A study by Ngozi L. Uzomah, Ignatius I. Madu, Chukwuedozie K. Ajaero, and Eberechukwu J. Ezea of  the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State,  South East Nigeria,  has examined the return trajectories of Nigerian migrants, focusing on returnee experiences and the effectiveness of reintegration strategies with European and North African migration policies.

The study is reproduced below in full:  

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………..4

Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Return and the Role of AVRR Programs in Sustainable Return……………………….6

Return Efforts in Morocco…………………………………………………………………………..7

Return Efforts in Tunisia……………………………………………………………………………..9

Return Efforts in Libya………………………………………………………………………………..10

RRR Efforts in Nigeria for North African-Based Returnees ………………………………13

Communication Channel of the Actors…………………………………………………………..15

Returnee Programmes and Engagements with International Partners………………..16

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………  17

References…………………………………………………………………………………………………18

Navigating the Complexities of Return Migration and Reintegration:

Challenges and Opportunities for Nigerian Migrants from North Africa in the Context of EU Policies

Abstract

Nigeria is a major source of asylum seekers to Europe. Yet, the EU perceive Nigeria as a safe origin country resulting in low acceptance rate of Nigerian asylum seekers and the return of Nigerian migrants many of whom travel through North Africa to reach the EU. North African countries also align with the EU policy to return Nigerian migrants leading to complex reintegration processes. This study examines the return trajectories of Nigerian migrants, focusing on returnee experiences and the effectiveness of reintegration strategies with European and North African migration policies. Through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders and focus group discussions with return migrants from different parts of Nigeria, the study uncovers the dynamics and obstacles in the return and reintegration process. It reveals that even with the provision of EU-sponsored Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) in Nigeria, significant reintegration challenges exist including inadequate funding, lack of capacity and coordination issues among government agencies and civil society organisations. Many returnees reported feeling unprepared to return, alongside the incoherent strategies employed by North African countries of Tunisa, Morocco and Libya in collaboration with the EU, IOM and other organisations, which negatively impact their reintegration process. The harsh socioeconomic conditions and poor governance in Nigeria complicate their economic reintegration, while stigmatisation from the community members add to the difficulties in social and psychosocial reinsertion into the society. Through the lens of concept of sustainable reintegration, the study provides insights into how migration policies impact returnees and the structural gaps in the approaches. ‘

Keywords: Deportation, Expulsion, Migration; Nigeria; Return, readmission and reintegration

Introduction

There are many sub-African migrants, including Nigerians, in countries in North Africa, desperate to cross over to Europe. While some succeed, many of them fail to do so and are returned home. In 2024, Libya deported 327 migrants to Nigeria (Libya Update, 2024) and due to anti-migrants rhetoric in Tunisia thousands of migrants including Nigerians chose to return home (MacGregor, 2024). In 2021, Algeria also deported more than 1,200 migrants including Nigerians to Niger (Memo, 2021) and earlier than that many more migrants were deported from countries in North Africa and beyond to Nigeria (ICIR, 2018). Many of the migrants are left to return on their own and some are returned through an assisted voluntary return (AVR) programme organised by IOM and funded by the EU. Between 2019 and 2023, over 29,000 Nigerians who were stranded along the Central Mediterranean route and from other countries, through the combined efforts of IOM and the Nigerian government, were assisted to return home (IOM, 2023a).

Return migration presents numerous challenges for returnees, who often face significant adjustment issues upon their return (Nwozor et al., 2022). Over the years, return migration has

become a contentious issue and has a critical policy concern for destination, transit and origin countries. For the destination countries in the EU, the policy attention has increasingly focused on assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) programmes (OECD, 2024). Return, readmission and reintegration (RRR) received special attention in the realm of EU migration landscape with the adoption of several policies including Return Directive (2008/115/EC) which establishes common standards and procedures for the return of third-country nationals who are illegally residing in EU Member States and emphasizes their humane treatment and Partnership Framework (2016) which establishes partnerships with countries of origin and transit to facilitate effective return and readmission processes and provides incentives for cooperation, including development aid and trade benefits (EC, 2021). Also, the New Pact on Migration and Asylum (2020) is aimed at creating a more coordinated approach to migration, including a stronger emphasis on return and readmission and proposes a more effective and humane return policy, ensuring that returnees are treated with dignity while EU Readmission Agreements are bilateral agreements with third countries to facilitate the return of irregular migrants. Furthermore, Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) Programs provide support for migrants who choose to return voluntarily to their home countries including financial assistance for reintegration and support services to help them rebuild their lives.

Similarly, the EU-sponsored AU’s Migration Policy Framework for Africa and Plan of Action (2018 – 2030) recognises that addressing irregular migration and establishing comprehensive migration management systems can only contribute to achieving development objectives and increased security across Africa, if the rights of all migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are protected at all stages of the migration process (African Union, 2021). Furthermore, the International Organisation for Migration policy on return, readmission and reintegration focused on the well-being of individual returnees and the protection of their rights throughout the entire return, readmission and reintegration process (IOM, 2022). These policies and agreements highlight the importance of cooperation in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration, placing migrants at the centre of all RRR efforts and programmes. Over the past two decades, migration within and from sub-Saharan Africa has increased significantly, impacting both destination and origin countries (Weldemariam, 2023) and with the implication of returning the migrants. Many Sub-Saharan African migrants in North Africa are unable to key into the return programmes because they are either deported, forced or coerced to return. Consequently, the phenomenon of return migration in countries in the region, including Nigeria, merits thorough investigation.

The aim of this report is to navigate the complexities of return migration of Nigerian migrants from countries in North Africa, focusing on the challenges of their return trajectories and the effectiveness of assisted voluntary return and reintegration (AVRR) programmes. It seeks to explore the conditions influencing their return, assess the impact of EU-influenced policies on their reintegration and highlight the reintegration challenges associated with current return practices. By examining the interplay between migration governance and the realities faced by returnees, this report aims to provide recommendations for improving policy frameworks and practices that ensure safe, dignified, and sustainable reintegration for returning migrants.

Methodology

The fieldwork for this research was conducted between May 2023 and September 2024. A total of 30 in-depth interviews were conducted with stakeholders who are knowledgeable in the field of return and reintegration in Nigeria. The stakeholders include state and non-state actors such as those from government agencies, civil society organisations, journalists and international organisations and return migrants. Even after introducing the project, many of the participants were still sceptic granting us interviews. This was either due to defensivism or distrust in the

return and reintegration landscape in Nigeria. Everybody is trying to protect any information they have and there are rivalries between and within government agencies and implementing entities. Due to these difficulties, assistance was solicited from Patriotic Citizen Initiatives (PCI), a local NGO which has worked with many of the interviewees in the past to boost the confidence of the participants in granting us the interview. Through a chain referral approach, an average of three calls were put across to the participants until an agreement was reached for a date to conduct the interviews. The interviews which lasted between 34 minutes and 1 hour 5 minutes were recorded in audio and video and later transcribed into text. Information was also obtained from notes and presentations from quarterly meetings of the Technical Working Group on Migration and Development and stakeholders’ meeting we organised for the GAPs project in Nigeria. A focus group discussion which lasted for about 90 minutes involving five males and five females between the ages of 25 and 40, who returned within the last ten years was held in February 2024 at the premises of PCI in Lagos. Secondary data was obtained from an initial 20 journal articles and online materials on the theme of return and reintegration; and later information from several other documents were incorporated in the course of the analysis of this research.

