The Braggadocio in the Politics of  Visa Restrictions: Nigeria’s Strategic Autonomy as an Antidote

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

No country in the world has a monopoly of politics or braggadocio of visa restriction. Every country within the framework of equality of sovereignty and exclusiveness of territorial integrity has the right to determine who is eligible to be issued a national passport to travel out of the country, as well as determine who is to be issued with an entry visa. More importantly, the conditions of issuance of a national passport and entry visa also fall within the exclusive preserve of every sovereign state.

The issuance of a national passport is a recommendation by the issuing authority to another sovereign authority, through its diplomatic mission in a host country. The possession of a national passport is also a certification that the holder is not only a true citizen of the issuing authority but also that the holder is of good behaviour, not criminally, and therefore eligible for consideration for possible issuance of a visa entry. On the basis of this recommendation, the visa issuing authority not only accepts the recommendation but subjects the recommended visa applicant to further investigation to be sure that the recommendation derived from the national passport is genuine. Put differently, the visa authority does not trust anyone. At the point of issuance of a passport, a would-be holder might not be criminally. 

Apart from this, no country wants to issue a visa that enables a visa applicant to become a landed immigrant. This largely explains why conditions for the issuance of any category of visa are very stringent, diversified and not a finality. If a visa applicant induces a visa interviewing official into error and therefore wrongly issuing him or her a visa, the final decision whether entry into the visa-issuing country will be allowed or not is taken after disembarkation. It is at the point of entry that the final period of stay to be allowed is often approved. A visa normally contains a time limit during which a travel must take place. This should not be confused with the validity of the visa itself. Thus, there is travel time stay limit. It is against this background that the placement of visa restrictions by the United States and the United Arab Emirates on Nigerians is hereinafter explained.

Visa  Restrictions Braggadocio 

International politics of issuance of visa entry into any country is quite interesting. For examples, Malta received 45,578 applications for entry visa in 2024 but 16,905 were denied. This meant that only 63% of the applicants were accommodated and 37.09% were refused visas. Grosso modo, the reasons for visa denial are generally not given but the deductive dynamics are not far-fetched. The reasons, which are not peculiar to Malta, include inadequate documentation, suspicions of likelihood of not returning back to home country, insufficient proof of funds, non-credibility of sponsors or relations living in the country to be visited, self-misrepresentation during visa interviews, not showing up promptly for visa interview, inability to respond to questions asked by the interviewing officers, prior immigration violations, previous visa denials, lack of detailed itinerary for the trip, improper dressing during visa interview, etc. These reasons are often given for rejection of entry visas by most diplomatic missions in the world.

In the specific case of Nigerians refused visa entry, especially into European Union countries (Schengen Visas), incomplete or false documentation is a major reason. Nigerians have been frequently accused of holding fake visas, forged invitation letters, false hotel bookings or forged bank statements, etc. 

What is noteworthy here is not simply the problem of visa restriction that will be explicated hereunder, but the fact that the eventual entry into another country, like the United States, does not mean permanent admissibility. It is, at best, about tolerance and conditionality. First, there is the issue of number of entries approved to travel to and fro within the period of stay allowed. Is it single entry or multiple entries? Secondly, the people holding the US-issued Green Card, who opt to naturalise and become American citizens, no longer have security of the mind or assurances of permanency of their residency. For instance, last Friday, 11th July, 2025, US Ministry of Justice started investigating Green Card holders who had obtained US citizenship through naturalisation. The Washingtonian government led by President Donald Trump wants to strip some Americans of their citizenship status, underscoring that prioritising denaturalisation is the current preoccupation of the US Ministry of Justice. 

The prioritisation of denaturalisation is consistent with Donald Trump’s new expression of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine of Isolationism and the current saga of Making America Great Again (MAGA). In other words, in order to make the United States Great Again, some people who purport to be Americans by their act of naturalisation should begin to engage in self-reappraisal. Donald Trump is planning to deny them of their right to US citizenship, an intention that is directly in conflict with the declared and well-known US foreign policy attitude and behaviour.

The foreign policy behaviour of the United States, especially under President Donald Trump, is a major departure from that of his predecessors. It is a direct reflection of his foreign policy attitude. The general belief that the United States foreign policy is mainly predicated on the need to protect democracy, human rights, as well as advancing international understanding of American values, is wrong. And true enough, the US Department of State has it that it has responsibility to protect the United States and Americans; advance democracy, human rights and other global interests; promote international understanding of American values and policies, and support US diplomats, government officials, and all other personels at home and abroad (vide Bureau of Public Affairs, “Diplomacy: The US Department of State at Work,” June 2008).

What is more important about the protection of the United States and Americans is the mania of the protection. The Mania includes nurturing common interests and values between Americans travelling abroad to do business or who are resident abroad; and preventing enemies from threatening the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction. And perhaps more relevantly and interestingly, US foreign policy attitude uses the Department of State to ‘ensure America’s homeland security by promoting policies and practices to keep travel, trade, and important infrastructure safe.’

