NIGERIA (March 14, 2016) – Employers must immediately verify long-term work permits of foreign workers

What is the change? The Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) is conducting a nationwide audit of all long-term work permits (known locally as the Combined Expatriate Residence Permit and Aliens Card, or CERPAC) that have been issued to foreign workers.

What does the change mean? The long-term work permits of all foreign nationals must be submitted to the NIS by either the employer or the employer’s representative for verification between March 14 -31.

  • Implementation time frame: March 14 – March 31.
  • Visas/permits affected: Long-term work permits (CERPACs).
  • Who is affected: Foreign workers with CERPACs.
  • Business impact: The verification system is a reminder for companies to make sure they are in compliance with immigration and work permit regulations.
  • Next steps: Employers must present the passports and CERPACs of their foreign national employees, a copy of the company’s expatriate quota and a copy of the company’s monthly expatriate quota return for February 2016 at their local NIS CERPAC Production Center. (There are eight such centers throughout Nigeria.) Foreign employees are not required to appear in person. BAL can assist in the process and present the required documentation on the employer’s behalf.

Background: The nationwide effort indicates that the government further clamping down on abuse of long-term work authorization. “The NIS going forward intends to ensure strict compliance of the long term work permit process and penalise companies that breach or abuse the process.” said Kunle Obebe, a partner with Bloomfield Law Practice in Lagos.

Nigeria passed an immigration law in June emphasizing compliance, and recently imposed new limits and monetary fines on business visitors who overstay.

NIGERIA (June 2, 2015) – Immigration Act imposes new work permit rules, higher penalties for non-compliance

What is the change? Nigeria’s Immigration Amendment Act, passed last week, revises the legal structure for issuance of work permits and imposes steep monetary penalties on companies for non-compliance.

What does the change mean? Companies hiring foreign workers may benefit from clearer rules but also have greater responsibilities to comply with all rules regarding work permits, expatriate quotas, timely renewals and monthly reporting.

  • Implementation time frame: Immediate.
  • Visas/permits affected: Work permits, residence permits.
  • Who is affected: Employers and expatriate employees.
  • Impact on processing times: The new framework may help streamline work permit processing.
  • Business impact: The law imposes significant liability on companies to make sure they and their expatriate work force maintain compliance with the law. Companies face fines of up to US$15,000 for violations, such as failing to renew work permits or expatriate quotas in a timely manner.
  • Next steps: Employers should be familiar with the new law and its requirements and may wish to contact their BAL representative for assistance.

Background: The Immigration Amendment Act 2015 was signed into law May 25 by outgoing President Goodluck Jonathan. It codifies the legal authority of the Comptroller General of Immigration to issue work permits.

Under the act, companies are required to “show evidence of immigration responsibility or any other security on behalf of an expatriate employee before a resident permit is granted.” This provision puts the onus on employers to make sure their expatriate employees are in full compliance with the laws. While “any other security” is not defined, it is being interpreted to mean that Nigeria may require employers to pay a guarantee to sponsor some work or resident permits.

If convicted of immigration violations, a company and/or employee will be liable for fines. Here is a summary of penalties:

  • Companies are liable for approximately US$10,000 for any violation instigated by, or attributed to the neglect of, a company’s director, manager or secretary.
  • A company that fails to renew its expatriate quotas on time or to file expatriate monthly returns is liable for approximately US$15,000 in fines. In addition, an individual company official responsible for the filings is subject to a fine of US$5,000.
  • A foreign employee who changes jobs and does not obtain work permit approval from the new employer before starting work is subject to deportation.
  • A catch-all provision covering violations not specified in the law imposes a fine of about US$5,000 and/or one year of imprisonment.
  • An individual who alters travel documents is liable for a fine of US$10,000 and/or three years of imprisonment.
  • Airlines will be fined US$10,000 for knowingly carrying a passenger who is not in compliance with immigration laws.

A sad indictment of heartless South African Home Affairs…

When a judge, writing in July 2015, says the treatment of an individual in a case he’s been hearing is one of the worst since the advent of democracy, you pay attention. Who is this person who has been treated so badly? What happened, and who was responsible for abuse that shocked even a hardened judge? Emeka Christian Okonkwo is a Nigerian trader. It’s an undisputed fact that he’s in South Africa quite lawfully. He had a little shop in East London where he sold cellphones and gold chains for which he was properly licensed. But on 3 August 2012 his world turned upside down: He was summarily picked up and detained by officials of the Department of Home Affairs, long a byword for high-handed abuse of individuals and of an equally high-handed disregard for the law.