Return and the Role of AVRR Programs in Sustainable Return

Returning to one’s home country can be a significant challenge for migrants, as they may struggle to rebuild their social and economic networks (IOM, 2024a). The issue of return is usually conceptualised around questions concerning the conditions under which migrants return, and the considerations that inform their decision to return. For instance, Gurka (2011) identified four return migration patterns: repatriation, circular migration, reverse migration and remigration. Global Migration Group (2011) distinguished between voluntary return and involuntary return, which is associated with rejection, frustration and deportation. Sahin-Mencutek et al (2023) suggest a continuum of returns that considers coercion and the locations of return, both before and after borders. This perspective advocates for a revaluation of policy categories, highlighting that voluntary and forced movements exist on a spectrum rather than as distinct opposites. The paper connects this continuum to a typology of return mechanisms, incorporating both formal policies and informal practices in the governance of returns.

To address the well-being of returnee migrants, the IOM and other partners are implementing the AVRR programmes by providing humanitarian, administrative, logistical, and financial support, including reintegration assistance to migrants in vulnerable situations for them to return home voluntarily. National governments on their side collaborate with the partners to administer RRR programmes which are geared towards the sustainable reintegration of the returnees.

The AVRR programmes are sponsored mainly by the EU and its members states which perceive returns as part of their asylum governance strategy. Most of the funds for AVRR comes from the EU developmental aids which are used to achieve EU’s migration containment goals. Countries in North African such as Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, and Algeria are keying into the developmental aids and benefiting from it as they send sub-Saharan African migrants home (Sylla & Cold- Ravnkilde, 2022). The use of AVRR in this context is in line with migration outcomes of the Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership (EU, 2021) which promotes regional schemes to enhance cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination on migration and development along migratory routes (to Europe).

Olakpe (2020) suggests that agreements led by EU member states often overshadow those initiated by the EU. This is largely because the EU tends to rely on external agencies like the IOM and UNDP, rather than engaging directly with African governments during project implementation. Consequently, member states are seen as aligning more closely with the

migration interests of African nations. By funding intermediaries instead of African governments, the EU’s agendas often reflect the priorities of these organisations, leaving local approaches overlooked. This situation also leads to competition among intermediaries, political actors, government agencies, and civil society for EU funding related to migration governance projects. Some local stakeholders even go as far to perceive the EU as subordinate to these external agencies. However, improved cooperation is necessary across all areas to combat illegal or irregular migration, including agreements on the return and readmission of undocumented migrants, as outlined in the Tripoli Declaration (Council of European Union, 2007). In the context of Nigeria, during the 7th Ministerial Dialogue on November 18, 2020, the EU and Nigeria pledged to enhance collaboration on various migration issues. This includes legal migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking, and effective return and readmission (EU, 2020).

Return Efforts in Morocco

As Morocco is a country of origin, transit, and destination, the IOM in the country implements the AVRR programme in close collaboration with the country’s government, particularly the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, African Cooperation, and Moroccan Expatriates, and the diplomatic representations of countries of origin or reception of assisted migrants (IOM, 2021a). However, the migration policies of several North African countries including Morocco criminalises clandestine/ irregular entry, thus migrants when caught by authorities are put in jail or in detention centres (Bisong, 2022). One could be bailed from jail but once in a detention centre, there is no alternative except possible deportation by international organisations or national governments.

Additionally, most of Morocco’s legal and policy frameworks contain relevant provisions and opportunities that can be applied or extended to RRR situation (African Union, 2021). Specifically, there are laws that deal with returnees through which some incentives are provided. For instance, returnees are provided with relevant documentation and/or civic documents issued to them abroad are recognised. Most importantly, return support project like FORAS (meaning “opportunities” in Arabic) seeks to support sub-Saharan migrants from mainly Guinea, Mali, Cameroon, Togo Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Senegal who volunteer to return to their origin countries. The project is funded by the German Federal Foreign Office and implemented by IOM in two phases. Through the project, migrants are given orientation and counselling services to AVRR, and pre-departure training to strengthen technical and motivational support, ensuring coherence between pre-departure support and reintegration programming upon arrival in their origin countries (IOM, 2018). A total of 76% of about 11,300 migrants who benefitted from the project since 2005 are from the eight targeted countries (IOM, 2019a). The second phase of the project has a regional dimension to strengthen coordination mechanism and regional (South-South) cooperation and exchange of best practices in returns. It targets migrants in Egypt, Algeria and Morrocco to pave the way for a sustainable economic, social and psychosocial reintegration upon their return to origin countries. This is in line with the migration outcomes of the Joint Strategy which is to promote regional schemes to enhance cooperation between countries of origin, transit and destination on migration and development along migratory routes.

Sub-Saharan African migrants who are outside the targeted countries for FORAS like Nigeria are sometimes directly or indirectly coerced to return home or returned haphazardly. Those of them who are pushed back from Melilla and Ceuta into Morocco or who live/transit in Morocco are deliberately pushed by government policies out of big cities like Rabat, Marrakech and Casablanca to live in villages and small towns as mentioned in an interview with a young Nigerian returnee:

“When I climbed the fence at the border between Morocco and Melilla, I was caught by the Spanish Civil Guardia and handed over to the Moroccan authorities who held me for two days before asking me to send me to a small village near Casablanca to live. I was asked not to visit Casablanca. They do the same with other migrants asking them not to travel to big towns like Marrakech, Rabat, Tangier and Fes without letting the authorities know. I think this is because they think we migrants give these towns a bad look”.

The locations where the local authorities send migrants to live are fraught with no protection for undocumented migrants, exploitation in scarce and underpay jobs and high unemployment rate. Migrants who do not stay where they are asked to live and travel to a different location, for example migrating northwards towards Europe, risk incarceration in any eventuality of security control. This makes return the only viable options for them as they are unable to fulfil their aspiration of migrating to Europe (Simoncelli et al., 2023). Consequently, such migrants feel they are compelled, rather than by choice, to report to IOM office in Rabat to access AVRR programme. At the office, they are registered and asked to return in a fortnight for their biometrics. In between that time, they will visit their home countries’ missions in Morocco to obtain a Travel Certificate that should facilitate their return. Following, IOM provides such migrants with money to cover their house rent and small expenses for the little time left in Morocco, after which they are returned to their sub-Saharan origin countries.

Fig.1 Steps of the AVRR Programme from Morocco. Source: IOM (2021b).

Moreover, the IOM in Morocco has since 2005 offered an alternative to more than 18,000 migrants in vulnerable situations to return, in a dignified and safe manner, to their countries of origin through AVRR. Once back in their origin countries, IOM continues to assist them by accompanying them with sustainable reintegration into their communities (IOM, 2021b). Even though on the ground in the origin countries, these initiatives are not effective, the migrants are tricked into believing it is better than staying aimlessly in Morocco. The AVRR is done in eight steps as shown in Figure 1.

