 |
| Shehu Sani calls for equal visa response |
U.S. authorities are considering new visa limits on Nigeria. Washington’s planned travel ban could add Nigeria to a list of 36 countries under review. In response, former senator and activist Shehu Sani said Nigeria should “reply with the same gesture” if citizens are blocked from entering the U.S.. He noted that Nigerians have “done nothing” to justify a ban and warned that some people would “rather stay home” than be unwelcome abroad.
The talk of a “U.S. S visa ban” has caused confusion. For clarity, the U.S. S‑visa program is a special visa category for foreign nationals who help U.S. law enforcement in criminal or terrorism cases. These S visas (limited to 200 per year) let informants and witnesses enter the country legally. This S‑visa program is not directly tied to travel bans or general visa policies. In this story, however, sources refer more broadly to U.S. visa restrictions affecting Nigeria (often via a leaked State Dept. memo about travel limits).
For context, Nigeria has faced visa restrictions under past U.S. policies. In January 2020, the Trump administration halted immigrant visas (green cards) for Nigerians and five other countries, saying they failed to meet U.S. security and data-sharing standards. Those earlier restrictions outraged Nigeria’s government, which set up a committee to address the issue. But those 2020 measures did not block Nigerian visitors on tourist or business visas – only immigrant visas were suspended. The current discussion instead involves broader travel bans that could limit many types of U.S. visas for citizens of Nigeria and other nations.
Proposed U.S. Visa Restrictions and Nigeria’s Inclusion
In mid‑June 2025, news broke of a classified U.S. State Department cable (signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio) outlining tough new immigration rules. The memo reportedly singles out 36 countries for possible entry bans unless they fix security problems by a set deadline. Nigeria is on that list, alongside 24 other African nations (such as Ghana, Ethiopia, and Senegal) and nations in Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
US officials say these countries share common issues. Cited concerns include weak identity systems and lack of good travel databases, meaning governments can’t reliably produce secure ID or visa documents. Widespread fraud and corruption in government programs were flagged as well. High rates of U.S. visa overstays and failure to repatriate deported individuals were also mentioned. In short, the leaked memo argues that many of the 36 countries “lack reliable identity documents” or have passports with “questionable security,” which the U.S. sees as a security threat. Nigeria’s government and database practices are now under that review.
Key points from the memo include:
36 countries at risk: Nigeria is among 36 nations that could face new U.S. visa or travel bans if they don’t meet new requirements. Twenty-five of those are African countries, making this a major international issue.
60-day deadline: The affected countries must meet new U.S. benchmarks within 60 days or face restrictions. They were asked to submit initial action plans by a Wednesday deadline (in mid-June) to show how they will improve security vetting.
Reasons listed: The memo explicitly cited examples like unreliable civil documents, “widespread government fraud,” and no central authorities to issue IDs. It also noted high numbers of Americans whose visas have expired and not left, as well as issues like easy “citizenship-by-investment” schemes in some places.
These proposals expand on earlier U.S. travel restrictions. In March 2025, an initial proposal had categorized 43 countries into tiers (red/orange/yellow). Nigeria was not on that first list in March. Now it is classified in the “yellow” tier, which requires quick fixes (with limited visa restrictions if standards aren’t met). In contrast, the “red” tier would face a full ban. U.S. President Trump signed a more limited travel ban on 12 countries on June 4, 2025, and is now weighing a much larger expansion to dozens more.
Former Kaduna Central Senator Shehu Sani was quick to react. On his verified X account (formerly Twitter), Sani said Nigerians “have done nothing” to deserve a ban from the U.S. He stressed: “We don’t fall into the category of those countries they consider as threats. But if they eventually ban us, our country should respond with similar gesture”. In other words, he urged the government to impose equivalent travel curbs on Americans if the U.S. goes ahead.
Sani argued that Nigeria’s inclusion on the list is unjustified. He noted Nigeria lacks the problems cited for others. He said there is “no reason” for the U.S. to single out Nigerians for travel bans. Part of his reasoning is pride in Nigeria’s stability: he added that many Nigerians would choose the “peace and dignity” of home over living in a country where they feel unwelcome.
Two people in business suits shake hands as a gesture of agreement. Shehu Sani’s suggestion is effectively tit‑for‑tat diplomacy. He reminded Nigerians that they have a choice to stay at home if foreign lands seem hostile. By urging “a similar gesture,” Sani is calling for equal measures – for example, a U.S. ban could be met with Nigeria restricting visas for Americans in return.
As of mid-June 2025, the Nigerian government had not issued an official public response to the reports. Major news outlets note that no statement had come from President Tinubu’s administration at the time. Likewise, the U.S. Embassy in Abuja and the Foreign Ministry remained silent on whether Nigeria has submitted an action plan or planned any countermeasures. Local media and analysts are watching closely.
Some observers recall how Abuja reacted in 2020. When Trump first barred Nigerian immigrants, Nigeria formed a federal committee to engage with U.S. officials and to try to fix the cited deficiencies. The then-Foreign Affairs Minister condemned the 2020 suspension, saying Nigeria was unfairly listed, and vowed to address any issues. It’s possible the government could pursue a similar path now: reviewing Nigeria’s visa application system and offering data improvements. No such moves have been announced yet, however.
