivery as also in its effect. Unconfirmed statistics appear to suggest that approximately 30% of the applicants for Visa facilities in Nigeria are made by applicants in the category affected by the ban. The same category appears to be responsible for providing 82% of the refusals. It may be useful, at this stage, to examine the reason offered by the UK Immigration Authorities for this decision.
The chief reason advanced is that the immigration resources in Nigeria were inadequate to meet demand. The suggestion is that Nigeria would have been, but for the measure, processing something in the neighbourhood of 240,000 applications per annum and that it does have the capacity to deal with this volume. The short answer to this problem would have been to increase the resources with which Visa applications are processed, but that would, in some respects, represent a simplistic appraisal of that situation. Of the 240,000 Visa applications that would have been received, only about 60,000 of those applications fall within the age bracket of between 18-30. In other words, the balance is made up of people who lie outside that category. Added to that is the fact that within the said age bracket would come Visa applicants other than first time applicants. The reality is that with the exempt category, this number shrinks even more. The explanation that structural resources would have to be expanded in order to accommodate the high demand is a lame excuse. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that this measure was taken to score crucial political points because the diminution of the volume of applications would not produce the kind of tangible results that this quite draconian measure would bring about.
There was a lack of consultation with any interest group before reaching this measure. In addition, no notice was given, at least to enable those within the age bracket to plan accordingly. Further, the immigration authorities appear to suggest that by 2006, it hopes to have re-organised its Lagos office to cope with the demand but the failure to consider other practical and beneficial options undermines the reasoning behind the measure. This is a quite uncertain timetable for which they are not accountable to anyone. In further explaining the measures, the British High Commissioner, Richard Gozney, in the last week, reviewed the available options. He considered four options, some of which were entirely far-fetched. The third option, put differently, would have slowed the process down but ensured the fairness that has been so clinically eliminated for a particular category of applicants. For instance, they could have considered slowing down the turn around period of processing the applications. Applications routinely returned within a week could now be processed within three to four weeks, even longer. These turn-around figures have been predicated on performance targets designed to give the impression of efficiency and effectiveness. Most Nigerians who visit the United Kingdom plan their visits. Part of that planning process would include factoring in a longer wait for procuring visa facilities. A waiting period of 11 weeks between application and result for first time applicants only would not have led to any serious complaints after all the US authorities still have a long waiting period between application and consideration of such applications. Such delay in processing their applications would have been palatable to first time travellers. The fees charged for processing the applications could have been increased. At present, those rates were fixed from 13 December 2004 at a rate of N9,700 (approximately £38). A substantial increase in the application fees would have provided resources with which to combat the problem much more easily, apart from the fact that it would, in some way, reduce the volume of applications.
Resource intensiveness has been cited as the reason for an overspend in relation to processing applications from persons within this category. This is clearly misleading. The reality is that the difficulties experienced in processing these applications lie principally in verifying authenticity or genuiness of documents submitted. In virtually all cases, this does not extend beyond a telephone call or email to the originator of the document or correspondence to verify the genuineness of the documents. Indeed the authorities have been known to make decisions in this sphere without as much as verifying the genuineness or otherwise of supporting documents. There is no suggestion that any other form of physical verification is undertaken. As an alternative, Verification Agents could have been commissioned and funded from increased Visa fees. Obviously the lack of consultation meant that the forethought that could have gone into analysing a measure of this nature did not occur. This, to a large extent, goes a long way to affirm the views advanced that this decision was taken for reasons other than those advanced.
Economic Migration to UK from Nigeria has become steadily unattractive over the years. Since category switching has been severely curtailed, its appeal to young people has diminished. It is well nigh impossible to gain employment and support structures for indigent immigrants without valid leave to remain have all but disappeared. Basic support from friends/relatives may quickly disappear adding to its general unattractiveness. At least for Nigeria, the genuineness of visits remains at the premium, a fact that is undisputed even by the UK Immigration Authorities themselves. The suggestion that young, single people without assets and family ties find it easier to remain in the United Kingdom is conjecture and unsubstantiated. Such a conclusion really undermines the assertion that those considering these applications do indeed have local knowledge of Nigeria and Nigerians.
There are legal issues that arise with regard to the lawfulness of the decision taken. It is correct that the right to admit visitors into a country remains the exclusive preserve of the admitting country. However, decisions in this respect must be taken in accordance with its laws. Both the Immigration Act 1971 and subsidiary legislation therein do not contain any provisions that can give legality to the measures taken. Indeed, it appears that there is no legal premise upon which the decision is founded or can be sustained. Deciding who visits and who does not visit must be a decision that takes account of the dictates of international relations that regulate international migration including the possibility that a country adversely affected by a selective restriction may, itself, respond correspondingly even if with lesser effects. The legal challenges in relation to this measure will surely happen. It is indeed only a matter of time before the expected satellite litigation emerges from this decision. In fact, it is easy to see, in the circumstances, how the breathing space that can occur before the first judicial challenge is mounted will provide the opportunity for a significant reduction in the number of applications processed whilst such challenge goes through its regular course. When it happens, it is also open to the litigating parties to compromise such litigation on a one to one basis in any manner that they consider acceptable. The likely compromise will, doubtless, be designed to forestall a floodgate effect thereby ensuring the respite that this measure would have engendered. In either event, the UK Immigration Authorities would have bought themselves the breathing space and time that the demand of processing applications from this category would have brought about had this decision not been made, without prejudice to the legality of the measure itself.
The Nigerian Authorities have responded with visible indignation. It is understood that the British High Commissioner has requested an opportunity to make himself available to the House of Representatives in order to explain the measure. It would be an extremely interesting meeting if it occurs, but it will do very little to assuage the sentiments of those who feel deeply offended by a measure displaying outright insensitivity, lacking in precedent, and totally unjustifiable. One wonders, were the circumstances similar, whether such a measure would have been imposed on people within the same age bracket coming from Australia or New Zealand, and how much favour it would have found.
Nigeria remains one of the United Kingdom’s largest trade partners. The historical connection is substantial. Within the United Kingdom itself, unconfirmed Home Office statistics indicate that there are over 2million Nigerians holding Nigerian nationality residing in the United Kingdom. This would represent the immigrant Nigerian community, the vast proportion of who are living in the United Kingdom legally. This number constitutes over 3 % of the population of the United Kingdom and includes people making substantial contributions to the growth of the economy. Nigeria, of the ethnic minorities, has the highest professional population in health services and Local Government, not to mention accomplishments elsewhere. To that number must be added 2nd and 3rd generation Nigerians who are, by circumstances of birth and naturalisation, British. The measure, for what it is worth, makes a mockery of what has come to be understood in World International Relations to be an extremely strong relationship between both countries. Today, it is 18-30 year olds – tomorrow, it could be over 60s, doubtless with an explanation seeking to justify such a decision. The damage that this measure has and will cause the diplomatic relations between both countries remains to be seen.
Andrew Obinna Onyearu is a Solicitor and Senior Partner of Andrews Solicitors in London. |