Processes of consent and voluntariness in return: Tales of three Nigerian migrant returnees
by: Ngozi Louis Uzomah, Ignatius A. Madu, Chukwuedozie K. Ajaero, Eberechukwu J. Ezea | University of Nigeria
The issue of consent and voluntariness of return of failed Nigerian asylum seekers from the EU and those in transit countries has remained in contentious debate. Many asylum seekers consent to return due to pressure from and exhaustion from these countries. In many cases, despite not volunteering to return, sub-Saharan African migrants are taken without consent to embassy hearings to ascertain their identities. Lack of consent and voluntariness have occasionally led to erroneous deportation of migrants of different origin countries to Nigeria and the deportation of Nigerian migrants to the wrong country. Some of the consequences of these deportations include flight delays, altercations, monetary claims and deaths of Nigerian migrants in the EU and at the airport. It is also unfortunate that some very ill Nigerians have been deported and others handcuffed during deportation flights negating the notion of voluntary return of migrants represented by the EU and portrayed by IOM. The purpose of this blog is therefore to shed light on the processes and procedures of getting consent from Nigerian migrants and the voluntariness of their return. It will do so by analyzing returns from Germany, Libya and Morocco-Melilla.
This piece is based on a focus group discussion which lasted for around 90 minutes, held with ten Nigerians who had returned to Nigeria within the last ten years. The discussants consisted of five males and five females, aged between 25 and 40. The discussion which was held at the Patriotic Citizens Initiative (PCI) shelter in Lagos on 21st February 2024 touched on many issues concerning the return of Nigerian migrants and their reintegration in Nigeria.
A Nigerian deportee on board a KLM flight was forcibly removed after an altercation (Source: Legit Nigeria)
Arrest and deportation through official ambush cum collaboration in Germany
A male migrant in the group (for protection, we will call him Ade) was reportedly returned from Weinheim, a town five stops away from Munich by regional train. He had lived in Italy for two years and then in Germany for another two years, and was expecting a Dublin return (to Italy). However, after the authorities saw his Nigerian passport which was issued by the Nigerian Mission in Berlin to facilitate his marriage, he was returned to Nigeria instead. Ade was preparing to marry his German fiancée and had submitted a certificate of bachelorhood and his passport to the local authorities in the German foreign office. Through an established collaborative mechanism, the officials from the office tipped off the police. A few days before the marriage date, the police laid an ambush in his asylum hostel in the early morning and arrested him. Ade was sent from the police station via Munich airport to Frankfurt Main airport and then deported to Nigeria. A chartered flight was used for the deportation and he was not even allowed to take any of his belongings from the hostel. Two security personnel guided him to Nigeria, one on the left and another on the right. They did not allow Ade to stay close to the windows because of fear of breaking the glass. He was promised €8000 upon his return to Nigeria but was given only €100 shortly before disembarking the aircraft.
In Ade’s own words:
‘After I submitted my passport to the foreign office and was supposed to renew my German document on Monday, the police came to my house early in the morning to arrest me. They could have waited for me at [the] foreign office. Why?! They took me to Weinheim police station, thumbprint[ed] me. The next day, I was taken to Munich and the next to Frankfurt which took seven hours. From there [I was deported] to Nigeria. My phone was [switched] off [and] I was not allowed to call my lawyer nor my fiancée’.
The statement above clearly shows how officials in Germany deport migrants without their consent and voluntariness. These types of violations will surely increase based on the statement by Chancellor Scholz during his visit to Nigeria whereby he mentioned the will to return failed Nigerian asylum seekers and based on the recent legislation by the German government of fast return of such migrants to their origin countries.
Kidnapping and incarceration for forced consent in Libya
The situation in Libya is not more favourable in terms of consent and voluntariness. A female returnee from Libya (for protection, we call her Abisola) stated that she was kidnapped four times before succumbing to exhaustion. In the first instance, she was kidnapped for over two weeks, the second time for 11 months, the third time for eight months and the fourth was for five weeks. In each of the detention centres, there were up to 200 inmates from different African countries crowded in a very small hall.