Key Takeaways for Migrants Return from Morocco

Key takeaways about the return of migrants from Morocco highlight the complexities faced by sub-

Saharan migrants in a country that serves as a point of origin, transit, and destination. The IOM implements the AVRR program in collaboration with the Moroccan government to facilitate voluntary returns, yet migrants often encounter criminalization of irregular entry, leading to detention or coercion into return. While Morocco’s legal framework includes provisions for returnees, many migrants from non-targeted countries, like Nigeria, face haphazard returns and are pushed into smaller towns, where they encounter exploitation and limited opportunities. The FORAS project specifically supports voluntary returns for migrants from eight targeted countries by providing orientation, counseling, and pre-departure training. Since 2005, the IOM claimed it has helped over 18,000 vulnerable migrants return safely and with dignity and has continued to support their reintegration into their home communities.

Return Efforts in Tunisia

Acknowledging Tunisia’s role as a destination country for refugees and asylum seekers, the country’s National Migration Strategy which has been revised in 2015 and 2017, but which still awaits implementation (Grunewald et al., 2023) aims to develop a legislation to protect migrants’ rights. Though Tunisia has agreed a €1 billion deal with the EU to stem irregular migration, it does not want to be a reception centre for returning sub-Saharan African migrants from Europe (O’Carroll, 2023) and has also officially refused to cooperate with FRONTEX. However, substantial part of the fund is allocated to returning migrants to their origin countries and to combat humans smuggling mostly from sub-Saharan African countries.

Moreover, the anti-immigrant rhetoric from President Kais Saied sparked xenophobic attacks on sub-Saharan Africans migrants and hundreds of them were subsequently kicked out of their jobs and homes triggering many to opt to be sent back to their origin countries (Bajec, 2023). In collaboration with the government of Tunisia, especially, in the governorates of Medenine, Sfax and Tataouine, and the Tunisian Red Crescent and in coordination with IOM offices in the countries of origin and IOM regional offices, 3,500 sub-Saharan African migrants were returned through AVRR between January 1 and June 25, 2024 (IOM, 2024a). The AVRR were made possible through the European Union Migrant Protection, Return and Reintegration in North Africa (MPRR-NA) programme (IOM, 2023a). It is supposed to provide pre-departure and post- arrival services) including free return flights for the migrants and help their reintegration into their home countries (IOM, 2024b; TRT Africa, 2024). But many of the migrants do not get the chance to access the programme. They are either pursued from their homes by the locals or arrested on the street by security agents and expelled to the desert borderlands. This is reflected in an interview with a male Nigerian returnee:

“We were arrested on the street in the Sfax region after a failed attempt to cross the Mediterranean Sea, most of us from DJebiniana. The Tunisian security guards seized our telephones, and money and detained us for several days. After they asked us to enter into different buses and drove us to the Desert near the border with Libya and dump us there. I also met many migrants including children who were either rounded up by the authorities on the streets or taken from their homes or when they went to search for food. We were not provided with food or water until they drove us to the desert. At the desert we were left on our own and six of us were later kidnapped and extorted by desert marauders; two people died in my presence”.

This interview is also confirmed by HRW (2023) and Holleis (2023) which stated that thousands of sub-Saharan African migrants, are dumped by the Tunisian authorities at the borderlands with Libya and with Algeria under the scorching sun in the Sahara Desert. Some of them are

Nigerians who continue to return on their own through Algeria, Niger and Libya. At Algeria, they are always harassed by the authorities and their telephones and money taken away from them before they are sent to Tamanrasset which is the largest major town towards Niger. From Tamanrasset, the migrants are returned dropped at the border with Niger and asked to cross the border, after which they continue to the first the border town of Assamaka to access IOM camp which offers AVR to migrants who are willing to return to their origin country. Of course, the migrants due not have option but only to wait until they get a chance to be return. Some of them stay up to six months while others continue returning on their own rather than wait. Those who chose to take the Libyan route gets to IOM camp in Dirkou in Niger to access the AVR. The migrants are normally taken from Dirkou and Assamaka to IOM camp in Arlit for their preparation to Agadez and later Niamey. In partnership with Libyan authorities, IOM offers healthcare, psychosocial support, and medical assistance in these camps. However, there are significant concerns about the safety and hygiene of reception conditions, overcrowding, inadequate shelter, and limited access to essential services. The sanitary conditions of the camps are severely lacking, and the existing social service infrastructure fails to meet the needs of both the residents and the host community.

From the IOM camp in Niamey, some of the migrants are airlifted to their sub-Saharan origin countries. It is worthwhile mentioning that due to the long waiting time to get access into the IOM camp, migrants who continue returning on their own rather than wait to access AVR are much more than those who remain to access the AVR. Furthermore, due to shame of migration failure, some migrants remain voluntarily immobile in Niger hoping to end a living. They open restaurants and automobile workshops as source of livelihood, and some of the women engage in commercial sex contributing (not forced prostitution) to the economy of Niger.

Key Takeaways of Migrants Return from Tunisia

Key takeaways regarding the return of migrants from Tunisia emphasize the country’s complex position as a destination for refugees and asylum seekers while grappling with significant challenges. Despite revising its National Migration Strategy in 2015 and 2017 to protect migrants’ rights, Tunisia has yet to implement these policies. The country has entered a €1 billion agreement with the EU to curb irregular migration but resists becoming a reception centre for returning sub-Saharan African migrants from Europe and has declined to cooperate with FRONTEX. Anti-immigrant rhetoric from President Kais Saied has led to xenophobic attacks on sub-Saharan Africans, forcing many to seek voluntary return to their home countries. Between January 1 and June 25, 2024, around 3,500 sub-Saharan migrants were returned through the AVRR program, funded by the EU’s MPRR-NA initiative, which offers pre-departure and post-arrival services. However, the return process is often chaotic, with many migrants experiencing arbitrary detention, mistreatment, and expulsion to desert border regions, as highlighted by testimonies from returnees. This situation underscores the urgent need for more effective and humane migration management practices in Tunisia.

