As Germany grapples with regional election defeats and a rightward shift in political discourse, the government is exploring unconventional approaches to deter irregular migration, reports DW.

The latest proposal comes from Christian Lindner, leader of the Free Democratic Party (FDP), which has seen a significant drop in voter support. Lindner’s proposal involves investigating the technical and legal feasibility of preventing asylum-seekers from sending benefits received in Germany back to their home countries.

This move is being considered at a time when many developing nations rely on diaspora remittances to stabilize their foreign exchange markets. The proposal is expected to serve as a deterrent for potential migrants.

The influx of individuals from developing countries seeking opportunities in developed nations has been further compounded by recent conflicts in Ukraine and Afghanistan, leading to a surge in the number of refugees seeking asylum.

While the situation presents a challenge for countries like Germany, it inadvertently offers an opportunity for financial inflow to developing nations.

Remittances play a crucial role in global financial flows, surpassing development assistance from donor states. World Bank statistics indicate that remittances contribute significantly to poverty reduction, improved nutrition, and enhanced education opportunities for children in disadvantaged households.

In developing countries, families often pool resources to send an individual abroad with the hope that they will earn enough to send back home and alleviate their poverty. This practice has proven effective in many cases. For instance, in 2022, the 20.13 billion U.S. dollars in personal remittances received in Nigeria amounted to nearly half of the nation’s earnings from oil.

Amidst this backdrop, some German politicians are advocating for providing asylum-seeker benefits-in-kind through payment cards, rather than cash. Joachim Stamp, the German government’s commissioner for migration agreements, supports this shift, as do Chancellor Olaf Scholz and all of Germany’s state leaders.

However, skepticism surrounds the effectiveness of discontinuing remittances in Germany as a means to deter immigration.

“You can think of migration as a portfolio investment decision,” said Tobias Heidland, an economics professor at Kiel University. “Migration is for many people in the world the most profitable investment they can make. That’s why they take substantial risks.”

Migration experts question whether this would significantly impact the money sent home, given the relatively low benefits received by asylum-seekers.

Matthias Lücke, a migration expert at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, told DW that the meager asylum-seeker benefits are unlikely to serve as a major pull factor for migration. He also raised moral concerns about inhibiting individuals from supporting those in need.

“I don’t think this has been thought through yet. When people come here they want to work properly and support their families, but the idea that the little asylum-seeker benefit is some kind of ‘pull factor’ — I don’t think that’s credible.

“I think it’s a very strange definition of freedom, to say: ‘Here’s a poor person, and they want to give money to even poorer people, and I want to forbid that,’ — I can’t understand how that is supposed to work legally or how it makes sense politically,” he said.

Heidland suggested that even if such a policy were to slow remittances, it could come at the cost of hindering integration efforts.

“I don’t think this would make a big difference. I think it’s mostly going to be a policy that has an impact as a signal to the population here that something has to be done,” he said.

While it remains uncertain if the German government will pursue this idea, its implementation, if undertaken, could set a precedent with potential ramifications for FX inflows in numerous countries.

Elon Musk is reportedly at risk of defaulting on the money borrowed to fund his acquisition of Twitter, now rebranded as “X.”

The acquisition, finalized in October for a staggering $44 billion, was partly financed with a $13 billion loan from major financial institutions, including Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Barclays.

These loans were secured by a portion of Musk’s Tesla stock.

In the year since Musk assumed ownership of X, the platform has encountered a series of challenges. The changes he brought to the platform have exacerbated revenue problems, resulting in a soured relationship between X and advertisers. Advertisers, unhappy with content moderation and other changes following Musk’s takeover, have departed in significant numbers and have yet to return. The marketing consultancy firm Ebiquity reported that only two of the world’s top 100 advertisers chose to advertise on X in the previous month.

The world’s wealthiest person has made several attempts to recoup his investment, including monetizing certain features of X, with a particular focus on verification badges. He has also strived to transform the platform into a financial hub, part of his broader “everything app” concept. Despite these efforts, the monetized features have not yielded the expected revenue, and user adoption has been slow.

Moreover, concerns have arisen about X’s user growth, which reports suggest has been declining, contrary to claims made by Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino. App downloads fell by nearly 30% between July and September, according to data from Apptopia.