During the first kidnap, the security agents came to Abisola’s house, rounded her and other migrants up and took six of them to a collection prison. From there, 50 inmates were taken to a bigger prison where they stayed for two weeks and were released upon paying banami (ransom money). For the second kidnap, she was incarcerated in prison for four months before ending up in a deportation camp. Another seven months had to pass before she could get someone to pay the ransom of 750 Dinars and be set free.
During the third kidnap, Abisola and other migrants were caught when they tried for a third time to cross by lampa lampa (or dinghy) – coined in reference to Lampedusa - through the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. The captain of the boat, who was from Nigeria, was detained in an isolation cell. She spent eight months in a detention camp where two inmates could only share a small piece of bread on a daily basis as their only meal. The authorities promised to send them home to Nigeria but there were no flights to execute the return. After planning for an escape from the detention camp, they discovered the peripheries of the camp were spread with chemicals which could burn the skin. Though they still managed to escape, K-9 dogs were unleashed on them. After escaping through bush and desert, hiding from motorists who on sighting them may call the vigilante or police, they met a Nigerian burger (trafficker or pimp) who took them to Sabratha to work as prostitutes. Some pimps may sell the migrants to other pimps or force them to pay 2000 Dinars as ransom. Any female migrant who cannot pay is forced into prostitution while the males pay through slave labor. A few females are allowed to work as maids to pay for their ransom.
At the brothel, Abisola was arrested (kidnapped) for the fourth time by members of a vigilante group who searched her private parts for money. When she tried to escape through the fence, she broke her leg and bled for four days before being taken to Misrata for medical attention. A rod was inserted in her leg and after recovering to some extent she went to the Nigerian embassy in Tripoli to process her Emergency Travel Certificate (TC). Other migrants can also express their return intentions to the Libyan authorities which then contact IOM to facilitate the process. Nigerian migrants who were returned from Benghazi stated that the prison was harsh and that the guards there would demand Dollars from inmates who had to make calls to family and friends in Nigeria to send the money. Essentially, the conditions are such that (Nigerian) migrants are kidnapped and incarcerated, pushing them into frustration and exhaustion thereby forcing them to consent to return home despite not volunteering to do so. The use of politics of exhaustion to force migrants to return home is found elsewhere.
Exhausted and frustrated into consent in Morrocco
Another young man, originally from Kano in North Central Nigeria (for protection, we call him Ibrahim), was returned from Morocco to Lagos in South-West Nigeria. He attempted getting into Melilla (Spanish exclave) from Morocco thrice but was unsuccessful on all the occasions. Climbing the fence from Morocco's side, spikes-like features are set on the ground on Melilla's side to deter migrants from trespassing. Additionally, a surveillance technology built by a French company, Thales, exists to monitor irregular crossings into Melilla. As if that is not enough, K-9 dogs are unleashed on trespassers. The dogs bite hard on trespassers’ clothes until Guardia Civil arrives and hands them over to the Moroccan authorities. They are subsequently allocated places in villages away from the towns as a government policy to keep the towns free from migrants who are perceived as a nuisance.
When Ibrahim left his allocated place in the village and attempted to live in Rabat, he was apprehended by the authorities and sent back. In the villages, there are no jobs and migrants survive by seeking domestic jobs or manual labour.
Due to livelihood difficulties, Ibrahim became exhausted and reported to the IOM office in Rabat to access the Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme. Officials of IOM registered him, and he was asked to return two weeks later for biometrics, signalling his consent to return to Nigeria although he did not have a choice. Subsequently, a form was given to him by IOM to fill out and submit to the Nigerian embassy in Rabat to facilitate his TC. Following, IOM provided him with assistance to cover one month of house rent after which he was returned to Nigeria.
Conclusion
The above instances from the focus group discussions show that even though some returnees give their consent, the voluntariness of their return is in doubt. Many of them through undemocratic means are coerced into giving consent by the authorities or by their living situation making return the only option. Exhaustion, kidnapping and frustration in Morocco and Libya lead to consent while official ambush and collaboration are used in Germany to get migrants deported without their consent and voluntariness. All these have implications for the reintegration process and remigration tendencies of returnees. They also cast doubt over the voluntariness of migrant return as represented by the EU and IOM thereby rendering the voluntary return program a façade to shield the informalities and violations that are intrinsic in the return of Nigerian migrants.
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