There were indications on Tuesday that
the Federal Government would opt for a retaliatory measure if the
United Kingdom went ahead to implement its proposed £3,000 visa bond.
Nigeria was said to have made this
known during a private meeting between Foreign Affairs Minister,
Olugbenga Ashiru, and British High Commissioner, Andrew Pocock, in
Abuja.
The PUNCH had reported
exclusively on Tuesday that the Federal Government summoned Pocock over
the policy which it said was capable of harming the existing cordial
relationship between the two countries.
Nigeria is one of the six countries
whose nationals would be required to pay the £3,000 bond under a
proposed policy that will take effect in November. The others are
India, Bangledish, Ghana, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
It was gathered that Pocock admitted
at the meeting with Ashiru that the UK planned to introduce the
“financial bond as a way of tackling abuse in the immigration system”,
but added, “No final decision has been made.”
Ashiru, who was said to have recalled
the days when nationals of Commonwealth travelled freely to the UK
and other member states, expressed displeasure over the policy which
he described as not only “discriminatory but capable of undermining
the spirit of the Commonwealth family.”
A source privy to the meeting said,
“The minister conveyed the reservations of the Federal Government to
Pocock, who said the policy was still a proposal. The minister
reminded him of British investments in Nigeria and vice-versa.
“He asked him to think about the
implications a retaliatory measure would have on the two countries. The
minister stressed that Nigeria might also impose £3,000 visa bond on
British nationals coming into the country too.”
After the meeting, the ministry issued
a statement in which it recalled “the strong historical bonds between
the peoples of the various countries who were all regarded at that time
as Commonwealth citizens.”
It further “recalled that this
time-honoured practice was unilaterally jettisoned by the UK in 1985,
thereby weakening the bonds of the Commonwealth family.”
According to the statement by the
spokesperson for the ministry, Ogbole Ode, Ashiru told the British
envoy “that the proposed policy would definitely negate the joint
commitment by Prime Minister David Cameron and President Goodluck
Jonathan to double the volume of bilateral trade between the two
countries by 2014.”
It added, “Ambassador Ashiru pointed
out that the decision of the UK government is coming at the time the
Commonwealth Foreign Ministers have unanimously recommended for
adoption at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November
2013, a proposal to remove visa requirements for holders of official
and diplomatic passports from member states.”
Ashiru, who appealed to the UK to
reconsider the proposed policy, noted “that the Federal Government
has a responsibility to take appropriate measures to protect the
interests of Nigerians, who may be affected by it (policy), if finally
introduced.
“The minister informed the British High
Commissioner that the Federal Government values the very cordial
relations and strategic partnership between the two countries and would
not want the introduction of any new policy to affect these cherished
relations,” the statement added.
In its own statement, the British
High Commission reiterated that details of the policy were still
being worked out. “No final decision has been made,” the Head of Press
and Public Affairs Section, Rob Fitzpatrick said.
The commission said, “if the plan were
to go ahead in Nigeria, it would affect only a very small number of
the highest risk visitors.”
The statement added, “The vast majority
would not be required to pay a bond. Those paying bonds would receive
the bond back, if they abided by the terms of their visa.
“Let me put this in perspective. Over
180,000 Nigerians apply to visit the UK each year. About 70 per cent
or around 125,000, of those applicants are successful. Travel between
our two countries is a key part of our strong cultural and business
relationship. Financial bonds would be focussed on only a tiny
minority of potential abusers. It would not be a “£3,000 visa charge”
as some media reporting has alleged.
“As soon as more details of the policy
have been decided, we will inform the Nigerian government and public
fully and officially, in the spirit of our long standing friendship,
and our wish to help bona fide Nigerian visitors to work, study or do
business in the UK.”
Also in Abuja, the Senate raised its
voice against the proposed visa policy and warned that Nigeria would
have to adopt the principle of reciprocity if the UK went ahead to
implement it.
Leader of the Senate, Senator Victor
Ndoma-Egba, said, “ I will like to say immediately that diplomacy is
based on reciprocity and it is not an option that is lost on us. When
we had misunderstanding with South Africa, Nigeria rose to the
occasion. We will always rise to the occasion;but I think the way out
is for Nigerians to have more faith in their country.”
Senator Ita Enang, who is the
Chairman Committee on Rules and Business and his counterparts in
the Petroleum (Downstream) and Navy committees, also said the
policy would greatly hurt relations between Nigeria and Britain.
Anyanwu, for instance, advised the
UK authorities to be considerate in their anti-terrorism policies in
order not to hurt the ties between Nigeria and Britain.
She said, “I know it is a way of
expressing their own frustration with the involvement of some
Nigerians in negative things.This is what I think, but it is going to
be a very offending policy; it is surprising that it is coming from
Britain because we have a special historical link with them.
“I think that what Britain ought to do
is to encourage us and fully accept Nigeria as part of its history and
not to extend such a mild form of hostility towards us. We will have to
respond in ways that are loud and clear. We have to tell them that
enough is enough.”
Meanwhile, a Senior Advocate of
Nigeria, Mr Femi Falana, has said he had contacted some human rights
lawyers in the UK to challenge the proposed policy when passed by
the British parliament.
“We will challenge the British
government under their own Human Rights Act and European Human Rights
convention. The law does not allow the UK to target the nationals of
any particular country for extortion. The Federal Government must also
be prepared to retaliate in like manner if the policy is allowed by
the British government,’’ Falana said.
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everydayAdvertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
D british govt are useless y can't dey let all countries including us pay d fees is not deir fault wen we don't cherish ourself.
ReplyDeleteDo they really think they can Cow us into accepting Gay Marriage ??????
ReplyDeletethis is just a way they want to use to force Nigerian to accept their gay and homosexual policy let be on our guide.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I like the legal system that has effective and efficient teeth.
ReplyDeleteThe European Human Rights Convention takes priority over the UK law. If the UK does not backdown on this matter, the European Court of Human Right will judge the case to set a precedent.
I think the UK will retreat because there are many things at stake. As Nigeria is planning fire and brimstone, India is planning their own and other countries too. The UK is in trouble for making the move in the first place.
“We will challenge the British government under their own Human Rights Act and European Human Rights convention. The law does not allow the UK to target the nationals of any particular country for extortion" What the UK government is doing is NOT extortion. A bond is what has been asked. If you do the right thing, you'll get your money back. Appreciate the inconvenience of this, but we have brought this upon ourselves. How do you explain going to church to hear a testimony (from the pastor) that you now have your papers after a couple of years of hiding from the law? Unfortunately, the UK government has to protect its citizenry first. We are not the sole targets of this, earlier in the year, the government decided to remove benefits for (EU) immigrants who have not spent up to a certain amount of time in the country and they got a lot of flak for this but the system had been abused by Poles and Romanians and they had to protect their own.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm not in support of it, but we have abused the UK immigration laws for way too long. In a way, we had it coming.
My 2 cents - George
i know say na the anti-gay marriage dey pain dem for yansh! hahahaha...they impose 3k, we impose 20k. shikiena!
ReplyDeleteI reckon British Government will rethink the Policy when the countries involved start kicking against it. The only place it can hurt is if Britain realise the economic implications of such moves. I don't think Britain would like to jettison its good relationship with their 'friends' when they have already made 'political enemies' amongst some Latin American countries.
ReplyDeleteIf the countries involved put up enough resistance, UK will announce a review otherwise known in Political circles as a 'U turn' . All we can do is to sit and wait. Sure you have not heard the last on the subject. Wait for political 'horse trading' 'Wole Opadiran- UK
What has gay marriage got to do with this.
ReplyDelete