Thursday, 27 June 2013
Football: FIFA U20 World Cup: Nigeria 1-0 South Korea. FT.
The Flying Eagles got through the group stage on Thursday by defeating South Korea in their last game in the group by a lone goal scored by Kayode in the ninth minute.
I didn’t attempt to flush my baby – OAU student.
By Sikiru Akinola
When news spread that Oyinlola Diana
Rotimi, a 400 level student at the Department of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, allegedly attempted to
flush her child down the toilet, there were criticisms and counter-criticisms.
This prompted this reporter to unravel the circumstances that led to the
incident.
The Public Relations Officer of the
University, Mr. Abiodun Olanrewaju, in a release, had debunked the rumour, saying
that the lady never intended to terminate the baby’s life but gave birth before
due date as she was said to be ignorant of child delivery.
”The truth,” the image maker said,
“is that there was a delivery of a baby boy by an inexperienced mother who, in her
naivety, thought she was pressed by call of nature while she was actually in
labour pains.
”Prior to the child’s delivery, the
young, inexperienced mother was bleeding and went to the toilet only to
discover that something expelled into the water closet.
”It is overwhelming, it’s
unexplainable; I can’t explain it. I don’t know how I feel but it’s really
great and wonderful.” Those were the words of Oyinlola Rotimi, when our
correspondent sought to know how she felt about the birth of the baby boy. She
said the allegation that she wanted to flush the baby was untrue.
”It is not true at all. It is
blatant lie. I was purging through out the night and I had no idea what labour
pain was. Actually, I can’t call it labour pain because I was going to the
toilet throughout the night till that fateful morning.
”I went through pain going to the
toilet all through the night. I went to the toilet that morning to defecate.
There was this force that just came out and the baby came out and entered into
the closet. I was just there standing and bleeding. People came out when they
saw blood coming out of the toilet to help me. It was a friend, Satope, who
approached the toilet and found the baby that called an elderly cleaner for
assistance.
Oyinlola said she was scared because
she was not expecting the baby that day. “Seeing the baby was terrifying
because I was not expecting the baby to come out yet.
She debunked insinuations that she
attempted running away when one of the cleaners saw her. “That is untrue!
Moremi hostel’s toilet is a public place where everybody comes in almost at the
same time. People were everywhere while I was in the toilet. Just like me,
everybody was scared when they saw me and they had to call the cleaner for help
because she is an elderly person.\
UPDATE: UK High Commissioner clears air on £3,000 visa bonds
THE British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Dr Andrew Pocock, has
cleared the air on the controversial £3,000 visa bonds for Nigerian visa
applicants to the United Kingdom (UK).
Pocock, who met with the Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Olugbenga Ashiru, on Tuesday, said the visa bond projects was not what was reported in most of the Nigerian media.
He added that the British government “has announced that it intends to undertake a very small scale trial of the use of financial bonds, as a way of tackling abuse in the immigration system - which occurs when some people overstay their visa terms.”
He said “the details of a pilot scheme are still being worked out,” adding that no final decision had been made.
According to Pocock, “if the pilot scheme were to go ahead in Nigeria, it would affect only a very small number of the highest risk visitors.
“The vast majority would not be required to pay a bond. Those paying bonds would receive the bond back if they abided by the terms of their visa.”
He maintained that the travel between two countries was a key part of strong cultural and business relationship, noting that “financial bonds would be focused on only a tiny minority of potential abusers. It would not be a £3,000 visa charge as some media reporting has alleged.”
The commissioner added that with over 180,000 Nigerians applying to visit the UK each year, about 70 per cent or around 125,000 of the figure were successful.
He assured that “as soon as more details of the policy is decided, we will inform the Nigerian government and public fully and officially, in the spirit of our long standing friendship.”
Pocock, who met with the Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Olugbenga Ashiru, on Tuesday, said the visa bond projects was not what was reported in most of the Nigerian media.
He added that the British government “has announced that it intends to undertake a very small scale trial of the use of financial bonds, as a way of tackling abuse in the immigration system - which occurs when some people overstay their visa terms.”
He said “the details of a pilot scheme are still being worked out,” adding that no final decision had been made.
According to Pocock, “if the pilot scheme were to go ahead in Nigeria, it would affect only a very small number of the highest risk visitors.
“The vast majority would not be required to pay a bond. Those paying bonds would receive the bond back if they abided by the terms of their visa.”
He maintained that the travel between two countries was a key part of strong cultural and business relationship, noting that “financial bonds would be focused on only a tiny minority of potential abusers. It would not be a £3,000 visa charge as some media reporting has alleged.”
The commissioner added that with over 180,000 Nigerians applying to visit the UK each year, about 70 per cent or around 125,000 of the figure were successful.
He assured that “as soon as more details of the policy is decided, we will inform the Nigerian government and public fully and officially, in the spirit of our long standing friendship.”
Wednesday, 26 June 2013
New UK visa policy: Any cause for alarm?
Nigerians from all walks of life have continued to react to the
introduction of a new visa policy by the British government, with many
describing it as discriminatory and unacceptable.
The policy requires Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom to produce a cash bond of N730,000 (3,000 pounds, $4,600 or 3,500 euros) before they enter the UK, as they were among country nationals deemed to pose a “high risk” of immigration abuse.
The Presidency and the National Assembly have also reacted.Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olugbenga Ashiru, assured all Nigerians that “the Jonathan government will defend the interest of Nigerians by whatever means we can. So, when we get their proposal, we will study it and we will see how we can guide the ordinary Nigerians,” Ashiru said.
Also, House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, has also condemned the new British visa policy, saying it is discriminatory and unacceptable.
Chairman of the committee, Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje, in a statement issued in Abuja, said such policy was not in the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians.
“This is totally discriminatory and unacceptable. It is targeted at non-white Commonwealth”, she said.
What is your take on this latest development? Do you agree with Ukeje that the new UK visa policy is discriminatory? Should the federal government come up with a counter policy? Will it curtail the influx of Nigerians to the UK?
The policy requires Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom to produce a cash bond of N730,000 (3,000 pounds, $4,600 or 3,500 euros) before they enter the UK, as they were among country nationals deemed to pose a “high risk” of immigration abuse.
The Presidency and the National Assembly have also reacted.Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olugbenga Ashiru, assured all Nigerians that “the Jonathan government will defend the interest of Nigerians by whatever means we can. So, when we get their proposal, we will study it and we will see how we can guide the ordinary Nigerians,” Ashiru said.
Also, House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, has also condemned the new British visa policy, saying it is discriminatory and unacceptable.
Chairman of the committee, Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje, in a statement issued in Abuja, said such policy was not in the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians.
“This is totally discriminatory and unacceptable. It is targeted at non-white Commonwealth”, she said.
What is your take on this latest development? Do you agree with Ukeje that the new UK visa policy is discriminatory? Should the federal government come up with a counter policy? Will it curtail the influx of Nigerians to the UK?
UK’s new visa policy is multi-edged sword
THE news broke, Monday, that the UK government plans imposing a visa
bond on nationals of some countries intending to travel to the UK.
According to the report, from November, nationals of Nigeria, India,
Ghana, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka will have to post a bond of
N723,000 or £3,000 ($4,600 or 3,500 euros at current exchange rates).
The Home Secretary, Theresa May, made the proposal which targeted nationals of the countries tagged as “high-risk.”
Expectedly, there has been an uproar as various individuals and groups reacted to the development which not a few see as discriminatory. But the UK’s visa policy has in reality been discriminatory against Nigerians and if you like, nationals of other countries included. It started in September 1986 when the Margaret Thatcher administration decided, at the end of a cabinet meeting that in future, travelers from Nigeria, India, Ghana, Bangladesh and Pakistan will need to obtain visas in their own countries before travelling.
Before the 1986 decision, nationals of all Commonwealth nations, except Sri Lanka did not need visas to travel to the UK. Justifying the decision, Home Secretary at the time, Douglas Hurd said: “We have to have immigration checks, and I think it is more sensible that these checks are carried out before someone sets off on a journey.”
Reacting, the opposition Labour Party described the Thatcher government decision on visa requirements for the five countries as racist. Then shadow home secretary in the Labour Party, Gerald Kaufman said: “It is typical of this government that in future white visitors from racialist South Africa will be able to come here without a visa while a visa will be required for parents and other family members of British citizens living and working in this country.”
Beyond these, however, many Nigerians who see UK’s visa policy towards Nigeria over the years find it difficult to wish away discrimination. “Why are visa restrictions not slammed on nationals of countries who are known havens of terrorists? Why target innocent blacks who are merely seeking greener pastures?” asked a Lagos banker who opted not to named.
And so has it been, since 1987 when the policy took effect. The new initiative merely added Sri Lanka, whose nationals had needed visas to travel to the UK before 1986.
In perspective, the policy, if implemented, will have repercussions on both sides. If dealing with illegal immigration is the sole object of the policy, then Nigerians who see the UK as an escape destination will be affected. On the contrary, Nigeria is a business destination for many UK nationals, including those of Nigerian descent. If Nigeria reciprocates, as government may be required to, businesses on both sides will suffer irreparably.
On the face of it, the UK government is set to earn a lot of money from bonds posted by illegal immigrants, who, at the same time will be hunted down and repatriated. At the personal level, it is a loss situation for those who see UK as escape destination. Again, the visa policy will affect thousands of Nigerian students in UK institutions of higher learning. Though full details are yet unknown, parents of students in UK schools may have to cough out millions for a child (or children) that will be in school for about four, five years, or more. That will have grave implications for resources needed at home.
Whichever way one looks at it, it is hard blaming the UK government for trying to protect its “lebensraum,” to use a German word. The onus is on the government of Nigeria to make the country liveable in all ramifications; then Nigerians would stop seeing the UK as an escape destination in a bid to avoid the problems of bad roads, epileptic power supply, insecurity, lack of water, and every other undesirable that index Nigeria at the moment. It can be done.
The Home Secretary, Theresa May, made the proposal which targeted nationals of the countries tagged as “high-risk.”
Expectedly, there has been an uproar as various individuals and groups reacted to the development which not a few see as discriminatory. But the UK’s visa policy has in reality been discriminatory against Nigerians and if you like, nationals of other countries included. It started in September 1986 when the Margaret Thatcher administration decided, at the end of a cabinet meeting that in future, travelers from Nigeria, India, Ghana, Bangladesh and Pakistan will need to obtain visas in their own countries before travelling.
Before the 1986 decision, nationals of all Commonwealth nations, except Sri Lanka did not need visas to travel to the UK. Justifying the decision, Home Secretary at the time, Douglas Hurd said: “We have to have immigration checks, and I think it is more sensible that these checks are carried out before someone sets off on a journey.”
Reacting, the opposition Labour Party described the Thatcher government decision on visa requirements for the five countries as racist. Then shadow home secretary in the Labour Party, Gerald Kaufman said: “It is typical of this government that in future white visitors from racialist South Africa will be able to come here without a visa while a visa will be required for parents and other family members of British citizens living and working in this country.”
Beyond these, however, many Nigerians who see UK’s visa policy towards Nigeria over the years find it difficult to wish away discrimination. “Why are visa restrictions not slammed on nationals of countries who are known havens of terrorists? Why target innocent blacks who are merely seeking greener pastures?” asked a Lagos banker who opted not to named.
And so has it been, since 1987 when the policy took effect. The new initiative merely added Sri Lanka, whose nationals had needed visas to travel to the UK before 1986.
In perspective, the policy, if implemented, will have repercussions on both sides. If dealing with illegal immigration is the sole object of the policy, then Nigerians who see the UK as an escape destination will be affected. On the contrary, Nigeria is a business destination for many UK nationals, including those of Nigerian descent. If Nigeria reciprocates, as government may be required to, businesses on both sides will suffer irreparably.
On the face of it, the UK government is set to earn a lot of money from bonds posted by illegal immigrants, who, at the same time will be hunted down and repatriated. At the personal level, it is a loss situation for those who see UK as escape destination. Again, the visa policy will affect thousands of Nigerian students in UK institutions of higher learning. Though full details are yet unknown, parents of students in UK schools may have to cough out millions for a child (or children) that will be in school for about four, five years, or more. That will have grave implications for resources needed at home.
Whichever way one looks at it, it is hard blaming the UK government for trying to protect its “lebensraum,” to use a German word. The onus is on the government of Nigeria to make the country liveable in all ramifications; then Nigerians would stop seeing the UK as an escape destination in a bid to avoid the problems of bad roads, epileptic power supply, insecurity, lack of water, and every other undesirable that index Nigeria at the moment. It can be done.
£3,000 UK VISA DEPOSIT: FG, Reps kick against new policy
BY VICTORIA OJEME
ABUJA— The Federal Government, yesterday, vowed to defend the interests of Nigerians, following the introduction of a new visa policy by the British government. The policy requires Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom to produce a cash bond of N730,000 (3,000 pounds, $4,600 or 3,500 euros) before they enter the UK.
The Sunday Times newspaper had reported that visitors from
Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana whose
nationals are deemed to pose a “high risk” of immigration abuse will be
required to produce the bond which they will forfeit if they overstay in
Britain after their visas have expired.
Reacting, yesterday, while rendering account of his stewardship at the Radio House in Abuja, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olugbenga Ashiru, said the Federal Government was yet to receive any official communication from the UK government.
“We have received no official communication from the UK government. When we receive communication from them, we will study whatever proposal they bring and know what to do.
“But I can assure all Nigerians that the Jonathan government will defend the interest of Nigerians by whatever means we can. So, when we get their proposal, we will study it and we will see how we can guide the ordinary Nigerians,” Ashiru said.
UK Visa bond unacceptable —House Committee
House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, has also condemned the new British visa policy, saying it is discriminatory and unacceptable.
Chairman of the committee, Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje, in a statement issued in Abuja, said such policy was not in the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians.
“This is totally discriminatory and unacceptable. It is targeted at non-white Commonwealth”, she said.
Ukeje (PDP-Abia) said as a Committee on Foreign Affairs, the House of Representatives would take a critical look at the policy as it affects Nigerians and come up with a way forward.
According to her, “they should realise that it is not in the best interest of UK. We will, as a country, look at it vis-a- vis our citizens and come up with a decision. We agree totally with the UK Foreign Minister that the policy is totally unworkable and impractical.
It is contrary to the commitment made to our President by David Cameron during their last meeting. We believe it is for political reason ahead of general election. We seek that our long historical relationship should take precedence over political expediency,” Ukeje advised.
The pilot scheme of the new visa policy is scheduled to commence in November. According to the Sunday Times, the controversial move by the UK home secretary, Theresa May, to introduce the Australian-style system reflects her determination to show that the Conservatives are serious about cutting immigration into the UK .
Ms May said: “This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain .”
She added: “In the long run we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.”
The Home Office is targeting countries which have high volumes of visitor visa applications and what it deems to be relatively high levels of fraud and abuse.
ABUJA— The Federal Government, yesterday, vowed to defend the interests of Nigerians, following the introduction of a new visa policy by the British government. The policy requires Nigerians travelling to the United Kingdom to produce a cash bond of N730,000 (3,000 pounds, $4,600 or 3,500 euros) before they enter the UK.
Reacting, yesterday, while rendering account of his stewardship at the Radio House in Abuja, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olugbenga Ashiru, said the Federal Government was yet to receive any official communication from the UK government.
“We have received no official communication from the UK government. When we receive communication from them, we will study whatever proposal they bring and know what to do.