Meanwhile, some Nigerian public figures on social media echoed Sani’s stance. Supporters of strong reciprocity argued that Nigeria should consider barring U.S. passport-holders, at least in certain categories, if a ban is imposed. Critics of that view counter that such tit-for-tat steps could strain ties and hurt ordinary citizens. Indeed, diplomatic experts warn against knee-jerk retaliation. As the African Union Commission has pointed out, a balanced approach is needed to avoid harming long-standing partnerships.
Nigerian civil society voices and media outlets have highlighted the broader impact. Nigerian and Ghanaian news reports noted that many diaspora families fear disruption to education and business ties. The U.S. is a key destination for Nigerian students and professionals. According to official data, 20,029 Nigerian students enrolled in U.S. universities in the 2023/2024 academic year – a record high and a 13.5% increase over the prior year. Nigeria is Africa’s leading source of international students to the U.S., ranking 7th globally. Any broad visa ban could jeopardize academic and cultural exchanges for thousands of Nigerian youth.
Likewise, nearly 760,000 people in the U.S. today identify as Nigerian-American. Many Nigerian professionals and entrepreneurs live in America or maintain business ties there. Nigerian diaspora remittances to Nigeria are large – officially over $25 billion in 2019 – so any travel disruption could have economic ripple effects. In light of this, citizens have debated whether emphasizing collaboration (e.g. improving security vetting in Nigeria) might be wiser than confrontation.
Statements from U.S. Officials and Analysts
From the U.S. side, official comments have been measured. A senior State Department official told Reuters that the department “is committed to protecting our nation and its citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process”. In other words, the U.S. is defending these proposals as needed safety measures, though it did not elaborate on Nigeria specifically. The State Department said it “constantly reevaluates policies” to ensure that foreigners abide by U.S. laws.
U.S. officials have emphasized that the process is ongoing. They claim it is in the U.S. interest to have reliable data and partner cooperation. For now, the position is that countries must demonstrate progress or face penalties. A White House statement (via press) affirmed that this is about mutual legal standards, not targeting any religion or region.
Outside observers have noted the broader context. Reuters and other media remark that 25 of the 36 listed nations are in Africa. Critics label the move as “deeply troubling” or xenophobic, arguing it singles out developing countries. Supporters say it’s about fairness: countries that don’t share information or accept deportees should not benefit from open borders.
One analysis pointed out that the new restrictions echo past U.S. actions. They extend the June 2025 bans on 12 countries (many in Africa and the Middle East) and the 2017 travel ban on Muslim-majority nations. Some scholars warn that adding Nigeria and other African allies could severely complicate ties. Nigeria has been a partner in counter‑terrorism (helping fight Boko Haram and ISIS-affiliated militants) and a contributor to U.N. peacekeeping. A visa standoff could undermine intelligence-sharing and security cooperation.
Broader Implications for Relations, Travel, and Security
If Washington imposes the visa ban on Nigerians, Nigeria will have choices about retaliation or compliance. Shehu Sani’s call for a “reciprocal gesture” highlights the risk of a diplomatic tit‑for‑tat. For example, Nigeria could tighten entry rules for U.S. citizens or scrap visa‑on‑arrival programs. Such steps would hurt American business and travelers, but they would also hurt Nigerian airlines, businesspeople, and tourists who rely on U.S. connectivity. It could even prompt review of oil and trade deals, given that U.S. companies invest in Nigeria’s energy sector.
On travel, a ban would disrupt many planned trips. Business delegates, tourists, and government officials could suddenly find U.S. visas blocked. This would harm Nigeria’s tourism and trade fairs. Thousands of professionals and students (the nearly 20,000 mentioned earlier) could lose valuable opportunities. Even short trips for medical care or family visits would be affected.
Security ties between the countries could also fray. Nigeria is a major U.S. security partner in Africa. Nigerian police and military training programs have often involved U.S. support (FBI training, CIA counter-terror programs, etc.). If diplomats and analysts read Sani’s words as a public sign of distrust, it could cool those collaborations. On the other hand, Nigeria refusing to accept deported criminals from the U.S. (one cited concern) might have contributed to Washington’s move. A ban could pressure Nigeria to accept more deportees or improve tracking of visa overstays.
However, experts caution that making things worse might do more harm than good. The U.S. relies on Nigeria for regional stability (e.g. helping to police the Sahel). Nigeria benefits from U.S. technology and counter-terrorism aid (for instance, in tackling jihadist kidnappings at its borders). A hostile visa policy could force Nigeria to look for new security partners.
In economic terms, any ban could hit remittances and investment. Nigerians abroad send in billions of dollars each year. Restricting travel could reduce those flows, which are vital to Nigeria’s foreign reserves. Nigeria’s economic planners often note that diaspora funds rival oil income. If tens of thousands of Nigerian workers in the U.S. or in transit corridors get stuck, they might cut back remittances. Meanwhile, U.S. firms doing business in Nigeria (oil companies, tech firms, etc.) might face entry limits on their staff and executives.
In media and online forums, Nigerians have been divided. Some agree with Sani, saying the government should show strength. Others urge diplomacy, urging officials to quickly correct any failings (like improving passport biometrics and data tracking) so the ban can be avoided. There are calls for the government to engage quietly with U.S. diplomats, while also preparing contingency plans.
Ultimately, Nigeria’s next steps are not yet public. If Abuja submits a compliance plan quickly, Washington may postpone or rescind the ban. If not, Nigeria might have to decide whether to impose reciprocal visa rules. For now, citizens will watch both governments closely. The incident has become a touchstone for debate about Nigeria’s reputation abroad: a test of how the country will stand up for itself while maintaining crucial global partnerships.