As Nigerians face tighter visa restrictions, heightened border profiling, and xenophobic attacks abroad, NGOZI EGENUKA reports that these vexatious immigration scrutinies raise questions about the country’s diplomatic leverage and the exigencies of reciprocity policy against unfriendly ‘friends’.

Nigeria has, more often than not, been on the receiving end of policies and restrictions imposed by other nations. The country is almost always listed when another nation imposes a ban or restriction. Though this ugly trend is not entirely new, it seems to be increasing over time.

Under the current administration, Nigerians have faced the highest rate of profiling and the hardest border challenges since the military dictatorship in the 1990s, while the country’s diplomatic clout has suffered an obvious chronological decline from global celebration to intense profiling.

This ugly development raises a broader question about the country’s position in the international system. So, the question many ask is: Has the country become increasingly vulnerable to policies imposed by other nations, or has it simply failed to use its diplomatic and economic leverage to demand more equitable treatment for its citizens?

For a country that has long presented itself as a leading voice for Africa, the growing restrictions on Nigerian travellers are increasingly being viewed not merely as immigration decisions, but as a test of Nigeria’s diplomatic influence and its willingness to protect its citizens abroad.

This ill-treatment started with the late President Muhammadu Buhari-led administration, which was characterised by diplomatic warnings and friction with foreign governments such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the United States, and the UK, threatening bans due to the Japa migration wave, identity-tracking flaws, and allegations of improper conduct, like attempts to circumvent visa rules. Though Buhari’s administration also witnessed the outbreak of xenophobic attacks in South Africa, the scale this time is more alarming.

However, under the current administration, the warnings and restrictions have hardened into systemic policy walls.

Some Middle Eastern and Western nations have shifted from temporary punishments or bans to permanent, tech-driven, and highly expensive vetting frameworks designed to strictly screen out or limit Nigerian travellers.

INDIVIDUAL countries indeed have different reasons for tightening their immigration regimes; however, the cumulative effect on Nigerians is difficult to ignore. From visa restrictions and increased documentation requirements to heightened airport screening and restrictions on categories of travellers, Nigerians are increasingly encountering additional layers of scrutiny that are not always experienced by citizens of other countries.

This raises questions about whether Nigeria should continue to respond to such measures on a case-by-case basis or develop a clear reciprocity policy that links the treatment of Nigerian citizens abroad to the privileges foreign nationals enjoy in Nigeria.

For instance, even though the UAE lifted the 2022 visa ban against Nigerians after negotiations, the ban was replaced by a highly restrictive digital document verification requirement that demands an expensive profile fee before a visa can be requested.

Also, in 2024, UK imposed a strict ban on international students’ dependents. In 2026, compliance rules have been tightened further, driving visitor and student visa rejections for Nigerians to historic highs.

In the United States, Nigeria, along with 25 other African countries, has been placed on a restrictive entry list, resulting in the embassy reducing standard visa validity to a drastically restrictive three-month single-entry status. Saudi Arabia also restricted certain categories of work visas and stopped issuing multiple-entry short-term visas due to concerns about Hajj and Ramadan overstays.

In Africa, Seychelles had also tightened entry rules and restricted visa-on-arrival protocols following previous immigration disputes, while Lebanon placed temporary bans targeting Nigerian domestic workers due to welfare and trafficking concerns.

XENOPHOBIC attacks in South Africa have also been increasingly high, with Nigerians (including those living legitimately) facing extreme violence, loss of life, businesses and properties. This has forced the Nigerian government to repatriate 1,490 citizens from South Africa.

This shows that even within the African continent, Nigeria is experiencing its highest levels of diplomatic hostility, systemic profiling, and restrictive policies. Ghana, for instance, has established strict financial barriers that deliberately price out Nigerian retail traders. Countries like Kenya, Equatorial Guinea, Mauritius, Gabon, and Cape Verde have implemented targeted immigration rules aimed specifically at flushing Nigerians out.

Nigerians have often reported cases in which they have been singled out, especially in East and Central African airports, for humiliating secondary interrogations and searches, denied their human rights, and arbitrarily denied visas and deported immediately under the blanket stereotype of involvement in cybercrime or drug trafficking.

WHILE Nigeria maintains a liberal visa-on-arrival system for all other African countries, almost no other major African nation has extended the same courtesy to Nigerian passport holders. Now, with all this, what is Nigeria, the giant of Africa, doing to put an end to this ill treatment and profiling?

The question is particularly important because Nigeria’s response so far has largely combined diplomatic engagement, the evacuation of affected citizens, and negotiations with individual countries.

Tourism Ambassador and renowned traveller, Bethia Idoko, said she was scorned after landing in Cape Verde in July 2026, simply because she had a green passport.

According to her, at the border control section, a female immigration officer threatened to send her back if her payment card did not work. To Idoko, that was very condescending, considering that other travellers were not subjected to the same disdain.