 

They pretended that they had a warrant for his arrest – a blatant lie as it turned out. Then they locked him up in Fort Glamorgan prison, turned their backs and walked away. For 75 days he languished there, completely cut off from family and friends. No one except the officials who incarcerated him knew where he was. He wasn’t charged or taken to court. He wasn’t told why he was being locked up or what he was supposed to have done wrong. In fact, as Judge Phakamisa Tshiki said later, those who locked him up never had any intention to take him to court, and it was the clearest case he had seen of malicious arrest and detention. Okonkwo might still be there if it hadn’t been for an alert prison warden – someone who should be nominated for a human rights award – who took an interest in this man, imprisoned for no apparent reason. Thanks to that intervention Okonkwo was ultimately simply let go, without ever having appeared in court or being informed of what sin he was supposed to have committed. But the abuse of Okonkwo continued even after his release. Not surprisingly he sued the Department of Home Affairs, but did the department admit its officers were culpable and offer to make amends? No way. They fought the case as though some high principle were at stake, forcing Okonkwo to go through every legal hoop until the matter was about to be heard as a full trial. Only then, with court dates settled and the matter about to proceed, did they cave in and admit that his arrest and detention were unlawful and that they were liable to pay damages of whatever amount a court found appropriate, as well as his legal costs. When the question of the actual damages was argued, the two parties couldn’t agree on the appropriate compensation he should be awarded and the issue had to be decided via a full-blown trial. Okonkwo was the only witness. The department, despite fiercely defending the matter, led no evidence whatsoever. Okonkwo told a sorry tale of how his life as fallen apart as a result of his unlawful detention. His wife and child are both lost to him. She left him and his child has gone, too, because he couldn’t take care of them while he was locked up. The arrest in his shop was made more humiliating as it was witnessed by his family, neighbours and others. His experience in the cells was not only humiliating, it was terrifying as well, with other prisoners attempting to rape him.

 

For 75 days he had no bed, he couldn’t eat the food provided, there was competition for the toilets. The whole place stank. Perhaps the most outrageous part of the whole story, however, is the two-part argument put up on behalf of the department to explain why Okonkwo should be paid far less in damages than he claimed: The court was ‘dealing with public funds’, said counsel for the department; moreover the court had to weigh up what was appropriate to award as damages considering Okonkwo’s ‘standing in society’. The implication of the second part of the argument was that he was a nobody, a mere Nigerian trader, and he should therefore be satisfied with less compensation than would be awarded to an important person. Such an argument speaks volumes about the department’s understanding of the Bill of Rights and the guarantee of equality in our Constitution. As for the first part of the argument, that public funds that would be used to pay damages to Okonkwo – there is a solution to the problem, namely that the responsible officials pay the damages out of their own pocket. In the end Judge Tshiki, who heard the case in the High Court, East London, called the way the department handled the litigation ‘reprehensible in the extreme’, awarded Okonkwo damages of R750 000 plus legal costs. There’s deep irony to the timing of judgment in this case. It was delivered 800 years, to the very month, after the signing of the Magna Carta, that charter which has so fundamentally shaped our views of human rights over the centuries, and which is one of the influences that led ultimately to such other documents as South Africa’s Constitution. Here, for example, is Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta: No man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. For 800 years that has been a touchstone by which a government could be judged. In the case of Okonkwo, however, you see a man taken and imprisoned, dispossessed of his family not to mention his financial losses, completely without sanction by the law of the land.

 

It’s a damning indictment of the Department of Home Affairs, its officials and the broader government that continues to allow this department to behave as though the Constitution did not exist. Actually, since our money will pay for this atrocity, it’s also an indictment of the public.

 

Unless we speak up, urging that officials who flagrantly defy the law pay for their misdeeds out of their own pockets, and that legal action is taken against them where appropriate, we are unavoidably complicit in their crimes. That, at any rate, is my view. and in this, the first of what will be a fortnightly column, I put it forward for debate. My intention in A Matter of Justice is to highlight judgments and other legal issues through which we can see more clearly where we’ve come from and where we’re going. My hope is that these columns, with the discussion that hopefully follows, will help contribute to a better understanding and appreciation of our Constitution as well as the democratic society, founded on the rule of law, that we want to create.

 

Okonkwo v Minister of Home Affairs & another

Article written by Carmel Rickard

 

NIGERIA (Country risk rating: High); 18 to 20 May; Foreign nationals kidnapped in Kogi and Kebbi states

Authorities confirmed the kidnapping and release of foreign expatriates in Nigeria‘s respective Kogi and Kebbi states, according to reports released on 19 May. In the first incident, a Sri Lankan national employed by the Burni Coli Construction Company was seized near the Kogi State settlement of Yari. The victim, whose security escort was killed and driver wounded during the abduction, was seized while travelling between Okene to the neighbouring state of Ondo. In a separate incident, authorities confirmed the 15 May release of an Irish national. The victim, a Catholic priest, was kidnapped by unidentified gunmen on 12 May. There is a high threat of kidnapping across Nigeria. Although it remains unclear who was behind this latest abduction, both organised criminal syndicates and Islamist militants are known to conduct kidnappings and have an operational presence in the region. Both groups periodically abduct locals and foreign nationals for the purposes of ransom and extortion. Due to various security concerns, all non-essential travel to Nigeria is advised against. Persons in or planning to travel to the country are advised to implement comprehensive travel, residential and personal security measures and consider the use of a security escort, particularly if travelling outside of major urban centres. Clients are further advised to avoid travel after dark as far as practically possible. – by red24

NIGERIA: Abolition of Re-entry Visa

Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) has abolished the requirement to obtain re-entry visas for re-entering the country by expatriates who are already resident in Nigeria.

It has not been indicated yet when the new policy becomes effective. However, once implemented, it will mean that assignees working in Nigeria would not require a re-entry visa (e.g. SJRV, MJRV, etc.) in their passport to re-enter the country each time they travel out, as long as they have a valid residence permit/green card.  

Contact Cassandra at immigration@relocationafrica.com for further support.