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.

See also  NDLEA recorded 77,792 arrests, seized 14,847kg drugs in five years – Marwa

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.

See also  US military threat: People begged me not to speak about Trump – Wike

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.

See also  Tinubu vows safe return of abducted Oyo teachers, pupils; read details

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

Reps order IG to produce fake, PFIPC agency DG Adeyemi within 48 hours

Published

on

The House of Representatives Committee investigating the operations of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council has directed the Inspector-General of Police, Olatunji Disu, to produce the self-acclaimed Director-General of the organisation, Adeyemi Adeniyi, before it on Wednesday.

The directive was issued on Monday during the resumed investigative hearing at the National Assembly Complex, Abuja.

Representing the IG, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bashir Abdullahi, appeared before the committee and was instructed to ensure Adeyemi’s appearance by noon on Wednesday to assist lawmakers in their ongoing investigation into the activities of the organisation.

The committee is probing the circumstances under which the PFIPC, despite not being legally established, allegedly secured office accommodation in Phase III of the Federal Secretariat Complex in Abuja and received a budgetary allocation of ₦1.32bn in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

The directive followed the Nigeria Police Force’s confirmation of key aspects of its criminal investigation, including petitions from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President alleging that Adeyemi fraudulently presented himself as the Director-General of both the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.

The Committee Chairman, Yusuf Gagdi, said Adeyemi’s appearance had become imperative given the seriousness of the allegations and the institutions implicated in the matter.

“This committee clearly needs the suspected DG to appear before this committee. People’s names are involved. People’s integrity are involved. Institutional names are involved. Institutional integrity is involved.

“It is not an option now. We will need him here to confirm some documents to us in such a way that will not undermine our investigation to enable us to submit our report on time,” Gagdi said.

See also  Defected Rivers lawmakers free to leave PDP, says Wike

The committee subsequently directed its clerk to formally communicate its resolution to the Inspector-General of Police.

“The committee hereby resolves that the Inspector-General of Police of the Federal Republic of Nigeria do kindly present Mr Adeyemi on Wednesday by 12 noon. That is the ruling of the committee,” Gagdi declared.

Earlier, ACP Abdullahi informed lawmakers that although investigations were ongoing, the police had already filed an eight-count charge against Adeyemi before the Federal High Court.

“The Nigerian Police Force investigated part of this case late last year and filed eight-count charges before a Federal High Court. The case is ongoing,” he said.

He disclosed that the suspect had been arrested and arraigned, but cautioned against making public disclosures that could prejudice the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

“We don’t want to say things that are under investigation. It is definitely going to prejudice the ongoing investigation and make people have opinions that may prejudge the outcome of an investigation or judicial decision,” Abdullahi stated.

Despite the police’s reservations, the committee sought confirmation of documentary evidence already in its possession.

The police confirmed that on October 17, 2025, the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President petitioned security agencies over allegations against Adeyemi, prompting investigations that culminated in criminal charges bordering on conspiracy and fraud.

Investigators also confirmed receiving another petition alleging that Adeyemi falsely presented himself as the Director-General of both the Presidential Economic Advisory Council and the Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council.

According to the police, the petition alleged that Adeyemi used the purported office to obtain accommodation within the Federal Secretariat, sought approval to recruit about 300 personnel, attempted to secure a $1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Appropriation Act for the non-existent agency, and planned to organise a World Investment Summit under the platform of the purported council.

See also  Agatu youths block Oweto–Otukpo highway, protest persistent killings in Benue

One of the highlights of the hearing came when the committee compared signatures on documents allegedly issued from the Office of the Chief of Staff to the President with signatures on authentic official correspondence obtained by the police.

When asked whether the signatures matched, the police witness responded unequivocally,”They are not the same.”

The committee said the discrepancy reinforced concerns that official State House documents may have been forged.

Gagdi further asked, “So, it is not only a letter that was suspected to be forged? We are dealing with documents that include what is said to be a forged Act of the National Assembly in an attempt to establish a fake agency,” he added.