Return Efforts in Libya

In the spirit of combating human trafficking and stemming the tide of irregular migration proposed by the Joint Africa-EU Strategic Partnership No 70 (EU, 2021), sub-Saharan African migrants who try to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe are pushed back by European and Libyan coastguards. They are subsequently sent to the facilities of the Directorate for Combating Illegal Migration (DCIM), or unofficial detention sites controlled by traffickers, smugglers and militias (Al-Dayel, 2021). As enshrined in No. 71 of the Joint Strategy and outlined in the Tripoli Declaration, the EU which is better financially disposed than African countries sponsor these operations (African Union, 2007; Council of the European Union, 2007). Migrants are also

detained at the facilitates of Anti-Illegal Migration Agency and Criminal Investigation Directorate (CID). They are thus processed in these facilities for onward deportation to their origin countries (Reuters, 2024; The Libya Observer, 2024). Migrants who have money can bribe themselves out while the ones who do not have money search for it through social networks including family and friends in origin countries, Europe, USA, UAE or elsewhere. Those who pay themselves out can try their luck to migrate to Europe again while those who do not pay will stay in detention centre pending IOM visits to help facilitate their onward return to their origin countries as echoed by a female Nigerian returnee in a focus group discussion:

“When I and other migrants tried to use the lampa lampa – coined from Lampedusa (dinghy)

– through the Mediterranean Sea to cross to Europe, we were caught by security agents and spent eight months in a detention camp where two inmates shared a tiny local bread daily as the only meal. After escaping from the detention, K-9 dogs were unleashed on us. After escaping through bush and desert hiding from motorists who on sighting us may call the vigilante or police, we met a Nigerian burger (trafficker or pimp) who took us to Sabratha to work as prostitutes. Some pimps sell the girls to other pimps or force them to pay 2000 Dinar ransom. Any female migrant who cannot pay is forced into prostitution while the males pay through slave labor. Very few females are allowed to work as maids to pay the money. This leaves us with the only option of returning home and some of us are doing so”.

At the brothel, those forced into prostitution are sometime arrested during raids by vigilantes who search, including, their private part for money. The interviewee narrated that when she attempted to escape through the fence, her leg was broken and bled for four days before she was taken to from Sabratha to Misrata for medical care. A rod was inserted into her leg, and after some level of recovery, she visited the Nigerian embassy in Tripoli to obtain her Emergency Travel Certificate. Other migrants can also express their intentions to return to Libyan authorities, who then contact IOM to assist in the process. Nigerian migrants returned from Benghazi reported that the prison conditions are extremely harsh, with guards demanding dollars from inmates who call home to arrange for money from family and friends. Overall, the situation is such that migrants are often kidnapped and imprisoned, leading to frustration and exhaustion, which ultimately pressures them into agreeing to return home, even if they did not initially wish to do so.

Migrants who chose to return in this manner report to their countries’ embassies or IOM office in Tripoli or Benghazi about their intention or sooner otherwise when they risk further incarceration if apprehended by the Libyan security agents. Interview with returnees revealed that migrants who are apprehended in such manner on the street are checked for possession of relevant or legal documents. Those without proper documents are sent to DCIM facilities pending procedure for deportation. The migrants face many challenges in the detention centres which are overcrowded with unsanitary conditions, limited access to basic necessities, healthcare, and legal assistance. There is also indiscriminate physical abuse, sexual violence and human rights violations. Besides, the deportation process lacks transparency and adequate legal safeguards, with migrants having limited opportunities to challenge their detention or deportation.

Interview with returnees further revealed that while migrants are in the detention centres, the Libyan authorities notify the origin countries’ embassies in Tripoli about impending deportation of their nationals. The embassies collaborate with them to verify the authentic nationalities of the detained migrants through interviews, forensic analysis of any documents found with the migrants and other collaborative activities between the Libyan government and the governments in question. This is in line with the expected migration outcomes for the EU-Africa Joint Strategy which is to improve cooperation in the fight against illegal and irregular migration including reaching the issues of return and readmission of illegal migrants to their country of origin (African Union, 2007). Though the migrants are aware of their impending deportation, they are officially

informed of it and of their rights to get their consent. In practice, whether consent is obtained or not, most of the migrants are destined for deportation. Several challenges abound during the verification of nationality and the process of getting consent from migrants who are destined for deportation. Some of them are separated from their family members. The children and spouses are separated from their loved ones leading to psychological and emotional impacts on the migrants, especially on vulnerable groups like women and children.

After the verification and the migrants are found to be for example Nigerians, the Nigerian embassy issues an Instrument of Safe Passage otherwise Travel Certificate to facilitate the return of the migrants to Nigeria. Their flights are booked mostly by IOM which in conjunction with both the Libyan authorities and the Nigerian embassy coordinates the logistics of their return. The migrants are even given false hope about elaborate reintegration programme awaiting them at home. Those of them who have been authentically verified as Nigerians are conveyed by bus or car from the detention centres by officials of DCIM to Tripoli Mitiga Airport or Benina Airport in Benghazi for deportation to Nigeria. Interview with returnees revealed that the migrants are guided by Libyan or Nigerian officials and sometimes by both and officials of IOM in the process and during the departure in the aircraft.

During the flights migrants are exposed to challenges including overcrowding, insufficient or lack of food and water, physical abuse and attacks. The aircraft makes transit in Niamey in Niger and sometimes flow directly to Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja or to Murtala Mohammed International Airport in Lagos. Some aircraft also disembarked the migrants at Aminu Kano International Airport in Kano as revealed by the returnees.

On some occasions, migrants are literally pushed back by Libyan security agents into Chad, Sudan and Niger. Returnees further revealed that even before some migrants get to Libya, they are intercepted and pushed back in Niger through a network of migration observatories. This is the risk analysis cells that was established in 2018 through the collaboration between Niger and FRONTEX that collect, analyse and disseminate data on migration flows (on an EU digital platform) (Zhong & Carrapico, 2024). This is an expected outcome of the Africa-EU Joint Strategy on migration. The onward return to the origin countries of sub-Saharan African migrants who are pushed back from Libya into Niger is facilitated by IOM (Uzomah, 2024). Here the camps are in squalid condition and the migrants do not have access to information about their rights. Currently, many of them are deported from Algeria rather than from Libya due to xenophobia and resultant increase in push backs and deportation from Tunisia into Algeria and then to Niger. They are stranded in the Sahara Desert in the Northern region of Niger where they wait to be processed in IOM camps through AVRR to be returned to Nigeria. The sufferings of stranded migrants are captured in an interview with a female returnee:

“When we were dropped at the Algerian border with Niger, we trekked to IOM camp in Assamaka and saw many people outside the camp trying to register to go home. Some have stayed for two months and others more waiting for an opportunity. I could not wait that long, so I joined group of migrants from Guinea Conakry, Burkina Faso, Chad and Gambia who were returning by themselves. We passed through the same desert that I crossed two years ago while travelling to Libya. Life in the Sahara Desert was a dangerous one. The wind is too harsh, and people are dehydrating or drinking their own urine. At one point, Desert marauders attacked us and took our belongings including money, clothes, telephone and shoes. We were even lucky that the marauders gave us old clothes and took our own clothes. I saw people die from dehydration; I was only lucky. What baffles me is that people are also moving in the opposite direction to where we were returning from. I will never advise my enemy to embark on this journey”.

This shines a light on return migration governance through the eyes of returnees, as no one would advise another to embark on such a journey after experiencing the hardships caused by the EU’s migration externalisation policies in African countries. As the returnee recounted, after being dropped at the Algerian border with Niger, they trekked to the IOM camp in Assamaka, where many people were waiting to register for their return to their origin countries. Some had been there for two months or longer. The EU has invested substantial funds in this effort and continues to do so. Libyan, Moroccan, Tunisian, and, more recently, Egyptian governments have been financially and technically empowered to enforce strict border management and migration control in their territories, often leading to the coercion of migrants to return to their countries of origin.