Most importantly, the Department of State is given the mandate to serve on the frontline of America’s borders, facilitating the entry of legitimate visitors to the US while denying visas to those who do not qualify or do us harm’ In the US Embassy’s press release of 7th July, 2025, the issue therein contained is not about denial of visas, but about the validity of period of stay the holder of a visa has. While the validity of the visa period requires travelling out to the country issuing the visa within the stipulated time approved, the validity of the period of stay requires the holder of the visa not to exceed the approved time of stay.

Explained differently, there is no good basis for a holder of a three-month valid visa not to travel out before the expiry of the three months and for the holder of a visa with either three months or six months or one year of approved stay not to leave the country and return home or go elsewhere. The diplomatic saga that has emerged following the notice of visa restrictions on Nigerians by the US Embassy is currently raising many concerns.  Are Nigeria and the United States truly partners? The mere fact that the United States came up unilaterally to inform about its new visa restrictions on Nigerians and the mere fact that it also prompted a quick response from Nigeria, who has pleaded with the United States to ‘respectfully’ review the policy decision, clearly show that there was no mutual consultations before the US Embassy press release.

The United States might have deliberately taken the visa restriction policy decision to compel a concession, either within the context of reciprocity or an intention to make a new and special demands on Nigeria. There is no disputing the fact that, for a long time now, Nigeria has been issuing a long-term visa, ranging from one to five years to the citizens of the United States. Consequently, if the United States is now taking the bad end of the stick, questions cannot but be raised, especially as to why many countries are coincidentally placing visa restrictions on Nigeria. Apart from the United States, there is the same problem at the level of the United Arab Emirates. Donald Trump has told Africans to stay back home and help develop their countries. Is the visa restriction meant to compel Africans, and particularly Nigerians, to stay in Nigeria? Whatever is the case, Nigeria’s quest for strategic autonomy appears to be a good antidote to the various visa braggadocio.

Nigeria’s Strategic Autonomy as Antidote

From the foregoing, there is no disputing the fact that the United States of Donald Trump wants to remain the primus inter pares in international politics. Even though President Donald Trump preaches the gospel of every country should make efforts to develop itself, there is nothing to suggest that he really wants any other country to have the capacity and capability to challenge Americans, in general, and himself, in particular. The attitudinal disposition of Donald Trump is ‘holier than thou.’ This is what is currently serving as a catalytic agent of the increasing anti-America and Donald Trump in global politics. The American-led Breton Woods institutions are being vehemently opposed by the BRICS. The United States wants to be a credible mediator but wishes a mediation outcome that only reflects or protects American interests. And more funnily enough, President Donald Trump is promoting genocidal crimes in the Israelo-Hamas and Israelo-Iranian conflicts and yet, he has the audacity to be seeking a Nobel Prize for Peace. He may be eligible if there is a new meaning to peace and if peace now means making war and disregarding international humanitarian law.

Interrogatively put again, what is peace if diplomacy is another expression of war? What really is peace if national protectionism is increasingly over-emphasised to the detriment of shared global values? Why should Donald Trump be too myopic not to recognise that countries affected by US policies would normally react positively or negatively? Behaviourally, US policy behaviour is overemphasising security, that is, for as long as the United States is secure, the conduct and management of global affairs can be done on the basis of laisser faire.

Thus, there are two critical issues raised in Nigeria’s reaction to the placement of US visa restrictions on Nigerians. In this regard, the understanding of the reaction cannot be complete without first linking it to the non-extension of invitation by President Donald Trump to Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to participate in the summit of five African presidents (Liberia, Gabon, Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal). Put differently, one issue begets another. Different definienda might have informed the visa restrictions. There is the issue of summit with the US President. There is also the placement of visa restrictions on Nigerians, and there is also the problem of deportation of Venezuelans to Nigeria. Nigeria’s introduction of e-visa is another kettle of fish entirely. Any of these issues has the potential to prompt the US visa restrictions on Nigerians

As regards the 5-African-leaders’ summit on security and economic issues, held on Wednesday, 9th July, 2025 with Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal of July 9 reported that before the African leaders arrived at the White House, they were requested to take in migrants whose countries had refused to take them. On the issue of visa restriction, the US Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, noted in its Press Release on Monday, 7 July, three days after the US National Day, that ‘most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas issued to citizens of Nigeria will be single-entry visas with a three-month validity period,’ but also noting that ‘those US non-immigrant visas issued before July 8, 2025 will retain their status and validity/’ More importantly, the press release says the visa restrictions take immediate effect.  

In the eyes of the Bolaji Akinwande Akinyemi school of thought, it is much happiness that President Tinubu was not invited to be disgraced on the altar of American public crucifixion. Without whiff of doubt, the invited African leaders belittled themselves and brought a very tainted image to their country people based on the recorded video of their discussions.

Imagine how Donald Trump could ask his Liberian counterpart about the goodness in his expression of the English language. Imagine how the Liberian president was still discussing in the context of master-slave relationships. What about the Congolese leader whose primary interest was to ask for American investments to fund golf activities? What would Nigeria’s Bola Ahmed Tinubu have done if he were to be there? Whatever is the case, Nigeria’s reaction to the question of the visa restrictions on Nigerians is more befitting than the attitudinal dispositions of the five African leaders in Washington.

The problematic in the visa restrictions on Nigerians is more about the rationales for the restriction and which cannot but also explain why Nigeria was not recognised to be invited to Washington. As noted by Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, President Trump placed a visa restriction on Nigerians because Nigeria has national interests to also protect and defend. In the words of Ambassador Tuggar, ‘the US is mounting considerable pressure on African countries to accept Venezuelans to be deported from the United States, some straight out of prisons. It will be difficult for Nigeria to accept Venezuelan deportees to Nigeria. We already have 230 million people. ’ 

True, the Foreign Minister could not have been more correct by telling Donald Trump and his people that Nigeria already has 230 million people, and therefore Nigeria does not need additional population. No information is given on the number of Nigerians involved. If Nigerians are among those to be deported, there is no reason why they should not be accepted, even if they are to come home and continue to serve their jail terms in Nigeria. In such a situation, the United States must be prepared to fund the continuation of the jail terms since the United States does not want them on its territory. Perhaps more disturbingly, what happens if the deportees object to their being deported to Nigeria? It is on record that some 19 Nigerians were on death roll in Indonesia when Chief Ojo Maduekwe was Minister of Foreign Affairs/ The Foreign Minister led an official delegation to Indonesia to go and plead for the coomutation of their death sentence to life jail and for the life jail to be spent in Nigeria, the 19 Nigerians preferred to stay in Indonesia, arguing that living in Nigeria, and not being in jail is worse than being in jail in Nigeria. They therefore refused to be deported to Nigeria.

But true again, Donald Trump’s headache is not much about population or the concerns about the deportees, but the fear of the rising status of Nigeria in international politics. Nigeria is increasingly becoming a threat to the interests of the big powers by seeking to be self-reliant. No big power wants a country like Nigeria, with big population, enormous material resources, and very dynamic work force and professionals to be autonomous and self-reliant. This cannot but be so with the emergence of the Alliance of Sahel States that have kicked out France, their former colonial master, and that have shown the United States the way out as regards its military drone bases. The United States wants its Africa Command to be located in Nigeria but it was rejected. Donald Trump is confronted with the BRICS challenge and Nigeria has become a Partner Member of the BRICS. Does the United States not see Nigeria as an enemy by so doing? Have we forgotten that President Joe Biden once told the world, and particularly Africans that anyone who votes against the interests of the United States would be seriously sanctioned? President Biden never expected that Africa would refuse to vote for the US-sponsored resolution that sought to condemn Russian aggression on Ukraine. So much aggrieved, he gave the warning to African leaders. 

For reasons of psychology of human differences, I admit that Nigeria’s refusal to accept the deportation of unwanted Venezuelans in America might have informed the US decision to place visa restrictions on Nigerians. If this is so, how do we explain the UAE’s visa restrictions on Nigeria? I also agree that there might have been a jot of reciprocity based on Nigeria’s introduction of e-visa which may not be pleasant for the United States. However, for me, Donald Trump wants a Nigeria that will be another depository for unwanted prisoners and refugees. President Donald Trump thinks that Nigeria and Rwanda are the same in terms of strategic miscalculations. While Rwanda can collect money from the United Kingdom in acceptance of unwanted refugees by Britain, Nigeria cannot think the Rwandan way. Donald Trump does not want foreign prisoners on American soil, why does he think that Nigerians cannot think and will accept? Why should he think that the mere mounting of pressure on Nigeria can do the magic? Could it be because of the general saying that nothing is impossible in Nigeria? I am not left in any whiff of doubt that there will be considerable respect for Nigeria the moment the quest for strategic autonomy reaches one quarter way. Strategic autonomy is self-reliance. The four pillars of it, as exemplified in the diplomacy of the 4-Ds, underscores the Nigerian Diaspora. If Donald Trump wants to deport, he should encourage and assist the Nigerians doing very well to come back home to help. This is quite better than pushing American persona non grata to Nigeria.

Ambassador Tuggar noted further that even though Nigeria had imposed a 90-day visa policy on US citizens travelling to Nigeria, which is ‘an online electronic visa to save time instead of arriving before processing the visa. The online makes it easier. Our visa is not saying that every American is given only 90 days. We give more than three-year visa