The Nigerian Senate is considering a new law that would stop Nigerians who are convicted of crimes abroad from getting a passport for ten years or even withdrawing such passport for ten years after conviction. The sponsor of the bill says it is meant to protect Nigeria’s image and discourage Nigerians from committing crimes in other countries. This sound like a patriotic and commendable idea, but when you look closer, it raises serious legal problems. It goes against the Nigerian Constitution and violates international law.
The legal jurisprudence behind section 41 of the Nigerian Constitution protects citizens from arbitrary restrictions such as the one envisaged by the National Assembly. Section 41 of the 1999 Constitution states that no citizen shall be refused entry into or exit from Nigeria. The right to move freely is part of what it means to be a citizen, and the National Assembly is trivialising such. If someone has been convicted and deported from another country, that person has already been punished. Denying them a passport for ten years means stopping them from traveling even for lawful reasons. It means they cannot leave the country to work, do business, seek medical care, or visit family. That is a direct violation of a constitutional right. The section 41 of Constitution only allows restriction of rights if it is reasonable and justifiable in a democratic society. This proposed restriction is neither reasonable nor justifiable. The particular exceptions in section 41 does not allow for punishment or restriction of movement for offences not committed within the shores of Nigeria.
There is also the international legal principle of double punishment. Section 36(9) of the Constitution says no one shall be tried or punished twice for the same offence. This is especially so where such previous offence does not constitute an offence within the present jurisdiction and did not occur in Nigeria at all. When someone commits a crime abroad, that country’s legal system tries them and, if found guilty, punishes them. Once they serve their sentence, the punishment is complete. If Nigeria then adds another punishment, a ten-year passport ban, it means punishing the person again for the same act. That violates the principle of double jeopardy. Beyond legality, it is also morally wrong. The person has already paid the price for their wrongdoing. What they need is rehabilitation and reintegration, not continued rejection from their own country.
The legal question of whether or not a law can automatically punish without trial for an offence that non of the elements of offence ever even occur within its jurisdiction is also a big blow to the Bill at the National Assembly.
The bill is also deeply concerning. What kinds of crimes will attract the ban. What happens to those who were unfairly convicted due to poor legal representation, racial bias, or weak evidence? Many Nigerians abroad face these problems. Some plead guilty just to avoid long trials in countries where they do not understand the system. If such people return home and are banned from getting passports, it would be an injustice on top of an injustice.
It is deeply worrisome that the bill attempts an automatic ban, and therefore side steps the court. Who decides that a person has been convicted abroad. Without a clear process, the law can easily be abused. Someone could be wrongly blacklisted or politically targeted.
Nigeria is also bound by international human rights laws that guarantee the right of citizens to move freely. Article 12 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is part of Nigerian law, says everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return. Article 13 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also say the same thing. A ten-year passport ban clearly violates these commitments unless convicted Nigeria citizens has by such conviction directly threatened Nigeria’s national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others. While some persons may be argue that such a law is in the interest of national security or public order, the Constitution demands more than moral or reputational reasoning. A 10 years restriction like this would need to show a very clear and imminent threat to public order or security. Without that, it is unconstitutional, disproportionate, and amounts to extra-judicial punishment. It will make Nigeria appear oppressive to its own citizens and could attract international criticism.
Even from a practical point of view, the proposal is not fully thought out. While the goal of protecting Nigeria’s image is commendable, the adopted method is questionable. Most Nigerians abroad are hardworking and law-abiding. They send money home, create jobs, and represent the country well. Punishing individuals who returns after a conviction does not improve Nigeria’s image; it only adds shame to people who may already be struggling to rebuild their lives.
The real problem with Nigeria’s image abroad has less to do with ordinary citizens and more to do with bad governance at home and corruption. What damages Nigeria’s reputation most is corruption, poor leadership, and the way the government treats its people. When Nigerians abroad see how badly their fellow citizens are treated at home, or how embassies neglect those in distress, that does far more harm than the crimes of a few. A good image is not built by punishing the weak but by governing justly.
If the Senate is truly concerned about Nigeria’s reputation, there are better ways to address the problem. Nigerian embassies can be strengthened to provide legal and consular support for citizens abroad, especially those facing unfair treatment. Diplomatic engagement can also help ensure Nigerians are treated fairly in other countries. To strengthen Nigeria’s reputation abroad real focus should go into tightening loopholes that allow embezzlement of public fund and inflation of budgets, and strengthen the judiciary to be truly independent. These are the real steps that improve a country’s image and even discourages Nigerians from running away from their fatherland.
A law like this also creates a dangerous opening for abuse. In a system where politics often influences legal decisions, it could be used to punish political opponents or critics who live abroad. A false conviction or even an accusation could be used to block someone’s passport. Without strong checks and clear procedures, the law becomes a weapon instead of a fair rule.
The Senate should remember that the Constitution protects all Nigerians, including those who have made mistakes. The duty of government is not only to punish wrongdoing but also to protect rights. Laws should promote justice, not revenge. A ten-year passport ban will not make Nigeria look better. It will make it look harsh and unjust.
Nigeria should not become a country that denies its citizens a second chance. The right to travel, to move, and to start again after a mistake is part of human dignity. Instead of passing laws that isolate citizens, lawmakers should focus on how to build a fairer, more caring country. That is how to protect Nigeria’s image—by being just at home and compassionate to its citizens abroad. Because in the end, the true image of a nation is not in the crimes of a few people but in how it treats its own.
Opatola Victor is the National Coordinator Lawyers for Civil Liberties.