The migrant’s journey through the Sahara Desert highlighted the dangers faced along the way, from dehydration to attacks by marauders who stole their belongings. The stark reality is that while many are trying to return home, others continue to move in the opposite direction, seeking the perilous route to Europe. As the migrant stated, “I will never advise my enemy to embark on this journey.”

Key Takeaways for Migrants Return from Libya

Key takeaways regarding the return of sub-Saharan migrants from Libya illustrate the severe challenges they face within a complex migration system. Many migrants attempting to cross the Mediterranean are intercepted and sent to detention facilities run by the Directorate for Combating Illegal Migration (DCIM) or controlled by traffickers and militias. Although the EU financially supports operations aimed at managing irregular migration, migrants often endure harsh conditions in overcrowded detention centers, where they face physical abuse, inadequate healthcare, and a lack of legal protection. The deportation process lacks transparency, and migrants frequently find themselves coerced into returning to their home countries without proper consent. Upon verification of their nationality, embassies issue travel documents to facilitate their return, usually coordinated by the IOM. However, during the return flights, migrants often confront overcrowding and insufficient provisions. Some migrants are also pushed back to other countries like Chad and Niger, where they may face further hardships in squalid conditions. The overall environment is marked by inadequate support systems, leading to significant psychological and emotional distress, particularly for vulnerable populations such as women and children.

RRR Efforts in Nigeria for North African-Based Returnees

According to our interview with a member of civil society organisation (CSO) which was confirmed by many stakeholders, the history of return of irregular Nigerian migrants started as early as 1996. In 1996, Sister Patricia Onwegbulem served as the president of women religious in Nigeria. During her tenure, she was informed by international leaders from various congregations that Nigerian girls were being exploited on the streets of Italy. Disturbed by this news, she travelled to Italy, where she witnessed the dire conditions faced by these girls. The experience was so overwhelming that she broke down in tears. However, when she attempted to engage with the girls, they were resistant and unwilling to listen to her.

Upon returning to Nigeria, Sister Patricia began advocating for the issue among Catholic bishops and various political bodies, as well as non-governmental organisations. By 1999, the Conference of Women Religious established a committee dedicated to supporting the dignity of women, which became a non-governmental organisation (NGO) under their umbrella and continues to operate today. Recognizing that a significant number of Nigerian girls abroad were from Benin, Edo State,

they initiated plans to build a shelter in that State. This is captured succinctly in quote by the interviewee:

“And when she [Sister Patricia] travel to Italy, she saw the terrible situation of Nigerian girls as far back as 1996-1997 she said she broke down, and she wept she went to talk to them the girls didn’t want to listen they wouldn’t want to associate with her. She came back to Nigeria and started talking to Catholic Bishops in Nigeria, she started talking to other political bodies, and some NGOs so in 1999, conference of women religious now have a committee in support for the dignity of women, and that is an NGO under the umbrella of women religious which is still operating till date and we have to build a shelter in Benin because then most of the Nigerian girls outside were from Benin at least I would say 80% if not 90 were from Benin”.

During this time, Sister Patricia also met Mrs. Atiku, the wife of the former Vice President. Together, they founded the Network Against Child Trafficking (NACTAL) around the year 2000, with Mrs. Atiku serving as chairperson of the board of trustees and Sister Patricia as the vice- chair. This collaboration marked the beginning of their fight against human trafficking in Nigeria. The parallel continues into that NGO work then getting instrumentalized by migration governance authorities.

As the country transformed into democratic dispensation in 1999, successive governments have emphasised return migration as an important strategy to mainstream its diaspora into national development. The awareness efforts and advocacy in 1997-1998 led to the establishment of the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) in 2003, further solidifying their commitment to tackling this critical issue. Diverse policy efforts have also been initiated to ensure actualization of successful return and reintegration (Nwozor, et. al. 2022). For instance, the 2015 National Migration Policy which is now under review aims to promote a multidimensional approach to return migration with return and reintegration being one of the five thematic groups of the national migration governance framework of the country (Teye, 2022).

Based on the policy framework, once migrants return (forcibly or voluntarily) to Nigeria, there are national and state governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and CSOs actively on the ground to assist them. For example, IOM operates a Migrants Resource Centre in Lagos which provides shelter for returnees for a period of 90 days, as well as skill acquisition trainings and psycho-social counselling for them as part of Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) program. AVRR supports a variety of migrants who wish to return home, including those who travelled for economic reasons, unaccompanied children and victims of trafficking. IOM interviews them and assists with travel logistics and flights and once in Nigeria, the most vulnerable are offered additional support through in-kind reintegration assistance to start businesses, study, pay medical fees, etc. Since 2017 to 2024, IOM has facilitated the safe return of over 14,216 migrants to Nigeria under the EU-IOM Joint Initiative for Migrant Protection and Reintegration (IOM, 2024c).

Similarly, CSOs are critical partners in addressing and managing return migration in Nigeria. In Edo state, several NGOs work as a network of CSOs to provide psycho-social support for victims of trafficking, legal support and counselling, advocacy, report of cases to the authorities and sensitization (Bisong, 2022).

During the early stage of their return at the airport, Nigerian government agencies await the migrants to welcome them as part of the return and reintegration process. The Nigeria Immigration Services takes care of their documentation, Ministry of Health screens them for

health-related issues, National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) provides logistic such as water and food.

The National Commission for Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons (NCFRMI) is the government agency that coordinates all these activities that eventually should culminate to supporting the reintegration of the returnees (NCFRMI, n. da; n. db). The reintegration support may include access to housing, healthcare, education, vocational training, and livelihood assistance programmes. IOM is on the ground to facilitate all the activities in terms of technical and financial support. Despite the support, returnees face difficulties reintegrating into their communities, including social stigma, loss of livelihood, and lack of access to essential services and support. The systems and procedures in place in Nigeria are inefficient. The expectations of returnees regarding vocational skills and education are typically unmet, and their hopes for empowerment are dashed after spending several months in shelters due to a lack of resources for their reintegration process. International partners and NGOs implementing the AVRR programs often lack sufficient resources and capacity to aid in the economic reintegration of returnees. This can lead to further economic and social marginalisation, contributing to the cycle of irregular migration. A stakeholder in an interview explains the influence of fear of stigma on the return of migrants.

“But for those who are over there and are stranded it is a very terrible situation. If you meet some of them, they would love to come back but what is keeping them is shame. They feel ashamed that they are coming back with nothing. When people hear that they have gone to Europe, gone to these other places [abroad], [and] they have nothing to show for it. So, for just that shame, they would not like to travel to Nigeria. So, if there is anything that can encourage Nigerians who are stranded outside the country to come back and to assure them, they can settle I will actually go for it”.

Unfortunately, returnees often face stigma from their communities. One returnee shared how his neighbours perceive him as a failure due to his unsuccessful migration attempt. Some female returnees mentioned being seen as having gone abroad for prostitution, which negatively impacts their access to the labour market and their chances of finding a spouse, as these issues heavily rely on social networks.

