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  Former diplomat Dr Christopher Kolade dies at 92

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 pulls troops from Nigeria after ISIS deputy’s killing

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  Late-night fire guts vehicle at Kwara hotel

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

Step-by-step guide for contactless passport renewal for Nigerians abroad

Published

on

The Nigeria Immigration Service has released an updated step-by-step guide for Nigerians living abroad to renew their passports through its Contactless Passport Application System.

The Service announced the update in a post on its official X handle on Tuesday, encouraging Nigerians in the diaspora to take advantage of the digital platform.

According to the Service, the application process involves the following steps:

1. Visit the official NIS Passport Application portal.
2. Select Continue from the pop-up window.
3. Click Apply for Renewal/Re-issue.
4. Create an account and verify your identity using your National Identification Number and date of birth.
5. Complete the application form and choose your preferred processing embassy or high commission.
6. Upload the required documents.
7. Pay the passport fee for your selected booklet.
8. Obtain your Application ID and Reference Number.
9. Select the Contactless option under the Application Status/Book Appointment section.
10. Review the contactless instructions and click “I Understand and Opt In.”
11. Download the NIS Mobile App.
12. Log in or create a profile on the app.
13. Select Passport Application Services.
14. Click Passport Biometrics Enrolment, enter your Application ID and Reference Number, and check your eligibility.
15. Capture your facial image and fingerprints.
16. Complete the liveness verification.
17. Pay the contactless service fee.
18. Submit your biometrics.

The Service, however, noted that not all applicants would qualify for the contactless process.

“If response is INELIGIBLE, then it means applicant should return to the landing page of the portal to book physical appointment at the Embassy/High Commission,” it stated.

See also  Customs intercept N48.5m cannabis, seize N220m contraband in Kaduna

For applicants who successfully complete the contactless biometric enrolment, the NIS said additional documents must be forwarded to the selected processing mission.

“Upon successful completion of biometrics via Contactless App, applicant should print-out the Application form, passport booklet payment, biometric payment, current Passport and enclose all in a self-addressed return envelope to the processing embassy selected during the application process,” the Service said.

It added that applicants would be able to monitor the progress of their applications after submission.

“Applicant may track successful application two weeks after submission via https://track.immigration.gov.ng or on the NIS Mobile App,” the Service added.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

PFIPC scandal: Ex-SGF Babachir Lawal suspects ‘big racket’ behind ‘fake’ agency’s budget code

Published

on

A former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Babachir Lawal, has called for a judicial inquiry into the controversy surrounding the alleged fake Presidential Fiscal and Infrastructure Projects Council (PFIPC), arguing that the scandal points to deep institutional failures rather than a simple administrative error.

Speaking in an interview with ARISE NEWS on Monday, Lawal said the circumstances surrounding the alleged agency suggested the existence of a wider network that enabled it to function within government processes despite questions over its legal status.

He insisted that an administrative investigation alone would be insufficient. “I don’t think it should even be administrative alone; it should be a judicial inquiry”, the former SGF clearly stated.

Lawal questioned claims surrounding an alleged ₦27.5bn take-off grant reportedly linked to the agency, asking how such funds could have been approved and released if the organisation had no legal basis.

“Nigerians are talking about how N1.3bn was inserted into the budget. The man himself first said the quarrel came about because he refused to part with 48% of the 27-point-something billion Naira take-off grant. That money has been spent before this budget office was looking for the budget.

“Who gave him the money? It was not appropriated for; it’s not in any budget, that N27.5bn Naira for which he says somebody demanded 48%. Who gave him the money? How did the process of generating the request for the release come up? How did it go through?

“We are just talking about the tip of the iceberg here. Down there, before we got to here, N27.5bn had already been disbursed, according to him, as a take-off grant. How did that money get to him? It was not in the budget. So this is what should frighten us. If such money can go to a fictitious organisation, we only now begin to see it when we are quarrelling about how it got into the budget. How did that money get to them?”, Babachir queried.

See also  Senate confirms Amupitan as INEC chairman

The former SGF argued that the controversy only became public because of disagreements over the sharing of funds rather than because government oversight mechanisms functioned effectively.

He continued,… “So you see, that’s how we got to know this to start with. That is the reason why we got to know this on his side of the coin. It’s about the sharing of the N27.5bn. That’s why the thing came up. So it didn’t work. It should have worked before that money left the government coffers into the account of the agency.”

Lawal also alleged that the scandal reflected broader institutional weaknesses within the current administration, arguing that the Office of the SGF should have detected any irregularities before the matter progressed through official channels.

He maintained that the SGF’s office bears responsibility for identifying and flagging agencies without legal backing before their requests or budgets proceed through government.

He said, “It’s institutional compromise, because in this, I sense there’s quite a big racket going on somewhere along the line. If the agency was created by maybe one big man alone, and then he wants to go through the budget process, the budget office assigns the budget code according to the chart of accounts in GIFMIS. So, how did they manage to assign the budget code for this agency that does not exist? Who inserted it?

“Because first of all, the budget office issues a budget call circular to MDAs, and everybody starts to prepare his budget according to the budget line. They give you ceilings, and you prepare your budget and forward it to the budget office as an agency or ministry. Now, the Ministry of Budget and Planning would, in our time, call every MDA to come and defend its budget. Now, if you don’t exist, how did they recognise that you are a genuine entity? Who gave out the budget code and allowed their budget to pass?

