In a significant policy shift, the Federal Government of Nigeria has officially announced an upward revision of passport fees for citizens residing within the country, set to take effect on September 1, 2024.

The fee adjustment was made public through a statement released on Wednesday by DCI KT Udo, the Service Public Relations Officer at the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) Headquarters. The announcement was also posted on the official X (formerly Twitter) account of the NIS, ensuring that the information reached a wide audience.

This move is part of broader efforts to enhance the quality, security, and international credibility of the Nigerian Standard Passport, according to the NIS.

Under the new pricing structure, the cost of obtaining a 32-page passport booklet with a 5-year validity will rise from N35,000 to N50,000. Similarly, the fee for a 64-page passport booklet with a 10-year validity will increase from N70,000 to N100,000.

The NIS explained that the hikes were prompted by the government’s commitment to maintaining the passport’s quality and ensuring it meets the rigorous standards required for international travel and identification. It also noted that the decision to raise fees was driven by the need to cover the increasing costs associated with passport production and issuance.

These include the expenses tied to integrating advanced security features, adopting new technologies, and ensuring the overall sustainability of the passport issuance process. The NIS emphasized that the revision is essential for preserving the integrity and credibility of the Nigerian passport in the global arena.

The fee adjustments apply solely to Nigerians living within the country, with no changes to the fees for citizens residing abroad. This distinction acknowledges the different economic conditions faced by Nigerians at home compared to those in the diaspora.

The Nigeria Immigration Service also acknowledged the potential inconvenience that the fee increase may cause for prospective applicants. However, it reassured the public of its dedication to providing transparent, efficient, and high-quality services. The agency stressed that despite the fee hike, it remains committed to facilitating a smooth and reliable passport application and issuance process.

The official statement from the NIS announcing the fee increase is as follows:

“As part of its efforts to maintain the quality and integrity of the Nigerian Standard Passport, the Federal Government has approved an upward review of the fees for the Passport effective from 1st September, 2024. Based on the review, a 32-page Passport booklet with 5-year validity, previously charged at Thirty-five Thousand Naira (N35,000) will now be Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000) only; while a 64-page Passport booklet with 10-year validity, which was Seventy Thousand Naira (N70,000), will be One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000) only. However, the fees remain unchanged for Nigerians in the Diaspora.”

“While the Nigeria Immigration Service regrets any inconvenience this increase might cause prospective applicants, it assures Nigerians of unwavering commitment to transparency and quality service delivery.”

Impact of Naira Devaluation

The increase in passport fees is not happening in isolation; it is believed to be a direct response to the ongoing economic challenges in Nigeria, particularly the sharp devaluation of the naira. The devaluation, which has triggered a surge in inflation, driving up the cost of goods and services across the country has placed a heavy burden on various sectors, including government operations, which are heavily reliant on imported materials and services.

The production of passport booklets involves significant foreign exchange components, as materials are often sourced from international markets. With the naira’s depreciation, these costs have escalated, making it unsustainable to maintain the previous fee structure without compromising the quality and security standards required in today’s global environment.

A Ripple Effect Across Government Agencies

The NIS is not the only government agency adjusting its fees in response to the economic downturn. The Nigerian Customs Service (NCS) has continued to revise its charges for clearing goods at ports, aligning them with the fluctuating exchange rates. The devaluation of the naira has significantly increased the cost of importing goods, leading to higher duties and taxes, which are calculated based on the prevailing exchange rate.

As the naira continues to take a beating in the foreign exchange market, more government agencies are expected to follow suit, raising their charges to cope with the increasing operational costs. This trend reflects the broader economic challenges facing the country, where inflationary pressures and currency devaluation are forcing both public and private sector entities to re-evaluate their pricing strategies.

The Nigerian government is facing a mounting crisis as foreign courts continue to issue rulings against it, resulting in the seizure of its assets abroad. Another significant legal battle has culminated in a UK court granting final charging orders in favor of Chinese firm Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment, allowing it to claim two residential properties in Liverpool owned by the Nigerian government.

