Distinguishing the Return of Nigerian Migrants from the EU and North Africa and Alternative Pathways to Their Return
by: Ngozi Louis Uzomah, Ignatius A. Madu, Chukwuedozie K. Ajaero, Eberechukwu J. Ezea | University of Nigeria
This blog is culled from GAPs stakeholder expert panel held on 14th November 2023 at Top Rank Hotel Galaxy Abuja, Nigeria.
Introduction
The EU has made policies and entered into partnerships with some African countries in a bid to control migration in its territory within the last two decades. These policies prioritize sending 'unqualified' migrants back to their origin countries. North African countries on the so-called ‘European migration route’ such as Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, and Algeria are copying these policies and following in the practice of sending migrants home to countries such as Nigeria, one of the prioritized origin countries for these returns. About 170 Nigerian migrants were deported from Germany, Sweden, Lithuania and others over nine months in 2023, and many more from Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco were also deported from these countries. However, some differences exist between returns from the EU and those from North African countries, even though the returnees face the same reintegration challenges.
Returns From Europe
The return of Nigerian migrants from EU countries seems to be smoother in comparison with returns from North Africa. In many cases, potential returnees are counselled pre-departure before being returned through a voluntary return program. In some cases, Nigerian partners are flown in to convince migrants with failed asylum claims to return home.
GAPs researcher in Nigeria attends a training organized by IOM.
Migrants who volunteer to return are given support in-kind and cash and vocational training sessions. Returning countries establish and cooperate with international organizations in third countries in programs that are geared towards the management of returns. These include EU-IOM Joint Initiative for Migrant Protection and Reintegration, Switzerland’s AVRR, Austria’s Development Cooperation project, Holland’s’ COMPASS, and Germany’s GIZ.
GIZ, for example, has support programs in Nigeria that are geared towards reintegrating returnees. However, the initiatives are not tailored to the needs of the returnees and their impacts are not yet evident which renders them as a mere vehicle of incentivization to encourage returns. Returns should not be encouraged but facilitated to create room for consent and voluntariness and to forestall backlash afterwards. Participants from NGOs in the GAPs SEP explained that when GIZ brought migrants who returned from Germany to be sheltered in their facility, GIZ complied adequately by providing the necessary support packages. Three months later, the returnees graduated from the shelter without many challenges. However, it was recognized that sheltering returnees for such a period for just psychosocial support is not enough. Economic empowerment should follow otherwise the inmates will get agitated. Additionally, a lot of the reintegration programs are centralised at the national level and not devolved at the sub-national level. Returnees in smaller towns who are already suffering from poverty and other deprivations are asked by the authorities to travel to the regional capital without financial support for their reintegration welcome pack
Returns from North Africa
On the other hand, returns from North African countries are done haphazardly without understanding the needs of potential returnees. Arriving in Nigeria for example, returnees realize that what they were promised is not what they meet on the ground. This, of course, generates a lot of conflict. Some of them may even wish to go back to where they were returned from once they are exposed to the realities on the ground, in Nigeria. Nigeria is a large country with varying sociocultural and economic dispositions. The returnees are erroneously given a lot of hope without understanding what is available on the ground. Also, the systems and procedures in place are not efficient. For example, some returnees from Libya and Italy were referred to an NGO by the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants, and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI). After a long period of time, they became angry and started fighting because they felt like their time was being wasted. Their expectations including vocational skills and education were not met. They were hoping to get empowered but after staying for three months in the shelter and feeling like there was nothing more for them, they became aggressive, started pointing knives at the shelter attendants and could no longer comply with the shelter regulations. The attendants had to refer them back to NCFRMI as there were no resources to further their reintegration process. The responsibility of the NGO was only to shelter them, but the returnees were demanding other reintegration packages which the organization was not offering.
In addition, the returning countries also do not understand the dynamics in Nigeria. For example, when returnees in Lagos call an NGO in Sokoto or Edo State for support, the NGO is often unable to refer them to any organization in Lagos. As a result, returnees conclude that nothing is working in Nigeria. Another issue is that the shelters are not enough. The NGOs are unable to shelter large numbers of returnees because of a lack of space.
Even though returnees from North Africa seem to have more difficulties reintegrating into Nigeria, it is also challenging for those from Europe. Recently, NGOs in Nigeria interacted with their counterparts in Europe through a regional conference organized by the UN office. The partners from Europe stated that anytime they return migrants to Nigeria, the migrants keep on calling them on the phone to complain that there is nothing in Nigeria for them. Analysis of the situation reveals that pre-departure counselling was extremely poor. The organizers of the return programs in the returning countries must be better educated on the intricacies involved in returning migrants to Nigeria.
131 (including 28 children) stranded Nigerians return from Libya (Source: Punch Nigeria)
Alternative pathways
In the face of inadequate support packages to reintegrate returned Nigerian migrants, alternative pathways to return are needed. Though alternative pathways need a multilateral approach, they rely more on the European countries which should train migrants in skills and possibly try to resettle or return them to a third country which may need the skills that they acquired while living abroad. In such cases, the returnees can be sent to those countries where their skills will be useful rather than to their home countries. This therefore calls for better agreements among African countries. It is believed that those who had migrated before may have acquired better knowledge and skills. A third country might be in a better position to take them in rather than their origin country where they may feel uncomfortable to return due to the risk of death, stigma or fear of being tagged a failure. Systematic improvement of the trade, income, tax and customs policies is also sacrosanct for alternative pathways. Africa should industrialize to add value to its natural resources. This may help develop African countries and make them attractive for returnees.
However, returnees may not key into the program because of a lack of bilateral agreements between Nigeria and other West African/African countries on this type of cooperation. The quality and the protocol of the migration between countries in the region are poor. For example, what happens after the 90-day stay allowed in the ECOWAS protocol is important. It may be impossible to establish oneself within the 90 days stipulated in the protocol. Unfortunately, citizens of neighbouring countries are harassed and extorted within the region. A major solution to these challenges is to allow visa-free travel among African countries. Other solutions include improvement in the quality of intra-country migration among ECOWAS/AU countries, improvement on the existing migration pathways to make them more viable and reliable and improvement in the image of Nigeria as a peace-loving nation and its people as law-abiding citizens. Also widening the legal pathways to migration and regularizing the status of unqualified Nigerian migrants in the EU is necessary. For alternative returns to be viable, there is a need to improve the alternative ways to migrate, both to the EU and within the ECOWAS region.
About 170 Nigerian migrants were deported from Germany, Sweden, Lithuania and others over nine months in 2023, and many more were returned from Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
Conclusion
Nigerians who are returned from the EU receive better treatment than those returned from North Africa in terms of pre-departure counselling, but once returned both face the same reintegration difficulties. The reintegration programs are centralised at the national level making it difficult for returnees in smaller towns to access. Alternative pathways for Nigerian migrants with failed asylum claims would be to work on developing African countries to make them attractive for potential returnees and widen the legal pathways for integration in the EU and migration within ECOWAS/AU including regularization of those in irregular situations.
Contact:
Ngozi Louis Uzomah | University of Nigeria, Nsukka | ngozilouisuzomah@gmail.com
Prof I. A. Madu | University of Nigeria, Nsukka | ignatius.madu@unn.edu.ng
Prof C. K. Ajaero| University of Nigeria, Nsukka | chukwuedozie.ajaero@unn.edu.ng