Communication Channel of the Actors

The timely and effective communication among government agencies, otherwise ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs), greatly enhance their capacity to respond to the dynamics of the RRR processes in Nigeria. The (return) governance framework seeks to strengthen lines of communication and deepens cooperation among MDAs in ensuring safe and dignified return, readmission, and effective reintegration processes for the returnee migrants in the country.

According to information from a stakeholder meeting in September 2023, officers who interface with the returnees are expected to have skills and attributes like knowledge of the law and processes involved in service provision including initial screening and profiling of returnees. They are expected to be conversant with the obligation to care and protect the rights of returnees including victims of trafficking and other persons of concern and have the ability to work as a team, learn and grow, show empathy and compassion. They should also be transparent, fair and firm without being judgemental, unbiased and possess good communication and listening skills, integrity and professionalism and special measures to ensure confidentiality where victims of trafficking are involved.

In governing return in Nigeria, the MDAs and other stakeholders engage in a sequence of communication and channels in the administration of RRR for the returnee migrants. During the predeparture stage while the potential returnees are still in the host country, the MFA collaborates with NCFRMI and NIS upon receipt of information for a possible evacuation and return. Sequel to the arrival of returnees, the NCFRMI coordinates information with relevant MDAs on intended services to be provided for the returnees including at the airport and thereafter. During profiling and screening at the airport where it is suspected that a returnee is a victim of trafficking (VOT), they are referred to NAPTIP. Referrals are also made for health services and accommodation are provided by relevant partners. Referrals for case management including provision of psychosocial support and mental health counselling are made for returnee migrants who are in need of it. The FMoWA and other relevant MDAs collaborate in family tracing and reunification of returnees with their families and their reintegration into the society. However, transparency issues exist. Some returnees complain of inadequacy funding while returnee leaders call for accountability as echoed in the interview below:

“What’s on my mind? I’ll say that, okay, so that’s why I said I’m not going to be very, very all in in answering some of the questions. So, if you’re asking me what’s on my mind, it would be first to say that I appreciate the international organisations that have stepped in for Nigerians so far. And the work they’ve done would have inspired more action from the end of government, which hasn’t, by the way. Somehow you expect that a lot would change over time, but you find out that it keeps getting worse. I think another thing that I’m still trying to wrap my head around is the fact that there is limited effort on training people who are involved in migrant rescue, return, readmission and reintegration. This angle is something that I think the international organisations have tried to do over time. And it’s time for the government to sit up and start doing something about it. So, I would say a lot of effort has been made by international organisations and civil society organisations. But then the Nigerian government is not helping. They are not making it easy for the CSO network and the international organisation. I think that somehow in the readmission and reintegration system, there is no accountability for some of the people who are in the system. I love the work they are doing, but then there should be more accountability. That’s a thing that we need to start talking about and that’s a conversation that needs to start going on. But it’s not going on yet and I wonder why. So that’s what was on my mind. It’s the fact that by this time, I came back…, it’s been how many years? You expect the system to get better, you expect the reaction to be way better than it is with the government, but then it’s not. So yeah, that’s what’s on my mind. How could we make it better? How could return and reintegration become what it’s supposed to be? Humane in a way that the migrants [returnees] themselves would appreciate the life they have, the experiences they have and all of that. But like I said, it starts with accountability. So, making it better is what’s on my mind and I know that I will keep on working for it to happen”.

Returnee Programmes and Engagements with International Partners

Nigeria is cooperating and has signed different MOUs on migration‐related matters with several countries in Europe (see Bisong, 2021). This includes MOUs which covered cooperation in areas such as capacity‐building in immigration administration, migration and development, and promotion and protection of human rights. Other areas include the fight against smuggling of migrants, trafficking in human beings, prevention of irregular migration, return, readmission and reintegration assistance (IOM, 2021b).

The Nigerian government in collaboration with IOM and other partners administers RRR in Nigeria. The IOM started working with the Nigerian government on migration-related matters in the country in 2001. In 2002, it commenced with the implementation of the reintegration

programme and conducted its earliest operations returning stranded Nigerian migrants from Rome, Italy (Olugbode, 2022). With the support of IOM, Nigeria’s MFA has enhanced the capacity of its officials and developed a template to enable them to profile and identify Nigerians abroad before facilitating their return (FGN, 2022). Recently, the agency ensured that additional in-kind grants are provided to returnees under various existing EU Member States’ AVRR programmes in Nigeria (GIZ, 2023; ICMPD, 2022; IOM, 2023c; Kingdom of the Netherlands, n. d; NNN, 2022). The purpose of these initiatives is to help institute appropriate mechanisms and strategies to ensure that prompt information and support are given to the returnees, alongside potential irregular migrants. Interview with a stakeholder mentioned the involvement of EU member States in the return and reintegration in Nigeria:

“…just very few [of the migrants in Italy] at that early beginning came back with her [Sister Patricia]. They got support from those international bodies to help rehabilitate and reintegrate the returnees. [That’s how] …it started. So, along the line, …international organisation for migration (IOM) came on board and when they come back, they also source for fund to return them. Those [Returnees] from Germany, Switzerland and some European countries … also had good package[s] from their governments…”

Unfortunately, the interview reveals the focus of these initiatives to be on EU-based returnees leaving returnees from North Africa with less attention. Though EU-IOM joint initiative claim to have given business training to 7,511 returnees in parts of Nigeria (IOM, 2023c), many migrants who returned from North Africa still have trauma, wallow in abject poverty, confused and hopeless about the future which are recipes for remigration.

Conclusion

Due to a neglect of best practices, assisted returns from North African countries are often conducted haphazardly, without understanding the needs of potential returnees. Upon arriving in Nigeria, returnee migrants often realise that what they were promised does not match the reality on the ground, leading to significant conflict with themselves and the society. As a result, some may even wish to return to the places from which they were sent back once they are exposed to the realities in Nigeria. Potential returnees are tricked with false hope or mistakenly given excessive hope in their host countries without a clear understanding of the available resources upon their return. The systems in Nigeria are inefficient, leaving returnees’ expectations for vocational skills and education unmet, while international partners and NGOs lack the resources to support their economic reintegration after months in shelters

Additionally, Nigeria is a large country with diverse sociocultural and economic conditions, yet the returning countries do not fully understand these dynamics. The country is divided into six geopolitical zones, each with its own cultural and economic characteristics, that makes a uniform and centralised reintegration programme ineffective. This lack of understanding results in poorly executed regional returns within Africa, complicating the reinsertion process and hindering sustainable reintegration, which may foster tendencies for remigration.

In conclusion, this piece focused on the return, readmission, and reintegration of migrants from North Africa to sub-Saharan African countries, particularly Nigeria. It has demonstrated that despite significant efforts by governments in North Africa, gaps still exist in their return strategies. Migrants face heightened risks of attack and other forms of abuse that compel them to enroll in voluntary return programs during the return process. Similarly, return migration governance in Nigeria is fraught with various reintegration dilemmas, as returnees confront adjustment crises upon their return. These challenges highlight the complex humanitarian and human rights issues associated with the return of migrants from North Africa to Nigeria, emphasising the need for a

more comprehensive and rights-based approach to address these concerns. It is hoped that parliamentary groups in the European Parliament will investigate how EU policies contribute to human rights violations in migration management in North Africa and hold governments accountable for their involvement in these violations. Furthermore, the ongoing review of Nigeria’s National Policy on Migration, supported by the EU, should address the critical issues surrounding return, readmission, and reintegration in Nigeria.

References

African Union (2007). Joint Africa-EU declaration on migration and development Tripoli, 22-23 November                                  2006.                 https://au.int/sites/default/files/pages/32899-file- 4._the_joint_africa_eu_declaration_on-migration_and_development_2006.pdf

African Union (2021). Study on return, readmission and reintegration programmes in Africa. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cfe2c8927234e0001688343/t/60d3449b32b36 00dbb5c94c3/1624458405076/RRR+Study_EN_FINAL.pdf

Al-Dayel, N., Anfinson, A., & Anfinson, G. (2021). Captivity, migration, and power in Libya. Journal of                                       Human     Trafficking, 9(3),                                          280–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322705.2021.1908032

Bajec, A. (2023, March 23). Fortress Europe’s role in Tunisia’s anti-Black violence. OpenDemocracy.                                           https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/5050/tunisia-kais-saied- blackmigrants-sub-saharan-africa-race-row/

Bisong, A. (2021). EU external migration management policies in West Africa: How migration policies and practices in Nigeria are changing. Aisle. https://www.asileproject.eu/eu- external-migration-management-policies-in-west-africa/

Bisong, A. (2022). Return, Precarity and Vulnerability in West Africa: Evidence from Nigeria; in Joseph Kofi Teye (ed), Migration in West Africa. IMISCOE Regional Reader, IMISCOE Research Series. Pp 211-23

Council of the European Union (2007). The Africa-EU strategic partnership: A Joint Africa-EU Strategy. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/er/97496.pdf

EC (2021, June). The European Commission’s legislative proposals in the New Pact on Migration and                                                                                                                                   Asylum.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/697130/IPOL_STU(202 1)697130_EN.pdf

ERRIN (n. d.). PROSPECT – Strengthening the Provision of Support for Reintegration of Vulnerable Persons,   including   Victims    of    Trafficking,    Returning   to    Nigeria. https://returnnetwork.eu/post_type_project/prospect-strengthening-the-provision- ofsupport-for-reintegration-of-vulnerable-persons-including-victims-of- traffickingreturning-to-nigeria/

EU (2020). Seventh Nigeria-EU ministerial dialogue 18 November 2020 joint communique. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/18.11.2020.joint_communique_agreed_ and_endorsed_text.pdf

EU    (2021).    The    European   Union    and   African    Union    –    Migration    and   Mobility. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/african-union/european-union-and-african-union- migration-and-mobility_en?s=43

FGN (2022). National Voluntary Review Towards the International Migration Review Forum 2022.   Available   at  https://migrationnetwork.un.org/system/files/docs/Nigeria%20-

%20Voluntary%20GCM%20Review%20Towards%20the%20IMRF%202022.pdf.

GIZ. (2023). SEDIN – Pro-Poor Growth and Promotion of Employment in Nigeria: Migration and Reintegration Initiatives. Available at https://sedin-nigeria.net/migration-and- reintegration-initiatives/. Accessed 5 August 2023.

Global Migration Group (GMG) (2011). “Migration for development: A bottom-up approach.” A Handbook  for  practitioners  and policymakers.  (Accessed online: www.globalmigrationgroup.org/en/migration-and-development. August 20, 2013). 2011. Grunewald, A., Wipfler, J. & Rasche, L. (eds.) (2023, September). Tunisia – Europe Gatekeeper: Migration in Tunisia. Brot für die Welt and Misereor. Berlin. https://www.brot-fuer-die-

welt.de/fileadmin/mediapool/downloads/fachpublikationen/sonstige/Migration_Partn ership_Tunisia_study.pdf

Gurka., C. (2011). “Turkey pulls, the Netherlands pushes.” Turkish Review. (Accessed online:

www.turkishreview.org/tr/newsDetailgetNewsbyId.action?newsId=223107. August   3, 2013). 2011.Holleis, J. (2024, May 25). Tunisia: Thousands of migrants ‘dumped’ in the desert. Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/tunisia-thousands-of-migrants-being-dumped-in-the- desert/a-69173646

HRW (2023, July 6). Tunisia: Crisis as Black Africans Expelled to Libya Border. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/07/06/tunisia-crisis-black-africans-expelled-libya- border

ICIR (2018, May 19). Embarrassing: Nigerians as rejects of the world. EMBARRASSING: Nigerians as rejects of the world | The ICIR- Latest News, Politics, Governance, Elections, Investigation, Factcheck, Covid-19 (icirnigeria.org)

ICMPD. (2022). Training centre and business park opened in Enugu (Nigeria). ICMPD, November 25. Available at https://www.icmpd.org/news/training-centre-and-business- park-opened-in-enugu-nigeria. Accessed 2 June 2023.

IOM (2018). Factsheet: Practice #7 – Pre-Departure Reintegration Assistance in Morocco: Orientation, Counselling, Training

IOM         (2019a).         FORAS         II:         Enhancing         reintegration         opportunities. https://morocco.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl936/files/documents/fiche-forasii-version- anglaise_1-1.pdf

IOM (2019b). Nigeria Immigration Service: NIS National Border Management Strategy: 2019 –

2023.

file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/NIS%20National%20Border%20Management%20S trategy%20Document-Final%20(1)_1661868357.pdf

IOM (2021a). Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration in Morocco

IOM (2021b). Migration Governance Indicators Profile 2021 – Federal Republic of Nigeria. IOM, Geneva.

IOM (2022). Return and reintegration key highlights 2022. IOM. Geneva.

IOM (2023a).  Request  for   quotation  (RFQ). https://nigeria.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl1856/files/inline- files/RFQ%20for%20Creative%20Agency%20MMDP_%20Italian%20Project%20in%20 Edo%20State_4200425003%20.pdf. Accessed 11 September 2023.

IOM (2023b, December 22). IOM Facilitates Safe Voluntary Return of 141 Gambians Migrants Stranded in Tunisia. https://www.iom.int/news/iom-facilitates-safe-voluntary-return- 141-gambians-migrants-stranded-tunisia

IOM       (2023c). A  brief on IOM  Nigeria’s  projects.  Available at https://www.iom.int/countries/nigeria#ng8.

IOM (2024a, January 19). IOM Assists 392 Migrants to Return Home from Tunisia and Rebuild Their Lives. https://mena.iom.int/news/iom-assists-392-migrants-return-home-tunisia- and-rebuild-their lives#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20IOM%20assisted%202%2C557,with%20voluntary%20return%20and%20reintegration.

