Nigerians lament over exorbitant UK visa application fees

Published

2 years ago

August 22, 2024

Nigerians on Thursday expressed concern over the exorbitant charges for various UK visa application fees, calling on the Foreign Affairs Minister to look into that area.

This complaint was done in a vox-pop interviews by different UK applicants in the country.

Some of them, however, complained about not getting the value for money spent, and the service delivery is also not efficient.

Speaking on the matter, Mr. Ajayi Okon said that he feels they are beginning to make so much money out of Nigerians because most Nigerians love to go there based on proximity.

“I think it is high time the government intervenes; at times it looks like extortion to me. You will pay a priority visa, which is over a million naira, to get a response within 2 days.

“The next thing, you will get an email telling you because of high demand, it will take another 15 days, so what is the essence of the priority paid for?

“ If you are collecting money for a particular service, you should have factored in how you want to deliver efficient service.

However, Mrs. Sarah Mbah said that on the application portal, the self-service option, which is cheaper, is not accessible easily.

According to her, after paying so much on visa fees, you will still be denied without an option of appeal despite the money spent.

“I think the government needs to pay attention, especially in those areas of visa application to other countries.

“The fees are getting too high, and the service delivery is also not satisfactory. Nigerians will outright be denied without any right to appeal after paying so much.

“ I feel is not right; some cases should be allowed to appeal, especially looking at the resources involved, so people won’t feel cheated,“ she added.

Furthermore, Favor Adamu said that the perception is usually that it is people who have the resources that apply for UK visas, but the truth is, people save up for those fees.

She said that because of the high rate of migration, they usually suspect that everyone coming to their country won’t want to return, and based on that, they use that to denial people.

Adamu said based on this, the fees should not be too much, so such a person won’t feel cheated because they cannot even appeal the decision.

Share on Facebook

Court of Arbitration Declares Indus Waters Treaty Fully Operational Rejects India’s ‘Abeyance’

Published

1 month ago

August 31, 2026

The Gleamer

Cyril Ogar

The Court of Arbitration has unanimously reaffirmed that the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) remains fully in force, ruling that India cannot unilaterally place the 1960 agreement in “abeyance” or suspend its obligations under the treaty.

The decision represents a significant legal development in the longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over the management and use of the Indus river system.

The Court’s finding addresses a fundamental issue at the heart of the dispute: whether either party can unilaterally suspend the treaty outside the legal framework agreed by both countries.

In its unanimous determination, the Court made clear that the IWT continues to bind both India and Pakistan and that its obligations cannot be set aside through a unilateral political declaration.

The ruling means India remains subject to the treaty provisions governing the use of the Western Rivers, including requirements relating to the design and operation of hydroelectric projects, as well as the dispute-resolution mechanisms established under the agreement.

The Court has also ordered interim measures concerning the Ratle Hydroelectric Plant, restricting specified construction activities while the broader dispute remains under consideration.

The measures are aimed at preserving the effectiveness of the arbitration process and preventing developments that could prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.

For Pakistan, the decision represents significant legal validation of its longstanding position that the IWT is a binding international agreement and contains no provision allowing either party to unilaterally place it in abeyance.

Pakistan has consistently maintained that disagreements over the treaty should be addressed through the institutional mechanisms established by the agreement, rather than through unilateral action.

The IWT provides a structured framework for resolving disputes through mechanisms including the Permanent Indus Commission, Neutral Expert and Court of Arbitration processes.

The latest ruling therefore reinforces the principle that treaty obligations cannot simply be disregarded because of deteriorating political relations between signatories.

The significance of the decision extends beyond the India-Pakistan dispute. It underscores the broader international-law principle that agreements governing shared rivers and other transboundary resources must be respected and disputes resolved through established legal and institutional channels.

The Indus river system supports agriculture, livelihoods, food security and communities across the region, making the stability of the treaty particularly important.

The ruling also highlights the distinction between seeking to amend an international agreement through mutually agreed procedures and attempting to alter its obligations unilaterally.

The IWT has endured wars, prolonged diplomatic tensions and periods of limited bilateral engagement. Its continued operation demonstrates the importance of rules-based mechanisms in managing shared resources when relations between neighbouring states become strained.

For Pakistan, the outcome provides an opportunity to frame the decision not merely as a bilateral legal victory, but as an affirmation of international law, treaty compliance and peaceful dispute resolution.

The central message from the ruling is clear: the Indus Waters Treaty remains in force, its obligations continue to bind both parties, and disputes concerning shared waters must be addressed through the legal mechanisms agreed by India and Pakistan.

Share on Facebook