Idoko, a well-travelled tourist who said that she had visited 107 countries across the globe, explained that she decided this year to focus mostly on African countries. Unfortunately, she has experienced a lot of humiliating treatment at most points of entry. For example, in July this year, while in Mauritius, she faced more hostility. “My suitcase was searched as if I were a criminal, where all my items were scrutinised piece by piece, and all my outfits were scanned,” she stated, adding that she was also questioned for an hour in a demeaning manner.

Similarly, ‎another Nigerian, Salifo Jubril, who was travelling for a vacation to Mauritius via Dubai in May, alleged intense scrutiny, intimidation, and extortion by immigration officials. Jubril claimed that the experience began at the departure airport in Dubai, where Nigerians were subjected to prolonged checks compared with other passengers, despite holding valid travel documents.

These experiences mirror the ordeal many Nigerians face daily when travelling abroad, even with valid travel documents.
A Senior Research Fellow at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, Dr Philippa Osim Inyang, believes it is high time Nigeria adopted a reciprocity policy to respond proportionately when another state adopts measures that put Nigeria or its citizens at a disadvantage.

She said it is about mutuality in international relations, adding that Nigeria should extend privileges and cooperation where they are reciprocated and reserve the right to respond when its citizens or interests are unfairly treated.

She noted, however, that this does not mean that retaliating against innocent citizens of another country or reproducing unlawful conduct is acceptable. According to her, Nigeria should invoke reciprocity when its citizens have been mistreated repeatedly, and the nation where this occurs fails to take adequate action to correct the situation.

In the case of xenophobic attacks in South Africa, Inyang said that a stronger response is needed. She urged Nigeria to insist on the prosecution of perpetrators, compensation, and other remedies for Nigerians who have lost their lives, businesses and properties.

“There should be concrete guarantees against the recurrence of such situations. Though it has been reported that Nigeria is already compiling claims for victims, if these measures are not producing results, Nigeria can legitimately reconsider aspects of its bilateral relations with South Africa or adopt proportionate diplomatic measures,” she said.
She stressed that the point of reciprocity in this case is not to attack South African citizens in Nigeria, but to demonstrate that these persistent harms to Nigeria carry consequences for state-to-state relations.

Dr Inyang explained that Nigeria has invoked reciprocity as a foreign policy principle but does not presently operate it as a detailed or consistently applied doctrine that specifies what action must follow particular forms of mistreatment.

“I think the best-known articulation of this principle is Prof Bolaji Akinyemi’s doctrine when he was minister of external affairs in the 1980s,” she said. She noted that the central arguments of the principle were that Nigeria’s long-standing commitment to Africa should not be treated as a one-way obligation.

“So if Nigeria bears responsibilities towards African States, those States also owe responsibility to Nigeria and its citizens. Practically, the doctrine challenged the idea that Nigeria should always be the one to make sacrifices in the name of African solidarity, regardless of how other African countries treat them.

“Reciprocity means that friendship, cooperation, and generosity should attract a corresponding treatment, while conduct considered unfriendly should also have consequences. This is currently relevant under the prevailing circumstances,” she added.

For the Publisher, Africa-China Economy Magazine, Mr Ikenna Emewu, Nigeria should view restrictive visa policies by foreign countries as an opportunity to reassess its dependency on them and strengthen its domestic capacity.

Reacting to America’s visa policy, Emewu stated that visas are a property of the issuing nation and so they are at liberty to give them however they like. He added that this development should rather make Nigeria determined to become more self-reliant.

A public policy analyst, Mr Magnus Onyibe, said that Nigeria’s response to unfriendly treatment from other countries should not necessarily be based on retaliation. Using the current South African attacks on Nigeria as an example, he said that despite all that happened, Nigeria chose to de-escalate the situation rather than take retaliatory action.

He said Nigeria and Ghana, after evacuating their nationals from South Africa, chose to address the issue through diplomatic channels and appropriate regional institutions. This restraint, he said, showed professionalism and de-escalation in handling potential conflict points.

Onyibe, however, pointed to the potential leverage Nigeria and other African nations possess through their markets, with South African-owned companies like MTN, Shoprite, DSTV and others having significant operations in other countries. He questioned whether South Africa has considered the consequences its businesses and citizens could face if other African countries chose to retaliate, arguing that in an increasingly interconnected global economy, no nation is an island.

For Senator representing Kogi Central, Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, the federal government and the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) need to adopt reciprocal measures against countries that subject Nigerians to unfair treatment.

She emphasised theatstated that Nigeria should not remain passive when its citizens are treated unfairly abroad.

“I call on the Nigeria Immigration Service and the Federal Government of Nigeria to review the visa applications of South African artistes and their entourages in accordance with the principle of reciprocity in foreign policy,” she stated in a post on Facebook.

She explained reciprocity as a recognised instrument of diplomacy, stating that discriminatory treatment of Nigerians abroad should carry consequences. She charged the Federal Government to ensure that Nigeria’s foreign policy protects the dignity of its citizens at all times and places. “When our citizens face discriminatory or unjust treatment abroad, Nigeria must demonstrate that such actions carry corresponding consequences,” Akpoti-Uduaghan said.