This decision, revealed in a court document made available to the media, is the latest chapter in a prolonged dispute rooted in a $70 million arbitration award against Nigeria, which prompted a French court to also order the seizure of three Nigerian presidential aircraft.

The two properties in question, located at 15 Aigburth Hall Road and Beech Lodge, 49 Calderstones Road in Liverpool, are estimated to be worth between £1.3 and £1.7 million. On June 14, Master Sullivan of the High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Commercial Court in London, issued the final charging orders in favor of Zhongshan, despite Nigeria’s objections.

Nigeria had challenged both the interim and final charging orders, arguing that the application did not adhere to legal requirements and that the properties were protected by state immunity. The acting head of Nigeria’s High Commission in London had certified that the properties were not intended for commercial use, a claim central to Nigeria’s defense.

However, the court rejected these arguments, noting that the properties were not listed as diplomatic or consular premises, nor were they recognized as private residences of mission members.

French Court Seizes Nigerian Presidential Aircraft

The UK ruling comes on the heels of a separate legal blow delivered by a French court, which ordered the seizure of three Nigerian presidential aircraft. This order was part of the ongoing efforts by Zhongshan to enforce the arbitration award.

However, the Chinese company displayed an unexpected gesture of goodwill by releasing the newly purchased aircraft to the Nigerian president. This act was seen as a diplomatic move, perhaps intended to maintain a semblance of cooperation or to keep negotiations open.

Background of the Dispute

The legal entanglement originates from an investment treaty arbitration launched by Zhongshan against Nigeria. The parent company of Zhongshan, Zhuhai Zhongfu Industrial Group Co Ltd, had entered into an agreement in 2010 to develop and operate Fucheng Industrial Park within the Ogun Guangdong Free Trade Zone (OGFTZ). This arrangement was formalized when the Nigeria Export Processing Zones Authority registered Zhongfu International Investment (NIG) FZE, a subsidiary of Zhongshan, as a free trade zone enterprise in 2011.

However, tensions escalated in July 2016 when the Ogun State Government sought to terminate Zhongfu’s management of the zone. Zhongfu accused the state government of attempting to replace it with another manager, leading to the arbitration proceedings. The tribunal in London ruled in favor of Zhongshan in 2021, ordering Nigeria to pay $55.6 million in compensation for expropriation and other violations under the bilateral investment treaty between China and Nigeria.

Nigeria attempted to overturn the tribunal’s decision through various legal channels, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil division) of the Royal Courts of Justice in London. However, in a judgment delivered on July 20, 2023, the court upheld the previous ruling, noting Nigeria’s failure to meet the generous time limit for challenging the order and its delayed invocation of state immunity, which came three months after the deadline.

For the UK properties, the court dismissed Nigeria’s request to challenge the enforcement order, emphasizing that the properties were being used for commercial purposes, as they were leased to residential tenants unconnected to Nigeria or its diplomatic mission. As a result, the court ruled that the properties did not qualify for state immunity under section 13(4) of the State Immunity Act (SIA), thereby allowing the enforcement against them.

In her June 14, 2024 judgment, Master Sullivan stated, “The properties are currently used for the purpose of leases to residential tenants unconnected with Nigeria and its Mission. Those are commercial purposes for the purpose of s13(4) of the SIA, and therefore, the enforcement against the properties is not barred by state immunity.”

She added: “There is no good reason why I should not exercise my discretion to make the charging orders final, and I do so.”

The Growing Implications of The Rulings

This ruling marks a significant setback for Nigeria in its efforts to protect its overseas assets from legal claims, signaling a deepening legal quagmire for the country, with more of its assets expected to be confiscated in the coming months.

The enforcement of the charging orders means that Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment now has legal claims on the two Liverpool properties, bringing Nigeria a step closer to fulfilling the arbitration award.

Although the Nigerian government has repeatedly reiterated its commitment to recover its assets, the enforcement of these rulings indicates that the country is in a helpless situation.

Legal experts warn that the wave of asset seizures could have severe repercussions for Nigeria’s international standing and economic stability. The enforcement actions are not only a financial burden but also a significant diplomatic embarrassment for a country striving to project itself as a leader in Africa.