See also  APC unveils 25 governorship candidates as Kwara, Bauchi suffer delay

“That’s what oversight is. The SGF should be able to know, because before it gets to the National Assembly, that budget goes through the SGF. Unless there’s a dereliction of duty by the SGF’s office, the responsibility to flag that this is a fake agency would have come from them.”

Lawal further criticised the National Assembly, accusing lawmakers of failing to thoroughly scrutinise budget proposals.

“It is a legislative oversight. This government—this National Assembly—has no interest in scrutinising the budget that comes before them. Most of the legislators just go in there to earn their salaries and collect allowances and go. They don’t scrutinise the budget line by line. We all know how this particular government works. There are some people that when they talk, nobody else has the authority to contravene.”

He also suggested that public attention should focus not only on the agency’s legal status but on the individuals who allegedly enabled its operations.

“Why are you interested in N27.5bn that had already been collected and spent? We are talking about an agency that we are claiming doesn’t exist. Maybe it exists, but it doesn’t have a legal framework for its existence. But it exists. And there are a lot of powerful people that make sure it exists in that form.

“Those are the people we need to expose. The Chief of Staff, in particular, is so powerful. The SGF is there, just reneging on his responsibilities. And nothing has happened now”, he concluded.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

 

See also  Senate suspension row: Akpabio drags Natasha to Supreme Court

Continue Reading

News

Fake Agency Scandal: Gbajabiamila threatens Adeyemi with N10bn defamation suit

Published

on

Chief of Staff to the President, Femi Gbajabiamila, ha threatened to initiate legal steps against Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi, and demand N10 billion in damages over allegations linking him to murder, bribery and other criminal activities.

The move was conveyed in a letter dated July 6, 2026, signed by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, on behalf of Pinheiro LP, the Chief of Staff’s legal representatives.

The dispute stems from a press conference held by Adeyemi on June 25, during which he accused Gbajabiamila of seeking a share of the alleged take-off funds of the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC), receiving money through intermediaries, abusing his office and participating in efforts to conceal wrongdoing.Death & Tragedy

During the briefing, Adeyemi also referred to the Chief of Staff as “a murderer” and “an assassin”.

The Presidency has consistently maintained that the PFIPC is a fictitious organisation, despite its appearance in the 2026 Appropriation Act.

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers dismissed all the allegations as entirely false and defamatory, saying they were intended to damage his reputation.

The letter stated: “not only false but gravely defamatory,” adding that the allegations were “designed to portray our client as corrupt, dishonest, criminally culpable, morally bankrupt, administratively incompetent, a murderer and unfit to occupy public office.”

According to the legal team, Adeyemi is already standing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/652/2026, FRN v. Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew & Ors, over allegations including forgery of an appointment letter bearing Gbajabiamila’s purported signature and the alleged counterfeiting of Presidential letter-headed papers to present himself as a government official.Nigeria Investment Guide

See also  UPDATED: NCAA stops Fuji star K1 de Ultimate from flying for six months

The lawyers further rejected Adeyemi’s claims that Gbajabiamila demanded 48 per cent of a purported N27.4 billion take-off grant for the council, amounting to about N12.5 billion, or that he received N400 million through proxies connected to appointments within the organisation.

Other allegations dismissed in the letter included claims that the Chief of Staff intimidated individuals and media organisations, manipulated budget processes, attempted to misuse security agencies and performed official duties while under the influence of intoxicating substances.Trending News Feed

Gbajabiamila also denied ever having any relationship with Adeyemi.

“You have never at any time met, interacted with, communicated with, or had any form of personal or official dealing whatsoever with him,” the lawyers wrote, adding that the decision to “fabricate and publish allegations against a person with whom you have had absolutely no relationship or interaction underscores the reckless, baseless and malicious nature of your publication.”

The legal team also criticised the timing of the allegations, noting that they were made after criminal proceedings had already been instituted against Adeyemi.

“It is even more disturbing to our client that you resorted to defaming him through your press statements after a criminal Charge had been filed against you,” the letter stated.

It added, “Trial by media remains unknown to Nigerian law and cannot be a substitute for due process.”Nigeria Investment Guide

Gbajabiamila’s lawyers demanded that Adeyemi immediately stop making further defamatory statements, remove all related videos, recordings and transcripts from every platform, issue a full retraction and apology in at least five national newspapers and across all social media platforms used to circulate the claims, and provide a written undertaking that he would refrain from making further allegations.

See also  Gen Rabe’s death: Retired Generals seek security reforms, back stronger community defence

The letter warned that failure to comply would result in both criminal defamation proceedings under the laws of the Federal Capital Territory and a civil lawsuit seeking N10 billion in aggravated and exemplary damages. The damages, it said, would be donated to a charity chosen by Gbajabiamila. The legal action would also seek a perpetual injunction and a court order compelling the publication of an apology.

The controversy centres on the PFIPC, which was listed in the 2026 Appropriation Act under the title Presidential Economic Advisory Council/Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council and received more than N1.3 billion in budgetary allocations, including about N803 million for personnel, N200 million for overhead and N300 million for capital expenditure.

Adeyemi had argued during his June 25 press conference that an agency included in a budget signed by the President could not be regarded as non-existent.

However, the Presidency insists the council is fraudulent and has no legal existence.

Meanwhile, human rights lawyer Femi Falana has argued that the Presidency lacks the constitutional authority to clear anyone involved in the dispute and has called for an independent investigation into the allegations against both Gbajabiamila and Adeyemi.

Adeyemi is scheduled to appear before the Federal High Court on July 27, 2026.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending