Connect with us

News

Presidency Explains Nigeria-UK Migration Agreement, Warns Against Misinformation

Published

on

UK Trade Envoy, Florence Eshalomi and Nigeria’s Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji Ojo

The Bola Ahmed Tinubu-led administration has clarified details surrounding the migration partnership between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, dismissing claims that the agreement compels Nigeria to accept foreign nationals.

It was reports that the clarification was contained in a statement issued by the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga.

According to the Presidency, the Memorandum of Understanding signed during the visit of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu does not require Nigeria to receive non-citizens.

The statement emphasised that only verified nationals of each country would be repatriated under the agreement.

“Nowhere in the 12-page memorandum is Nigeria required to accept foreign nationals other than Nigerians,” the statement said.

The MoU, signed by Nigeria’s Minister of Interior and the UK Home Secretary, is aimed at promoting safe, orderly, and regulated migration between both countries.

The presidency noted that it also seeks to strengthen cooperation in tackling irregular migration and related offences.

The government explained that returnees must undergo multiple layers of identification and verification before repatriation.

Where errors occur, such individuals would be returned to the requesting country at its own cost, the presidency noted.

Onanuga said the agreement provides that all returnees must be treated with dignity and respect, in line with international human rights standards, adding that it also allows individuals to appeal deportation decisions under applicable domestic and international laws.

The Presidency stressed that Nigeria has not ceded control over its immigration processes, pointing out that under the agreement, the Nigeria Immigration Service retains sole authority to issue travel documents and manage all entry procedures.

The full statement reads: “It has become necessary to debunk the raft of misinformation assailing the migration partnership between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the two nations on the sidelines of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s historic state visit to the UK.

“The memorandum on immigration cooperation, like other memoranda signed, aimed to strengthen the partnership between Nigeria and the United Kingdom.

“Nigeria’s Minister of Interior and the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland signed the Migration MoU.

See also  KWAM 1’s Airport conduct amounts to terrorism in most climes – NCAA

“The MoU establishes a framework to facilitate a regulated and safe migration flow between the two countries and to encourage further bilateral cooperation in the fight against irregular migration and associated acts by citizens of each country, in accordance with their respective immigration and citizenship laws and extant international treaties, conventions, protocols, agreements, and charters.

“Nowhere in the 12-page memorandum is Nigeria required to accept foreign nationals other than Nigerians. Nationals to be repatriated must have undergone multiple levels of identification and verification, and, where errors occur, they are returned to the requesting country at the requesting country’s cost.

“Under the agreement, Nigeria and the United Kingdom will work together to secure the dignified return of their nationals who do not, or no longer, have the right to enter or remain in the territory of the other country.

“A clear condition in the MoU is that the returnees concerned are bona fide nationals of the country and are treated with dignity and respect, with due regard to their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

“Law enforcement officers in each country will take the necessary action to protect the interests and well-being of citizens of either party and to mitigate conflict triggers related to migration matters.

“A key provision in the MoU is that the migrant to be returned must carry his legally acquired personal belongings to the country of destination, unlike in the past when migrants left with nothing.

“Article 12 further reinforces this good deal: “Every returnee will be given ample opportunity to make adequate arrangements for the transfer or disposal of his property in the territory of the requesting party, under the supervision of the mission of the requested party.”

“Another provision is that where a return is being considered, and the person has made a claim under relevant domestic or international human rights legislation, that claim will be considered in line with the provisions under the party’s respective domestic legislation. The appeal may relate to circumstances in which the foreign nationals have been lawfully resident in the territory of the requesting party for most of their lives and socially and culturally integrated in the territory of the requesting party. Another ground of appeal may be where the nationals would face significant obstacles to their integration into the country to which they are to be deported.

See also  US ‘not concerned’ by reports Russia aiding Iran — Official

“Article 9 of the MoU sets out the conditions for the migrant’s return.

“Before departure, identification checks will be carried out by the officers of the requested party in the territory of the requesting party and on arrival by the competent authorities of the requested party. The requesting party will coordinate all returns with the officers of the requested party.

“A return may be conducted by means of a scheduled aircraft or an aircraft chartered specifically for this purpose by the authorities of the parties; the requesting party will provide the flight details and particulars of each returnee five (5) working days before the date of return.