Gagdi disclosed that investigators had identified about 29 allegedly forged documents, including purported approvals from the State House, the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, the Ministry of Finance and several other government institutions.

According to him, representatives of many of the affected agencies had already appeared before the committee and disowned the documents attributed to their offices.

Gagdi, however, stressed that the committee had deliberately avoided compelling the police to disclose information that could compromise ongoing criminal investigations.

“We are avoiding a situation whereby they will be pushed to make statements that will undermine their ongoing investigation,” he added.

He assured that the House investigation would continue independently and that its final report could recommend further action by relevant security agencies.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

See also  WHO releases $500,000 to support Ebola response in DR Congo

Continue Reading

News

Forged state house letter used to create fake PFIPC agency, Acct-General reveals

Published

on

The House of Representatives’ investigation into the operations of the controversial Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council took a dramatic turn on Monday after the Accountant-General of the Federation, Shamseldeen Ogunjimi, revealed that a forged State House letter was used to obtain official government recognition for the ‘fake’ agency.

Appearing before the House Ad Hoc Committee probing the circumstances surrounding the establishment and operations of the council, Ogunjimi disclosed that the Office of the Accountant-General acted on what appeared to be an authentic correspondence from the presidency requesting the creation of an administrative code for the PIFPC, only for investigations to later establish that the letter did not originate from the State House.

The revelation is the latest in a series of disclosures before the committee, which is investigating how a non-existent presidential agency allegedly secured office accommodation in the Federal Secretariat, sought budgetary allocations, recruited personnel and obtained official government recognition through what investigators believe were forged documents.

Presenting his report, Ogunjimi said the Office of the Accountant-General first interacted with the purported council in November 2024.

According to him, “a letter dated November 7, 2024, bearing a State House reference number, requested the creation of an administrative code for the Presidential Economic Advisory Council to facilitate budgeting, accounting and financial reporting.”

He explained that, in line with established procedures, “the Office of the Accountant-General processed the request, created the administrative code and communicated its approval to the State House,” with a copy sent to the Office of the Auditor-General for the Federation.

See also  Agatu youths block Oweto–Otukpo highway, protest persistent killings in Benue

Following that approval, the office received additional requests from the purported council, including applications for self-accounting status, deployment of personnel, opening of Treasury Single Account and domiciliary accounts, as well as funding approvals.

Ogunjimi, however, stressed that although some administrative processes were carried out, no public funds were ever released to the council.

“It is important to note that no funds were released under salaries, overhead, capital, or any form of intervention or special allocation to the council,” Ogunjimi told the committee.

He further disclosed that while the council requested an establishment grant of ₦27.4bn, the application was rejected because there was no budgetary provision for such expenditure.

The Accountant-General also explained that although the Central Bank of Nigeria opened two domiciliary accounts for the organisation to receive inflows, the accounts never became operational because the council failed to satisfy the regulatory conditions required for their activation.

Lawmakers expressed concern over how the purported agency was able to navigate several layers of government bureaucracy without raising suspicion.

Responding, Ogunjimi made what committee members described as one of the most significant revelations of the hearing.

“The letter that was received by the Treasury was respectfully addressed as coming from the State House. That letter was never issued by the State House”, he said

The disclosure prompted members of the committee to conclude that a “hijacked” State House letter had allegedly been used to mislead government institutions into processing official requests for an agency that had no legal existence.

The committee also questioned how civil servants originally posted to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser to the President eventually became attached to the purported council without the knowledge of the Office of the Accountant-General.

See also  Tension mounts as APC panels disqualify over 150 aspirants in the Pre-primary screening

Ogunjimi explained that two officers deployed to the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser in 2010 and 2013 remained in the office after it was allegedly taken over by the new council, but no formal communication was sent to the treasury notifying it of any change.

“It was never assumed or written to us that those two officers were being taken over. The staff also never reported to the office to say that another council had taken over the office and the name had changed. As far as I was concerned, we were dealing with a new agency, not the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser,” he said.