“But I can assure all Nigerians that the Jonathan government will defend the interest of Nigerians by whatever means we can. So, when we get their proposal, we will study it and we will see how we can guide the ordinary Nigerians,” Ashiru said.
UK Visa bond unacceptable —House Committee
House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs, has also condemned the new British visa policy, saying it is discriminatory and unacceptable.
Chairman of the committee, Nnenna Elendu-Ukeje, in a statement issued in Abuja, said such policy was not in the best interest of Nigeria and Nigerians.
“This is totally discriminatory and unacceptable. It is targeted at non-white Commonwealth”, she said.
Ukeje (PDP-Abia) said as a Committee on Foreign Affairs, the House of Representatives would take a critical look at the policy as it affects Nigerians and come up with a way forward.
According to her, “they should realise that it is not in the best interest of UK. We will, as a country, look at it vis-a- vis our citizens and come up with a decision. We agree totally with the UK Foreign Minister that the policy is totally unworkable and impractical.
It is contrary to the commitment made to our President by David Cameron during their last meeting. We believe it is for political reason ahead of general election. We seek that our long historical relationship should take precedence over political expediency,” Ukeje advised.
The pilot scheme of the new visa policy is scheduled to commence in November. According to the Sunday Times, the controversial move by the UK home secretary, Theresa May, to introduce the Australian-style system reflects her determination to show that the Conservatives are serious about cutting immigration into the UK .
Ms May said: “This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands, while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain .”
She added: “In the long run we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.”
The Home Office is targeting countries which have high volumes of visitor visa applications and what it deems to be relatively high levels of fraud and abuse.
Nigerians to pay £3,000 to enter Britain
LONDON (AFP) – Britain is planning to force visitors from India,
Pakistan, Nigeria and other countries whose nationals are deemed to pose
a “high risk” of immigration abuse to provide a cash bond before they
can enter the country, a report said Sunday.
The Sunday Times newspaper said that from November, a pilot scheme would target visitors from those three countries plus Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana.
Visitors aged 18 and over would be forced to hand over £3,000 ($4,600, 3,500 euros) from November for a six-month visit visa.
They will forfeit the money if they overstay in Britain after their visa has expired.
Initially the scheme will target hundreds of visitors, but the plan is to extend it to several thousand, according to the broadsheet’s front-page report.
The weekly paper said the move by Home Secretary Theresa May is designed to show that Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party is serious about cutting immigration and abuses of the system.
The populist United Kingdom Independence Party has been encroaching on the Conservatives’ traditional core vote in recent months.
Cameron wants annual net migration down below 100,000 by 2015.
“This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain,” May was quoted as saying.
“In the long run we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.”
A Home Office official said the six countries highlighted were those with “the most significant risk of abuse”.
Last year 296,000 people granted six-month visas were from India, 101,000 from Nigeria, 53,000 from Pakistan and 14,000 each were from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
The Sunday Times newspaper said that from November, a pilot scheme would target visitors from those three countries plus Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Ghana.
They will forfeit the money if they overstay in Britain after their visa has expired.
Initially the scheme will target hundreds of visitors, but the plan is to extend it to several thousand, according to the broadsheet’s front-page report.
The weekly paper said the move by Home Secretary Theresa May is designed to show that Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party is serious about cutting immigration and abuses of the system.
The populist United Kingdom Independence Party has been encroaching on the Conservatives’ traditional core vote in recent months.
Cameron wants annual net migration down below 100,000 by 2015.
“This is the next step in making sure our immigration system is more selective, bringing down net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands while still welcoming the brightest and the best to Britain,” May was quoted as saying.
“In the long run we’re interested in a system of bonds that deters overstaying and recovers costs if a foreign national has used our public services.”
A Home Office official said the six countries highlighted were those with “the most significant risk of abuse”.
Last year 296,000 people granted six-month visas were from India, 101,000 from Nigeria, 53,000 from Pakistan and 14,000 each were from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)