“A return will be conducted using an original, valid passport, or, if the requesting party can biometrically match a returnee to a visa application made in the territory of the requested party, then an expedited process will be permissible, via which the requesting party will facilitate the return or repatriation using a UK Letter (UKL).

“If a returnee cannot be biometrically matched to a visa application by the requesting party, but there is otherwise strong evidence to confirm nationality, including a copy of a passport, a passport number or a national identity card, then an expedited process will again be permissible via which the requesting party will facilitate return or repatriation using a UK Letter (UKL).

“Should the requested party not be satisfied with a returnee’s identity within five (5) working days of submission of the UK Letter (UKL) to Nigerian authorities, detailed reasons should be presented to the requesting party why the identity cannot be satisfied. In these circumstances, removal will be deferred.

“If subsequent evidence shows that a returnee who has been returned is not a national of the requested party, the requesting party will take the person back to its territory at the requesting party’s cost and by the most efficient means possible. The request for the return of the person referred to in Article X will be made within ten (10) working days following the return exercise and carried out within fourteen (14) working days after acceptance of the request.”

See also  Starmer slams Man United’s co-owner Ratcliffe over immigration comments

“Article 9, subsection 3, shows that Nigeria has not ceded to the UK the right to document the repatriated person.

“The section says: It shall be the sole responsibility of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) to issue and handle, as is necessary under Nigerian domestic legislation, any Nigerian documentation (including the digital acknowledgement of receipt of a UK Letter) ahead of the notified date of return as stated in the UK Letter. This shall be distinct from the UK Letter process and remains the sole right and responsibility of Nigerian authorities, including the handling of the
travel document and any onward transmission required from the issuing office to enable entry.

“Article 11 deals with returnee reintegration assistance. It states that every returnee will be able to access basic on-arrival and reintegration assistance in the territory of the requested party.

“Short-term assistance may include airport reception, accommodation, onward transportation, care and provision packs and small cash assistance. Medium-term assistance can include support to find and reunite with family; support in obtaining the in-country documentation required, signposting to local services, and the potential provision of mental well-being and counselling services (if required).

“Longer-term assistance may allow access to a Returnee Education and Entrepreneurship Fund to enable sustainable reintegration. Support may include accessing the local job market, setting up a business, accessing vocational training or further education, and assistance with legal migration opportunities.

“Should the parties’ domestic legislation regarding the provision of reintegration support to all or certain categories of returnees change, or should the overarching non-legally mandated package of reintegration support change, the parties will inform each other as soon as is practicable.”

” The MoU, similar to those signed in 2012, 2017, and 2022, is for an initial period of five years, renewable for a further five-year period, as may be agreed by the parties.

“We reiterate that media organisations should seek clarification when uncertain about any issue to avoid misinforming the public.”

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Iran Warns UK That Allowing US To Use British Bases Is Participation In Aggression

Published

on

Iran’s foreign minister has warned the United Kingdom that Tehran considers Britain’s decision to allow the United States to use British military bases as “participation in aggression.”

Seyyed Abbas Araghchi criticised the UK’s “negative and biased” stance toward the US-Israeli assault on Iran during a call with his British counterpart.

Araghchi warned that granting America access to UK bases “will certainly be considered participation in aggression.”

However, in response to the allegation, a spokesperson of the UK Prime Minister told reporters the UK granted the United States access only “for a specific defensive and limited purpose” in response to Iran’s strikes across the Middle East.

“Our position has been crystal clear from the outset. We didn’t participate in the initial strikes, and we’re not getting drawn into the wider war,” the spokesperson said.

According to reports, the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer initially refused Washington’s request to use UK military bases for its attacks on Iran, with the PM considering the strikes illegal.

However, Starmer joined the defence against Iran’s retaliation after Iranian forces attacked British military assets in the Middle East.

It was reported earlier that Starmer said his country accepted a United States request to use British bases for defensive strikes against Iranian missiles in storage depots or launchers.

“The United States has requested permission to use British bases for that specific and limited defensive purpose. We have taken the decision to accept this request to prevent Iran firing missiles across the region,” Starmer said at the time.