IOM (2024b, January 05). IOM Helps 168 Stranded Burkinabè Migrants in Tunisia Return Home Voluntarily. https://mena.iom.int/news/iom-helps-168-stranded-burkinabe-migrants- tunisia-return-home-voluntarily

IOM (2024c). Nigeria: Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration. https://nigeria.iom.int/assisted-voluntary-return-and-reintegration

Kingdom of the Netherlands (n.d.). Migration cooperation programmes in Nigeria and the Netherlands: Cooperation on migration partnerships to achieve sustainable solutions (COMPASS).                                                     https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/web/nigeria/about- us/projects/migration-cooperation-programmes

Libya Update (2024, February 4). IOM conducts voluntary repatriation of 327 migrants from Libya to Nigeria. https://libyaupdate.com/tag/nigeria/

MacGregor, M. (2024, June 28). More migrants in Tunisia choosing to go home, UN migration agency. Info Migrants. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/58097/more-migrants- in-tunisia-choosing-to-go-home-un-migration- agency#:~:text=The%20news%20comes%20amid%20continued,and%20report%20feeli ngs%20of%20shame.

Memo (2021, July 28). IOM: Algeria deports more than 1,200 migrants to Niger. Ardi Associates. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210728-iom-algeria-deports-more-than-1200-migrants- to-niger/

NCFRMI (n. da.). The Commission. https://www.ncfrmi.com/faces//aboutus.xhtml

NCFRMI  (n.db.). Return, Readmission  and  Reintegration. https://www.ncfrmi.com/faces//goal-returnees.xhtml

NNN. (2022). 261 Returnee Nigerian migrants benefit from IOM COMPASS project in Edo, Delta. Naija News Today, June 17. Available at https://nnn.ng/returnee-nigerian-migrants/. Accessed 22 May 2023.

Nwozor, A., Oshewolo, S., Olanrewaju, J. S., Bosede Ake, M., & Okidu, O. (2022). Return migration and the challenges of diasporic reintegration in Nigeria. Third World Quarterly, 43(2), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2022.2026216

O’Carroll, L. (2023, July 17). Tunisia says it will not be ‘reception centre’ for returning migrants. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/17/tunisia-not-reception- centre-returns-sub-saharan-migrants-eu

OECD (2024). Return, Reintegration and Re-migration: Understanding Return Dynamics and the Role of Family and Community.

Olakpe, O (2020). The Evolution of EU-Africa Migration Partnerships: Lessons in Transnational Migration Governance  Working Paper  No. 2020/13. https://www.torontomu.ca/content/dam/centre-for-immigration-and- settlement/tmcis/publications/workingpapers/2020_13_Olakpe_Oreva_The_Evolutio n_of_EU_Africa_Migration_Partnerships_Lessons_in_Transnational_Migration_Gov ernance.pdf

Olugbode, M. (2022). IOM: Over 22,500 migrants assisted back to Nigeria. This Day. Available at https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/11/03/iom-over-22500-migrants- assisted-back-to-nigeria/. Accessed 22 May 2023.

Reuters (2024, May 6). At Least 107 migrants freed from captivity in southeast Libya, spokesman says. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/least-107-migrants-freed-captivity- southeast-libya-spokesman-says-2024-05-06/.

Sahin-Mencutek, Z., Triandafyllidou, A., Barthoma, S., Nimer, M., Rottmann, S., Ozturk, N., Istaiteyeh, R. (2023). Framework paper on the concepts and typologies on returns – combined       with                                      four                      conceptual          notes. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/D1.1_GAPS%20101094341_Conceptual%20framew ork%20and%20concept%20notes_Oct%202023.pdf

Simoncelli, M., Valenza, M., Lemmi, D. & Sall. O. (2023, September 27). Morocco: A magnet for

migrant women? Deutsche Welle. https://www.dw.com/en/morocco-a-magnet-for- migrant-women/a-66939589

Sylla, A. & Cold-Ravnkilde, S. M. (2022). En Route to Europe? The Anti-politics of deportation from North  Africa   to Mali. Geopolitics, 27(5), 1390–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2021.1995358.

Teye, J. K. (Edited) (2022). Migration in West Africa IMISCOE Regional Reader. Springer

The Libya Observer (2024). Anti-Illegal Immigration Agency. https://libyaobserver.ly/tag/anti- illegal-immigration-agency#google_vignette

TRT     Africa      (2024).     Tunisia:     3,500     migrants     accept     voluntary     repatriation. https://trtafrika.com/africa/tunisia-3500-migrants-accept-voluntary-repatriation- 18177651

Weldemariam, L. F., Ayanlade, A., Borderon, M., & Möslinger, K. (2023). Dynamics and factors influencing return migration to Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Heliyon.

Uzomah, N. L. (2024). European Union border technology in Africa: Experiences en route.

Population, Space and Place, 30(8), e2824. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2824

Zhong, Y., & Carrapico, H. (2024). Frontex goes global: A two‐level experimentalist governance analysis of Frontex’s international action and its role within the externalisation of EU borders. Contemporary European Politics, 2(1), 1–17.

SoS Humanity International’s rescue ship, Humanity 1 has rescued 195 people.

The survivors, according to SoS Humanity International have disembarked at Trapani, the new place of safety assigned by the Italian authorities.

Announcing the rescue, SoS Humanity International said: “Our crew rescued 195 people from distress at sea in four rescues. The Humanity 1 is heading for the distant port of Marina di Carrara, but stormy conditions with winds of up to 67 km/h and 3-metre-high waves are threatening on the route from Saturday.

“The four-day crossing in such intolerable conditions would be an enormous and unnecessary burden for the survivors.  Our requests for a closer port have so far been rejected by the Italian authorities.”

SoS Humanity International once again urged the Italian authorities to allocate a closer port of safety as required by maritime law.

SoS Humanity International which rescues, protects and provides witness in the Mediterranean added that  all 195 survivors on board the Humanity 1  have disembarked in Trapani today. “It was yesterday evening that the Humanity 1 was assigned Trapani as the new place of safety. Strong winds and high waves made last night challenging for the crew and the survivors.

“We are relieved that they were finally able to disembark and wish them the best for their future.”

Bodies of four migrants suspected to be Egyptians  have been recovered by the police together with fishermen after their boat capsized.

Eight others, according Migrant Rescue Watch  were rescued.

“Police jointly with fishermen rescued 8 #migrants and recovered 4 bodies following a boat capsizing incident in Ras Lanauf. According to preliminary investigation all involved were of Egyptian nationality, a statement by Rescue Migrant Watch said.

“ Rescued upon receiving medical assistance were transferred to Ras Lanauf Police Dept. In a related incident, patrols of GA Central Support apprehended 6 Egyptian #migrants in Ras Lanauf after they return to shore and fled the scene. All bodies were transferred to Bin Jawad Hospital morgue.”

According to survivors testimony the youngest victim was 14 years old boy Mustafa Reda Hassan from Beheira Governorate in Egypt. Police investigation and search for missing continues.”

An update by Migrant Rescue said  “Ras Lanauf Police Dept. in response to fishermen’s report recovered 2 unidentified bodies of #migrants washed ashore. It is believed that the bodies belong to victims of the capsized boat incident. The bodies were transferred to Bin Jawad Hospital.”