These challenges have led to concerns that Musk may default on his loan payments, as reported by Insider. Fidelity, an asset manager holding a stake in the company, has drastically reduced its valuation of Twitter, marking it down by two-thirds, reducing the company’s estimated worth to approximately $15 billion.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Musk’s lenders are taking steps to unload the debt. Bankers involved in the transaction have suggested that X could receive a junk bond rating, indicating a heightened risk of loan default. This assessment arises from concerns regarding Musk’s unconventional management style and a sluggish advertising market.

Insiders familiar with the matter informed the Journal that the banks anticipate absorbing a 15% loss, totaling $2 billion. For major stakeholders like Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, this would translate into hundreds of millions in losses.

While Musk has acknowledged that it may take time for his changes to produce financial results, the burden of X’s revenue shortfalls is likely to be shouldered by the lending banks.

This article will be dealing with the revocation of rights of occupancy under Nigerian law, particularly :-

– The extent of a governor’s power to revoke titles of occupancy under Nigerian law

– Overriding Public Interests

– Compensation payable on revocation of rights of occupancy under Nigerian law

What is the extent of a governor’s power to revoke rights of occupancy under Nigerian law?

– It shall be lawful for a governor to revoke a right of occupancy for overriding public interests.

– The governor shall revoke a right of occupancy in the event of the issue of a notice by or on behalf of the president if such notice declares such land to be required by the Federal Government for public purposes.

What exactly are overriding interests?

– Overriding public interests in the case of a statutory of occupancy means :-

a). The alienation by the occupier contrary to the provisions of the act or any regulations.

b). The requirement of the land by the governor of the state, or the requirement of the land by the government of the federation for public purposes of the federation.

c). The requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines.

– Overriding public interests in the case of a customary right means :-

a). The requirement of the land by a governor or local government of the state, in either case for public purposes within the state, or the requirement of the land by the Federal Government for public purposes of the Federation.

b). The requirement of the land for mining purposes or oil pipelines.

c). The requirement of the land for the extraction of building materials.

d). The alienation by occupier without the consent required.

What are the grounds for the revocation of a statutory right of occupancy?

– The governor may revoke a statutory right of occupancy on the grounds of :-

a). A breach of any of the provisions which a certificate of occupancy is by the Land Use Act deemed to contain.

b). A breach of any term contained in the certificate of occupancy or in any contract made under the Act. 

c). A refusal or neglect to accept and pay for a certificate which was issued on evidence of a right of occupancy buy has been cancelled by the governor. 

What is the provision of law on compensation payable on revocation of a right of occupancy by a governor?

– If a right is revoked for the reasons mentioned above (public purposes), the holder and the occupier shall be entitled to compensation for the valie at the date of revocation of their inexhausted improvements.

– Where mining or oil pipelines are involved, the holder and occupier shall be entitled to compensation under the appropriate provisions of the Mineral & Mining Act or the Petroleum Industry Act or subsidiary/subsequent regulations.

– If the holder or the occupier entitled to compensation under the

Land Use Act is a community tje governor may direct that any compensation payable to it shall be paid :-

a) . To the community

b). To the chief of leader of the community to be disposed of by him for the benefit of the community in accordance with the applicable customary law, or

c). Into some fund specified by the governor for the purpose of being utilized or applied for the benefit of the community.

What exactly is the extent of compensation applicable under Nigerian law?

– Compensation shall be as respects:-

a). The land, for an amount equal to the rent,if any, paid by the occupier being the year in which the right of occupancy was revoked. 

b). Buildings, installation or improvements thereon, for the amount of the replacement of the building, installation or improvement, i.e. such cost as may be assessed on the basis of the prescribed method of assessment as determined less ant depreciation, togerher with interest at the bank rate for delayed payment of compensation and in respect of any improvement in the nature of reclamation works, being such cost thereof as may be substantiated by documentary evidence and proof to the satisfaction of the government.

What is the provision of law on the reference of disputes as to compensation?

– Where there arises any dispute as to the amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Act, such dispute shall be referred to the appropriate Land Use Allocation & Committee .

– Debts due to the government will not be extinguished by a revocation concerning such right of occupancy.

What is the extent of the governor’s powers to offer resettlement in case of revocation of a right of occupancy in lieu of compensation?

– An offer of resettlement in lieu of compensation based on the discretion of a state governor or local government chairman.

– Where the resettlement value is higher than the monetary value of the original landed property being the subject of a revocation, the balance will be automatically taken as a loan from the state government.