He further disclosed that when the purported council later requested the deployment of five additional officers, the treasury approved only three after determining that the organisation’s size did not justify the number requested.

“It was when all this matter came to light that I got to know that two of our staff were actually working or being absorbed by the agency. We never knew. We believed, based on the records available to us, that those officers were still with the Office of the Chief Economic Adviser,” he added.

The ongoing House investigation centres on allegations that forged presidential approvals, counterfeit State House correspondence, fake Acts of the National Assembly and other falsified government documents were used to create and operate the purported Presidential Foreign Investment Promotion Council and the Presidential Economic Advisory Council.

The committee has already heard evidence from the Nigeria Police Force, which confirmed that criminal charges bordering on conspiracy and fraud have been filed against the prime suspect, Adeyemi Adeniyi, at the Federal High Court.

See also  VIPs move to engage NSCDC after 11,000 policemen were recalled

At its sitting on Monday, the committee also directed the Inspector-General of Police to produce Adeyemi before lawmakers by noon on Wednesday to answer questions relating to the alleged forgery of official government documents and the operations of the purported presidential agency.

The committee is expected to conclude its investigation with recommendations on possible administrative, legislative and criminal actions against those found culpable.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

See full list of African countries that do not need proof of funds for UK’s student visa

Published

on

The United Kingdom on Monday updated its financial requirements for applicants seeking Student and Child Student visas, retaining stricter evidence rules while exempting nationals of only three African countries from submitting proof of funds at the point of application.

The updated guidance, published by the UK government on its website, listed Botswana, Mauritius and Tunisia as the only African countries whose nationals will not be required to provide financial evidence upfront unless requested during the visa decision-making process.

Other countries on the exemption list include Australia, Canada, China, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, among others.

Despite the exemption, the UK clarified that applicants from the listed countries must still meet all financial requirements and could be asked to provide evidence during the application process.

The guidance stated, “You must meet the financial requirements for this route when you apply; however, you may not need to submit evidence upfront as part of your application. In these circumstances, the decision maker may still request the evidence from you during the application process to prove you meet the financial requirements.”

The development means applicants from major African source countries for UK education, including Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Egypt and others not listed, will continue to submit financial documents as part of their visa applications.

Under the revised rules, applicants for a Student visa must demonstrate they have sufficient funds to cover tuition fees as stated on their Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies and living expenses.

See also  VIPs move to engage NSCDC after 11,000 policemen were recalled

Students studying outside London are required to show they have £1,171 for each month of their course, up to a maximum of nine months, while those studying in London must show £1,529 per month for the same period.

Applicants travelling with dependants must also show additional funds. Those studying outside London must have £680 per month for each dependant, while applicants studying in London must show £845 monthly for each dependant, both for up to nine months.

For Child Student visa applicants, the required maintenance funds vary depending on their living arrangements, including boarding school accommodation, foster care, residence with parents or legal guardians, or independent living for eligible 16 and 17-year-olds.

The UK government also outlined acceptable sources of funds, including government-backed student loans, official financial sponsorship, personal savings and money belonging to parents or eligible partners.

However, it said applicants cannot rely on overdrafts, cryptocurrency holdings, stocks and shares, pensions or funds kept in unregulated financial institutions.

The guidance further requires applicants using personal or family funds to show that the required amount has been held for at least 28 consecutive days before the application, with financial evidence dated no more than 31 days before submission.

The UK also maintained exemptions from providing financial evidence for certain categories of applicants, including those applying to extend their stay after spending at least 12 months in the country on a valid visa, Student Union Sabbatical Officers, doctors and dentists in training, and applicants whose nationality qualifies for the reduced documentary requirement.

The latest update comes as the UK continues to tighten oversight of its international student visa system while maintaining financial eligibility requirements for prospective students seeking to study in the country.

See also  Ex-CDS Musa meets Tinubu as Irabor dismisses B’Haram recruitment claim

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

Trending