The illegal ‘deportation’ of Nigerians

As revealed in the angry cross exchanges between the two groups, Lagos State is not the only culprit in the ‘deportation’ of non-indigene destitute back to their states of origin. Several states, including Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Anambra, have been accused of having at one time or the other indulged in the exercise. Nor […]

As revealed in the angry cross exchanges between the two groups, Lagos State is not the only culprit in the ‘deportation’ of non-indigene destitute back to their states of origin. Several states, including Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Anambra, have been accused of having at one time or the other indulged in the exercise. Nor was the recent ‘deportation’ of some Igbos to Anambra State the only time the Lagos government had forcefully repatriated non-indigene destitute back to their states of origin. The state had, by its own admission, in fact ‘relocated’ some 3000 destitute from the North back to the region and others to such states as Oyo, Osun, Ebonyi and Enugu.
The Lagos  State Government and its Anambra State counterpart differ on the actual number of destitute involved: while agents of the Lagos government variously mention 12 and 14 destitute as those ‘relocated’ to ‘be with their families’, defenders of Igbo interest give figures in excess of 70 and mention that these people were dumped on the bank of the River Niger at the ungodly time of 3 O’clock in the morning.  The two states also disagree on whether Lagos State ‘deported’ the destitute or merely ‘relocated’ them to ‘unite them with their families’ in their states of origin. These details are perhaps not as important as the more fundamental issues of the rule of law, rights of citizenship, the powers of states within our federation and the indigene versus non-indigene dichotomy brought to the fore by the controversy.
For instance, beyond the finger pointing, if non-indigenes of a state in a federation like ours violate some state laws, such as on vagrancy, does the affectedstate have the right to forcibly or otherwise send such citizens back to their own states of origin? Or should such people be charged to court under extant laws of the state? Does a state have obligations to provide welfare to the non-indigene destitute in the state?  The issue here seems to be a tension between the rule of law and a sub-state’s perception that it has no business using its meagre resources to provide welfare to non-indigenes of the state who are destitute. It is in essence a lingering tension between the rights of a citizen as enshrined in the constitution and the reality that a sub-state’s resources can only be used for so much. What is distasteful, however, is the resort by Lagos State Government and others to ‘deportation’ as a way of resolving this tension. There are perhaps more and better creative ways of dealing with the issue than outright ‘deportation’ – whatever euphemistic names it is given. The country needs to decide whether it wants to be a society governed by the rule of law or one where impunity or jungle justice is extolled because it satisfies the needs of the moment.
The deportation controversy also underlines the fact that social exclusion and its associated destitution has become a national problem that requires urgent policy intervention. With our extended family system no longer what it used to be, the government has to wake up to the fact that it is high time we evolve a social welfare policy not just for the destitute but for our growing army of the unemployed. We cannot continue to pretend that ‘deporting’ the destitute back to their states of origin or ridding our streets of beggars solves the problem of destitution. Most of the advanced countries in the world solve the problem of social exclusion and abject poverty by developing a social welfare programme to accommodate and care for such people.
There is meanwhile an urgent need for the government to intervene in the current ‘deportation’ controversy before it gets out of hand. Today we are talking of destitute who were ‘deported’ or ‘relocated’, tomorrow, we may be talking of another category of Nigerians who may be forcefully repatriated back to their states of origin under spurious disguises.