By Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq. (KSC) I Thursday 25.25
ABUJA – Nigeria today stands in the dock of international opinion, once again compelled to defend itself against the ignominious designation of a “Country of Concern.” This branding did not emerge in a vacuum. It is rooted in persistent, well-documented reports of targeted killings of Christians, mass displacement of communities, and the unchecked atrocities of Islamist fundamentalist groups whose campaigns of terror have endured with wearying consistency and near-total impunity.
The battleground is no longer Sambisa Forest or the North-East; it is the visa counter.
A Diplomatic Cold War and Its Civilian Casualties. Many analysts correctly argue that the diplomatic cold war between the United States of America and Nigeria is far from resolved. The latest punitive measures signal escalation rather than détente. Yet, as is so often the case in international politics, the consequences are not borne by erring governments or failed institutions, but by already beleaguered citizens
From Boko Haram to ISWAP, from loosely labelled “bandits” to ideologically baptised jihadists, the terminology may have shifted, but the carnage has remained grimly constant.
At the height of Nigeria’s security collapse, the situation deteriorated to such an extent that former U.S. President Donald Trump openly threatened the deployment of American special security forces on Nigerian soil to neutralise terror networks,an extraordinary proposition that spoke volumes about international frustration with Nigeria’s internal security architecture. Today, however, the theatre of conflict has shifted. Guns and drones have yielded to pens and proclamations.
The battleground is no longer Sambisa Forest or the North-East; it is the visa counter.
A Diplomatic Cold War and Its Civilian Casualties. Many analysts correctly argue that the diplomatic cold war between the United States of America and Nigeria is far from resolved. The latest punitive measures signal escalation rather than détente. Yet, as is so often the case in international politics, the consequences are not borne by erring governments or failed institutions, but by already beleaguered citizens.
In a paradox that borders on policy irony, the United States has chosen to respond to Nigeria’s institutional failures by imposing further hardship on ordinary Nigerians—citizens already desperate enough to be “japa-ing” in droves, fleeing insecurity, unemployment, and systemic decay in search of dignity, safety, and opportunity abroad.
The implications of this policy shift are profound and far-reaching. Pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 10998, the United States Government has announced a partial suspension of the issuance of certain visa categories to Nigerian nationals, effective 1 January 2026.
The affected categories include:
Non-immigrant visitor visas (B-1/B-2);
Student and exchange visas (F, M, J);
Select immigrant visa categories.
To be clear, this does not amount to an absolute travel ban. Nigerians in possession of valid visas issued prior to 1 January 2026 remain exempt and may continue to travel under existing conditions. Yet for first-time applicants, such semantic reassurances offer little solace when confronted with a newly erected diplomatic brick wall.
What has been insufficiently communicated to the Nigerian public is the policy logic underpinning this decision. The United States grounds its action primarily in national security and counter-terrorism concerns.
According to the proclamation, the sustained presence and activity of extremist groups,particularly Boko Haram and ISWAP—complicate effective vetting and information-sharing, thereby heightening the perceived risk associated with admitting Nigerian travellers.
The White House frames the restrictions as part of a broader strategy to safeguard U.S. national security and enforce immigration compliance, arguing that unrestricted entry from countries deemed to have documentation or screening deficiencies poses unacceptable risks.
Yet this justification is neither new nor uncontested. As far back as early 2025, U.S. policy had already restricted Nigerian non-immigrant visas to single-entry permits with a three-month validity, invoking the much-contested doctrine of “reciprocity.” Nigeria vigorously disputed both the factual basis and proportionality of that claim.
More troubling still is the selective application of this logic. Nigeria’s visa overstay rates are not extreme when compared to several countries that remain untouched by similar sanctions. Overstay statistics, in and of themselves, do not necessarily indicate criminality or malicious intent. Economic hardship, limited opportunities, and entrenched structural inequality rather than subversive ambition are far more accurate explanations for many overstays.
To conflate desperation with danger is to indulge in a most convenient form of policy laziness.
While national security and immigration compliance are undeniably legitimate policy concerns, the substitution of broad, indiscriminate restrictions for targeted, intelligence-driven measures is not only disproportionate—it is diplomatically counterproductive.
Such policies may project toughness, but they lack nuance. They punish the innocent, alienate allies, and risk reinforcing the very instability they purport to prevent. A diplomacy that sacrifices fairness on the altar of fear achieves neither justice nor security. It breeds resentment, deepens mistrust, and further marginalises populations already crushed under the weight of failed governance.
In the final analysis, nations, like individuals, are judged not merely by the threats they confront, but by the fairness and wisdom of their responses. History, as always, will render its own verdict.
NB: Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, is an Abuja based human rights lawyer
