Note Verbale and Observation of Protocols in International Relations: The Nigeria-Canada Visa Saga
Bola A. Akinterinwa
In Nigeria, policy makers hardly exercise caution in their public statements, especially when talking about things they know little about. This they do in the belief that they are promoting patriotism, whereas they are seriously damaging the image and character of the country. They speak about national sovereignty without understanding its meaning and full implications. People hold the Nigerian passport without remembering that it can be withdrawn by the owner, the Federal Government of Nigeria. In the same vein, people erroneously believe that, with the possession of a validly-issued entry visa, they cannot be repatriated, deported, or refused entry at the port of disembarkation.
The possession of a national passport is nothing more than a recommendation by the issuing authority to another sovereign government, introducing the holder of the passport as a recognised citizen, and asking for consideration and possible grant of an entry visa. The recommendation can be considered acceptable if the holder does not have any incriminating records in the country to be visited. Even when visa is granted, it is still subject to the whims and caprices of the border authorities in the country to be visited. A visa can be issued based on no criminal records and evidence that the intending visitor will not be a landed immigrant. If there is an evidence of new developments not known by the time of visa application, such traveller can always be refused at the point of entry, and the country does not owe anyone any explanation as to why the entry is refused. This is in spite of the right of protest. This is one major reason public officials and public relations officers must have a working knowledge of diplomatic protocol. It is a desideratum for every organisation that has to relate with the world.
Note Verbale in International Relations
First of all, what is a note verbale in the context of diplomatic relations? It is a special terminology in international law, an instrument of communicating a diplomatic message, warm greetings, information, requesting for something, or expressing concerns, giving warnings and subtle expression of official anger. It can be written as an independent letter or as a supporting attachment to another letter to elaborate further on the attitudinal disposition of a government, or to request for specific assistance. The nature of the message being communicated is ascertainable from the type of words or expressions used even if they are diplomaticised. Etymologically, note verbale is of French origin and its first usage dates back to 1793.
Initially, it was generally not signed and generally written in the third person. Today, many notes verbales carry the official stamp and signatures of the sending diplomatic mission or Foreign Ministry. It has an international standard format. Unlike the English language tradition that requires that any official letter beginning with ‘Dear Sir’ must always be concluded with ‘Yours Faithfully,’ a note verbale does not adopt the style of ‘dear sir,’ ‘dear Ma,’ ‘dear friend,’ etc., and ‘yours sincerely,’ ‘yours truly,’ ‘yours-in-Christ,’ etc. It generally has a note verbale as title on top, with a number for ease of reference. ‘Diplomatic Note is written below at the bottom left corner and under the name and address of the sender. In many cases, as noted above, the note verbale can carry an official stamp with initials or signature. Opinion is divided on whether it should be signed or not. This situation is best explained by differences in style as various countries of the world have their preferences.
What is noteworthy about a note verbale is that it always begins with the presentation of compliments from a sending diplomatic mission or Foreign Ministry and written in the third person, to another diplomatic mission or to the host Foreign Ministry. Presentation of compliments is immediately followed by ‘have or having the honour’ to inform, or to ask, or to note, or to draw attention to, to request for something, etc. Every word used has operational implications. There is no room for ambiguity. Every word used in any note verbale has weighted meanings, especially depending on how the intended recipient interprets it. In fact, a note verbale is always a reflection of diplomatic finesse and diplomacy as an art.
For illustration purposes, Canada and Nigeria do not have embassies but High Commissions by virtue of their being Member States of the Commonwealth. In this case, if Nigeria High Commission in Ottawa were to send a note verbale to the Canadian Foreign Ministry in Ottawa, the note verbale must be written in the third person as follows: ‘the High Commission of the Federal Republic of Nigeria presents its compliments to… and has the honour to…’ This is the diplomatic convention as agreed to in international law and relations in order to underscore the principle of sovereign equality.
More importantly, the essence of any note verbale is the governmental connotation or reflection of governmental involvement in whatever is said in the note verbale. In the context of a diplomatic note or note verbale for an entry visa into a foreign country, like Canada, it not only serves as a support for the visa application, but also necessarily as a confirmation from the host country, confirmation of the applicant’s status, as well as confirmation of the official purpose of travel.
Under a normal circumstance, diplomatic agents are always given preferential treatment and special privileges in terms of prompt attention and spirit of reciprocity when they apply for entry visas. This does not imply that issuance of visas cannot still be denied. Issuance of visas are generally regulated and the regulations vary from one country to another, especially when applications for visas are backed with a note verbale. For example, the French often require tourists visiting France and seeking a Tourist Schengen Visa, to always attach a note verbale to their application forms. In fact, as stated on the French webpage, ‘if you hold an official travel document, you must present a note verbale.’
Another point about note verbale, apart from the governmental connotation, is the aspect of diplomatic immunity about which most embassies are much conscious. Diplomatic agents, international functionaries, and other public officials at the national level are internationally-protected persons. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides for absolute protection of diplomats. This is a resultant from the principle of inviolability. In the same vein, there is the Convention on International Civil Servants which provides for Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service. Consequently, every embassy exercises caution in the issuance of visas to public officials with notes verbales and diplomatic agents. Canada will not want to issue its entry visa to any government official or private individual that has the potential to become a landed immigrant or to anyone that can easily become a public liability.
The truth in this case is that anyone holding an ordinary or service passport can be easily arrested, tried, mistreated under the guise of misdemeanour or alleged infractions by a visitor. Overstaying in the country after the expiration of approved visa for stay, as distinct for the period of validity of the visa, is one common reason for rejection of many visa applications. Unnecessary interventions in domestic politics by people with visiting or student visas, as well as changing of their status from either visiting, working or studentship to that of permanency of residency also largely explain refusal of visas. All embassies want visitors but not visitors that will travel to their country to ask for refugee status or people that will not go back home.
Consequently, under no circumstance should protocol or order of precedence be taken with kid gloves in government-to-government official transactions, as it is the case with the saga between Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and the Canadian High Commission. For instance, the Director-General of the Department of State Services made a gest of the Canadian High Commission’s refusal to grant visas to Nigeria’s CDS, General Christopher Musa, and his team who were to take part in the Invictus Games Vancouver Whistler 2025 being held in Canada. The games hold every year. The 2024 games were held in Dussedorf, Germany. Many issues are raised with the refusal: how many people were meant to be on the delegation of the Chief of Defence Staff? Were there names of people not entitled to travel on the list? Were the services of visa agencies contracted to help? What was the type or status of the travel documents presented to the Canadian High Commission? If diplomatic or official passports were presented, it should be expected that a note verbale would be required. In this regard, was there any note verbale or a covering note from the Defence Headquarters to replace the officially-required Note Verbale?
Grosso modo, when senior government officials are refused visa entry, it is generally as a result of breach of protocol, careless disregard for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which serves as a middle institution between Nigeria and foreign countries, and unnecessary arrogation of self-importance. True enough, there is an internationally-accepted procedure for communications between any two countries which is the use of note verbale. It is against this background that the ongoing Nigeria-Canada visa saga should be explained and understood and that Public speakers in Nigeria should stop their ‘observation of all protocols’ or ‘standing on existing protocols’ or ‘standing on or sitting on established protocols,’ or saying ‘all protocols duly observed,’ etc.
The Nigeria-Canada Visa Saga
Protocol is the name of an international agreement and there are millions of them in international relations. Consequently, it is not possible to observe all of them at a single event. Protocol can be used to imply ‘order of precedence’ during public functions. Even at that, every country and every given stratum of society, has its own order of precedence. It is mainly because, in Nigeria, due attention is hardly given to diplomatic protocols, respect is hardly given to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and because every civil and public servant believes that diplomacy can be the business of everyone, that there are problems with several diplomatic missions. The Nigeria-Canada visa saga is a case in point.
Without exaggeration and whiff of doubt, in Nigeria, protocol and order of precedence are generally taken with kid gloves in government-to-government official transactions. As pointed to earlier, one good illustration of this observation is the way the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Mr. Adeola Ajayi, tried to make a gest of the Canadian refusal to grant visas to Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Christopher Musa, and members of his team who were to take part in some Invictus Winter Games organised by Prince Harry in Vancouver, Canada.
True, on Wednesday, 19 February, 2025 General Musa reacted to the Canadian refusal, considering the refusal as an expression of disrespect for Nigeria and her citizens and that Nigeria would not tolerate that. As General Musa reportedly put it, ‘every disappointment is a blessing. Yesterday (Tuesday, February 16) I was meant to be in Canada. There’s an event to honour our veterans, those that were injured during battles, and we were meant to be there. We were invited with our team. Half has gone and half has been denied. It’s very disappointing.’
More importantly, General Musa said Nigeria must henceforth ‘stand on its own’ and must no longer be ‘taken for granted.’ It was in reaction to General Musa’s complaint about the Canadian High Commission’s disrespect for Nigeria that the DSS boss told General Musa that he was denied visa because of the underrating of the DSS boss. The DSS, Adeola Ajayi, made the statement at the same maiden annual lecture of the Alumni Association of the National Institute for Security Studies (AANISS) in Abuja.
In a live video, the DSS boss said: ‘as much as I like General Musa, he underrated me. I have spent 35 years in this job, but for political appointments, I should be on my way out by April. More significantly, he said ‘General Musa, you made mistake with me. When we invited you for this programme to be the chairman, you now decided to go and apply for a Canadian visa. So we covertly made sure we denied you. So, my dear General, next time when you hear of DSS, and under a leadership like mine, who has swag in doing the job, don’t underrate us. When you leave here, you can see me, you’ll get your Canadian visa. We wanted you to be here, so you couldn’t have been in Vancouver.’
How do we evaluate the extent of seriousness of the statements of both the Chief of Defence Staff and the Director-General of the DSS? At best, they are jokes of the highest order. This is because they both ignore the principles of sovereign equality and reciprocity in international law and relations. While General Musa might have been disappointed, if not embittered, the DSS has, in the mania of the Nigerian, only cracked jokes because it is only the Canadian High Commission that determines who to give visas to without foreign interferences.
However, many issues are raised with the refusal: how many people were to be on the delegation of the CDS? Were the names of people not entitled to travel on the list? Was there any covering note, officially known as a Note Verbale? In other words, was the due protocolar process followed by the military? Grosso modo, when senior government officials are refused visa entry, it is generally as a result of breach of protocol, careless disregard for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which serves as a middleman between Nigeria and foreign countries, and unnecessary arrogation of self-importance. There is an internationally-accepted procedure for communications between any two-countries. The normal standard begins with a note verbale. In sending it, there is also the protocolar procedure to be followed. It is against this background that the ongoing Nigeria-Canada visa saga should be explained and understood.
General Musa appeared to have applied for Canadian entry visa without a covering note verbale and therefore, has taken with kid gloves official protocol. His visa request was rejected for reasons not known to him. Was the rejection as a result of any DSS intervention? Not likely. The statement by the DSS is a joke, an expensive joke for that matter, and that should be refrained from. Canada cannot but hold the joke as an exception. The joke gave the impression that the Canada High Commission can be easily manipulated or prevailed upon. The joke cannot but also compel queries from the home Ministry in Ottawa. In fact, it has the potential to generate a diplomatic row between Canada and Nigeria if the saga is mismanaged.
What does the CDS mean by saying that Canada has disrespected Nigeria and Nigerians? Is the CDS synonymous with Nigeria or with all other citizens? How many Nigerians do know that obtaining entry visa to Nigeria is more difficult than the processes of issuance of visa in many developed countries of the world? Nuhu Ribadu, the National Security Adviser, is on record to have said that ‘Canada can go to hell,’ for denying the CDS and his team visa. He also said that ‘Nigeria should wake up, and that there is the need to do whatever is necessary to fix Nigeria. This is politics and not diplomacy. Canada does not have to go to heaven or to hell. The country has simply acted in accordance with its state sovereignty. Canada defines the conditions of admissibility to the exclusion of any other country. Nigeria has the same sovereign power to grant or reject any visa application for entry visa into Nigeria.
Apart from this, there are other issues raised with the refusal: how many people were to be on the delegation? Some reports talked about 70. What informed the grant of visas to half of the members of entourage of the CDS and the rejection of the other half? Were the names of people not entitled to travel on the list as this has also been a major reason for not granting visas? Was there any covering note, officially known as a Note Verbale? Some speculations have it that there was no note verbale. In other words, was the due protocolar process followed by the military? Did the Chief of Defence Staff pass through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whose responsibility it is to issue a note verbale? Did the DSS demand for rejection of visa under the guise that the DSS and his team would by a threat to the national security of Canada? The DSS in Nigeria, individually or corporately, is very patriotic, very efficient, and remains a leader in Africa. Consequently, we do not believe that the DSS has done anything to undermine the issuance of Canadian visa. He only tried to remove the visible unhappiness of the CDS.
Perhaps more disturbingly, self-proclaimed influential accredited ambassadors to Nigeria, prefer to seek audience with the Presidency without passing through the Foreign Ministry as procedurally required. Doing so is breach of protocol and this is made possible by complicity of Nigerians and the power that be in Nigeria. The DSS and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) should be more concerned about this situation, than declaring hostility towards Canada.
Most unfortunately, ignorance of applicable protocol is what is largely responsible for the mistreatment of senior government officials in international relations. Instead of learning from mistakes, cabinet Ministers still have the effrontery of insulting diplomatic missions for protecting their national interests. Is the CDS or are Nigerians saying that the Canadian High Commission has not read media reports that Nigeria’s diplomatic agents have not been paid salaries in the past six months? Is it not the Nigeria High Commission in Canada that has responsibility to ensure the welfare of the CDS and his team if they had been issued visa and travelled to Canada? What about the poor funding of the embassies? All these can influence the Canadian High Commission in granting or refusing visas.
Without doubt, different rationales have been adduced to explain the refusal of the Canadian High Commission to grant entry visa to the Nigerian Chief of Defence Staff and his delegation. Whatever is the case, it is wrong of any Nigerian public official to attack Canada below the belt. Doing so is self-serving and not in the national interest. If Nigeria wants easy access to Canada or to any other country, Nigeria should negotiate agreements with such countries. A holder of US passport, for example, can travel to more than one hundred countries of the world without visa, based on negotiations. The visa saga is still a minor misunderstanding and therefore should not be allowed to degenerate. Government should establish the definienda of the saga and ensure that there is never a repeat of the mésentente either at the level of Canada or any other country. Preventing unnecessary misunderstanding with diplomatic institutions requires promoting capacity building in the area of international protocols and Orders of Precedence. The Achievers University, Owo has put in place training programmes on diplomatic practice; speaking, dress, and speech diplomacy; as well as on protocol and etiquette. This is to complement the BSc International Relations programmes in many universities. Public and Private business organisations having dealings in international relations can save themselves of unnecessary embarrassment as ‘all protocols duly observed,’ ‘standing on existing protocol,’ or ‘sitting on existing protocol,’ are, at best, considered uncivilised in diplomacy.
One attachment