See also  Reps to probe ₦20tn abandoned FG lands, buildings

Tehran’s warning escalates diplomatic tensions between Iran and Britain as the conflict between Iran and the United States and Israel enters its fourth week.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

British Government Gives US Permission To Strike Iranian Missiles Sites Targeting Ships From UK Bases

Published

on

The British government authorised the United States on Friday to use military bases in Britain to strike Iranian missile sites attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a decision that prompted Iran to warn the move constitutes “participation in aggression.”

According to a British spokesperson, ministers met on Friday to discuss the war with Iran and Iran’s blocking of the Strait of Hormuz.

“They confirmed that the agreement for the US to use UK bases in the collective self-defence of the region includes US defensive operations to degrade the missile sites and capabilities being used to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz,” the statement said.

It was reported earlier that Iran’s foreign minister, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, warned the United Kingdom that Tehran considers Britain’s decision to allow America to use British military bases as “participation in aggression.”

Araghchi criticised the UK’s “negative and biased” stance toward the US-Israeli assault on Iran during a call with his British counterpart following Friday’s authorisation.

Starmer Reverses Earlier Position On Base Use
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said earlier this week Britain would not enter a war over Iran. He initially rejected an American request to use British bases for strikes on Iran, saying he needed confirmation that any military action was legal.

However, Starmer changed his stance after Iran conducted strikes on British allies across the Middle East, allowing America to use RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, a joint US-UK base in the Indian Ocean.

It was gathered that President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked Starmer since the conflict started, complaining he was not doing enough to help America.

See also  See real reason ex-defence minister, Badaru resigned

On Monday, Trump said there were “some countries that greatly disappointed me” before he singled out Britain, which he said had once been considered “the Rolls-Royce of allies.”

Meanwhile, the British spokesperson’s statement on Friday called for “urgent de-escalation and a swift resolution to the war.”

The authorisation now expands Britain’s involvement in the Middle East conflict beyond defensive operations. The UK previously limited its participation to intercepting Iranian missiles and drones threatening British military assets and allies in the region.

In response to what Iran tagged “agression “ it has effectively halted oil passage through the Strait of Hormuz, sparking a global energy crisis as the waterway serves as the route for roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies.

The conflict between Iran and the United States and Israel enters its fourth week with casualties mounting on both sides.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

News

Why Military Alone Can’t Solve Nigeria’s Insecurity Problem – Buratai

Published

on

A former Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai (rtd), has warned that depending only the Nigerian Army to address the insecurity situation in the country is not a wholesome approach.

Speaking in a recent interview on Channels Television, he argued that the fight against insurgency must involve every sector of the country.

Buratai pointed out that while troops have remained consistent in their field operations across various flashpoints, their efforts must be backed by improved governance, economic growth, and social programs from other government institutions and stakeholders.

According to him, although troops have continued operations in affected areas, efforts from government agencies, communities and other sectors are needed through governance, development and social programmes.

“The whole country is over-relying on the military,” he said, noting that several agencies and tiers of government have specific responsibilities in tackling insecurity.

The former army chief recalled that Nigeria’s National Security Strategy 2019 had already provided a broad plan that includes economic, social and infrastructure-based solutions.

However, he questioned whether the strategy has been consistently implemented over time.

He pointed out that ending insurgency goes beyond combat, adding that issues such as unemployment, poverty and poor infrastructure contribute to instability.

According to Buratai, the keys to defeating insurgency lie in fixing the root causes of unrest, such as poverty, unemployment, and the lack of basic amenities. He specifically mentioned that the dilapidated state of roads in conflict zones is a major setback for the military.

“In some instances, an operation that should take two hours could take up to five hours due to bad roads,” he said, adding that such delays create opportunities for insurgents to plant explosives and stage ambushes.

See also  Forgive Kwam 1, like prodigal son, MC Oluomo begs Tinubu

He noted that improving infrastructure, especially roads, would boost military effectiveness and reduce risks faced by personnel in the field.

Buratai also urged state governments to take stronger steps in addressing the root causes of insecurity by focusing on youth development.

He said engaging young people through job creation, skills training, and economic empowerment is important in preventing their involvement in violent activities.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

Continue Reading

Trending