Connect with us

News

Nigeria won’t accept Trump’s deportee deal like Rwanda, S’Sudan – FG

Published

on

The Federal Government has reiterated its refusal to accept deportees from the United States, distancing itself from recent decisions by countries like Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan that have agreed to receive foreign nationals expelled from the United States of America.

The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kimiebi Ebienfa, who confirmed the government’s stance in an interview, stressed that Nigeria remains firm in its position, citing national security and economic concerns.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Yusuf Tuggar, had in July  revealed that the President Donald Trump administration was mounting pressure on African countries to accept deportees convicted of crimes into African countries under his “third-country deportation” policy.

“The US is mounting considerable pressure on African countries to accept Venezuelans to be deported from the US, some straight out of prisons,” Tugar said.

He described the move as “unacceptable” and warned that such a policy would unfairly burden countries like Nigeria, which are already grappling with their own internal challenges.

“It will be difficult for countries like Nigeria to accept Venezuelan prisoners into Nigeria. We have enough problems of our own, we cannot accept Venezuelan deportees to Nigeria for crying out loud. We already have 230 million people,” Tugar stressed.

Although Tugar did not reveal the details of the diplomatic pressure being mounted on African countries, the Trump administration had previously announced new visa policies for Nigeria and others.

In June, the U.S. Department of State revised its visa policy for Nigerian nationals, introducing more restrictive terms for most non-immigrant, non-diplomatic visas.

According to the new policy, most Nigerian citizens seeking to enter the US will be issued single-entry visas valid for just three months.

The change marked a significant shift in the U.S. visa reciprocity arrangement with Nigeria and comes as part of a broader effort by the U.S. government to align global visa standards with its immigration and security protocols.

The Trump administration has also been threatening countries that refuse to cooperate with US deportation efforts with visa sanctions under Section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorises the US to suspend visas to countries that obstruct deportations.

In April, the US threatened to revoke all visas held by South Sudanese passport holders and to restrict any further issuance to prevent entry into the country over the African country’s initial refusal to accept the return of its repatriated citizens.

The US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made the threat in a statement posted on his X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday, April 5, 2025.

“I am taking actions to revoke all visas held by South Sudanese passport holders and to restrict any further issuance to prevent entry into the United States, effective immediately, due to the failure of South Sudan’s transitional government to accept the return of its repatriated citizens in a timely manner,” he wrote.

Rubio also said that the US would “prevent further issuance to prevent entry into the United States by South Sudanese passport holders.”

Trump’s third-country deportation

The controversial “third-country deportation” policy was formally revived after a US Supreme Court ruling on June 23, 2025, which cleared the legal path for sending deportees to countries other than their own.

The policy allows the US to send deportees to foreign nations other than their own, particularly when the individual’s country of origin refuses to take them back.

According to the Institute for Security Studies, Africa, the US paid El Salvador US$5m in March to incarcerate over 250 Venezuelan deportees accused of gang affiliations, in a maximum-security prison notorious for human rights abuses.

Since then, the Trump administration has expanded this policy to Africa, with recent deportations of individuals from countries such as Vietnam, Jamaica and Yemen to South Sudan and Eswatini.

The Department of Homeland Security justified the decision by saying their home countries refused ‘to take them back.’

South Sudan was the first African country to accept deportees under Trump’s revived “third-country deportation” policy.

In July, the US Supreme Court approved the deportation of eight men, reportedly convicted of violent crimes and lacking US legal status, to South Sudan.

Eswatini, a Southern African country, followed shortly after, receiving five individuals from countries like Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos.

Rwanda is the third country to strike a deal, agreeing to accept up to 250 deportees from the US while retaining discretion over whom to accept.

Rwandan government spokesperson, Yolande Makolo, confirmed the deal to CNN, disclosing that the East African nation had “agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants,” in a deal that allows the government “to approve each individual proposed for resettlement.”

When approved, the migrants, she said, “will be provided with workforce training, health care, and accommodation support to jump start their lives in Rwanda,” allowing them to “contribute to one of the fastest growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

FG maintains stance

Ebienfa described US demand as unrealistic and unsuitable for Nigeria, which is already facing economic, social, and security challenges.

Ebienfa said while countries like Rwanda, Eswatini and South Sudan had opted to cooperate with US deportation efforts, “Nigeria’s priorities differ”.

“Even if other African countries are accepting deportees from the US, Nigeria will not accept them.

“We are a sovereign country and we take decisions only after fully analysing the implications to our national security,” Ebienfa said.

According to Ebienfa, Nigeria is currently dealing with multiple domestic challenges and cannot afford to take on what it described as “additional baggage.”

“We have our own issues we are struggling with. We will not allow ourselves to be pressured into accepting deportees, regardless of what other nations are doing,” he told our correspondent.

He added that Nigeria holds significant economic and strategic value in its international partnerships, including ongoing projects such as the Nigeria-Morocco gas pipeline and its rare earth mineral deposits, which are of interest to global markets.

“Our national interest, as it stands now, is not favourably disposed to accepting deportees from the American government,” Ebienfa said.

Ex-diplomats back FG

Reacting to the development, retired diplomat Ambassador Ogbole Amedu-Ode questioned the rationale behind US deportation decisions, particularly reports that non-Nigerians may be deported to Nigeria.

“Why deport the citizens of a country, say Venezuela, to another country like Nigeria? The logic and rationale behind this are totally lost on me,” he said.

Amedu-Ode praised the position taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tuggar, calling it a “response with dignity.”

“There’s certainly no merit in Mr. Trump’s new visa regime when viewed from the principle of sovereign equality of states,” he said.

He added that, “Since diplomacy is largely a game of reciprocity, Nigerians should request an exchange agreement, receive Venezuelan deportees in exchange for repentant Boko Haram operatives to be ‘exported’ to them.

Also commenting on the matter, another retired ambassador, Rasheed Akinkuolie, noted that the decisions made by countries like Rwanda and South Sudan were internal matters.

“The decision of some African countries to accept deportees is an internal and private affair, which no other country can make logical comments on.

“The reasons these countries are taking this action are best known to them,” he said.

Akinkuolie emphasised that while Nigeria was prepared to accept its own nationals, it cannot admit individuals of unknown origin or background.

“Nigeria cannot take deportees of another nationality, whose identity and background are not known. What if these people are criminals?

“People who qualify are still being issued visas to the US. Those who do not meet certain criteria may be denied. Nigeria also does the same to undesirable people,” he said.

He pointed to a recent incident where foreigners were found to have entered Nigeria illegally and formed a criminal gang, stressing that such people were either deported or prosecuted.

“What the USA is doing may be in its national interest, who knows?” Akinkuolie concluded.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

UK Charity Commission freezes over 100 bank accounts linked to MFM

Published

on

On Tuesday, the UK’s Charity Commission announced it had frozen the assets of Mountain of Fire and Miracles Ministries International (MFM), a Nigerian-founded church.

On its website, the UK government concluded that its trustees failed to manage the organisation’s finances properly across its UK branches.

The UK Charity Commission is a non-ministerial department that registers and regulates charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can confidently support charities.

MFM, founded by Nigerian cleric Daniel Olukoya, is one of Nigeria’s most influential Pentecostal churches. It has a strong global presence, particularly in the United Kingdom, where many Nigerian diaspora communities worship.

MFM is not the first Nigerian-founded church to face scrutiny in the UK. In recent years, other Nigerian-origin churches, including SPAC Nation in December 2024 and Christ Embassy in November 2019, have been investigated regarding governance and financial accountability concerns.

The incident raises broader questions about how rapidly expanding churches adapt their internal systems when moving into regulated environments like the UK, where religious organisations registered as charities must meet strict financial reporting standards.

The case has, therefore, sparked wider conversations about financial transparency and governance among fast-growing African churches operating overseas.

How the investigation began

On 27 March 2018, the Charity Commission opened a statutory inquiry into MFM under Section 46 of the UK’s Charities Act 2011. Concerns have been raised regarding the possible misappropriation of charity funds and weak internal financial controls.

The Commission discovered that the church had expanded rapidly in the UK, growing from a few branches to more than 90 locations nationwide, without developing a solid financial governance structure to match its growth.

According to the final report, the Commission found that trustees did not properly oversee more than 100 separate bank accounts operated by different church branches. These accounts were opened and managed autonomously, often without informing central leadership or providing timely income reports.

Commission’s report

The commission reported that the church’s branches operated independently without central approval and that Major financial decisions, such as property purchases and lease agreements, were made without trustee authorisation.

Additionally, some branches used properties without securing planning permissions, leading to costly legal actions. It highlighted that Poor employment contract management resulted in financial settlements for employment disputes, and the lack of a unified monetary system created serious risks to charitable funds.

As a result, the regulator concluded that donor money was at risk due to weak financial oversight and poor governance.

Interim Manager Appointed to Restore Control

On 1 August 2019, following serious concerns about the trustees’ ability to manage the charity effectively, the Commission appointed an interim manager under Section 76(3)(g) of the Charities Act. The interim manager worked alongside the trustees to implement critical financial controls.

This oversight continued until 13 September 2024, when the interim manager was discharged after making progress.

Following the conclusion of the investigation, the Charity Commission announced that it had frozen the charity’s assets to prevent further financial risk while strengthening accountability structures.

Amy Spiller, Head of Investigations at the Charity Commission, said:

“The rapid growth of a charity comes with correspondingly larger potential risks, as our inquiry clearly shows. In this case, the trustees’ fundamental failure to maintain financial controls meant donor funds were at serious risk across their entire network.”

She added that the trustees are better positioned to ensure financial responsibility and compliance following regulatory intervention.

Regulatory Action

Upon completing its review, the Commission issued a regulatory action plan that required MFM to strengthen its governance policies and improve financial transparency. The Commission has confirmed that trustees have complied with the action plan, and the charity is now expected to operate under stricter financial controls going forward.

When this report was filed, neither MFM International nor its founder, Daniel Olukoya, had issued a public statement in response to the Charity Commission’s findings.

Collins Edomaruse, the media aide to Mr Olukoya, did not respond to calls or text messages.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

MDAs under fire as FG probes TSA violations

Published

on

The Federal Government, through the Office of the Accountant General of the Federation, has ordered all Ministries, Departments and Agencies to submit their statements of accounts in commercial banks.

The government said the move was part of its plans to maintain financial discipline.

This was disclosed in a memo signed by the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, which was obtained by our correspondent on Tuesday.

Ogunjimi in the memo expressed grievance over the continuous usage of commercial banks by MDAs despite an earlier directive ordering MDAs to close such accounts and focus on the use of the Treasury Single Account domiciled in the Central Bank.

Recall that the government in February mandated MDAs to stop the use of commercial banks, as it opposes the framework of the TSA.

While reiterating the Federal Government’s commitment to the Treasury Single Account policy, the Accountant-General of the Federation urged the Federal Pay Officers to monitor and ensure that Ministries, Departments, and Agencies in the States do not operate any account with the commercial banks or circumvent any provision of the TSA policy,” the statement by the OSGF said in February.

Reacting to the new memo, Ogunniyi said, “It has been observed with dismay that funds belonging to the Federal Government are still domiciled in several accounts held with commercial banks, contrary to Federal Government Circulars and the operational framework of the Treasury Single Account, which mandates the consolidation of all Federal Government revenues and receipts into the TSA domiciled with the Central Bank of Nigeria.

“In view of the above and following the Honourable Minister of Finance directive, all Directors/Heads of Finance and Accounts in Federal Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies and Federal Government-owned Enterprises are immediately required to submit Statements of all Bank Accounts (active, dormant and closed) maintained in all commercial banks over the last six (6) months, clearly indicating account names, account numbers, bank branches and current balances.”

“This directive takes immediate effect and must be treated with the utmost urgency, as it is part of the ongoing efforts to strengthen fiscal discipline and uphold the integrity of the Treasury Single Account Framework.”

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

Kanu to defend self, lists Danjuma, Wike, Sanwo-Olu as witnesses

Published

on

The detained leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, made a dramatic turn on Tuesday by informing the Federal High Court in Abuja that he was ready to open his defence.

This came just hours after Omoyele Sowore, the 2023 presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, led protests in parts of Abuja demanding Kanu’s release.

Kanu had, last Thursday, filed a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction to continue his trial.

The objection came on the same day a team of medical experts appointed by the court declared him medically fit to stand trial, Channels reports.

In a fresh motion personally filed on Tuesday, October 21, Kanu told the court that he was prepared to begin his defence “pursuant to the order of this honourable court made on the 16th day of October 2015, directing the defendant to commence his defence on the 24th day of October 2025.”

He disclosed plans to call 23 witnesses divided into two categories, “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable witnesses”, the latter to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011.

The motion, which Kanu personally signed, suggested that he may have disengaged his legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Kanu Agabi.

He also requested 90 days to conclude his defence due to the number of witnesses he intends to call.

Kanu stated that he would testify on his own behalf, “providing a sworn account of the facts, denying the allegations, and explaining the political context of his statements and actions.”

Among those listed as “compellable witnesses” were former Minister of Defence, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma (retd); former Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Tukur Buratai (retd); Lagos State Governor, Babajide Sanwo-Olu; and Imo State Governor, Hope Uzodinma.

Others include the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike; Minister of Works, Dave Umahi; and former Abia State governor, Okezie Ikpeazu.

Kanu also listed former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN); former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency, Ahmed Rufai Abubakar; and Director-General of the Department of State Services, Yusuf Magaji Bichi, among others whose identities he withheld.

Kanu pledged to submit sworn statements from all voluntary witnesses and to notify the prosecution within a reasonable time.

He assured the court that “no precious time of the honourable court would be delayed,” adding that “justice must not only be done but be manifestly seen to have been done.”

Meanwhile, on the same day Kanu filed his motion, a magistrate court in Abuja ordered the remand of his special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, and 12 others arrested during protests demanding his release.

The police charged the 13 defendants with criminal conspiracy, disobedience of a lawful order, inciting disturbance, and disturbance of public peace — offences contrary to sections 152, 114, and 113 of the Penal Code Law.

Those named in the first two information reports include Ejimakor, Kanu’s brother Emmanuel, Joshua Emmanuel, Wilson Anyalewechi, Okere Kingdom Nnamdi, Clinton Chimeneze, Gabriel Joshua, Isiaka Husseini, Onyekachi Ferdinand, Amadi Prince, Edison Ojisom, Godwill Obioma, and Chima Onuchukwu.

The magistrate, after briefly standing down the case, ordered their remand at Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter till October 24 for arraignment.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending