Understanding the Canadian Visa Refusal of Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff: Legal and Diplomatic Considerations
The recent denial of a Canadian visitor visa to Nigeria's Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Christopher Musa, has sparked significant reactions from the Nigerian government. While such decisions can be frustrating and even damaging to diplomatic relations, it is essential to analyze the situation through the lens of Canada’s immigration laws, privacy considerations, and the broader visa adjudication process. It should be stated from the onset that this article will not be exhaustive but will address some important issues relevant to the refusal of visas by Canadian authorities.
*Privacy Considerations in Visa Refusals*
Canada's legal framework places strict limitations on the disclosure of visa refusal reasons. The Privacy Act governs the handling of personal data by federal institutions, including Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Section 8(1) of the Privacy Act explicitly states that personal information under the control of a government institution shall not be disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, except under specific circumstances.
This means that, without explicit authorization from General Musa, Canadian authorities are legally barred from publicly disclosing the reasons for his visa denial. This privacy safeguard is in place to protect applicants and does not reflect any diplomatic disregard or targeted action against the Nigerian government.
*Avoiding Speculation Without Concrete Information*
In the absence of official reasons for the refusal, it is prudent to refrain from speculation. Visa decisions are influenced by a combination of factors, including the applicant’s personal history, supporting documentation, and overall compliance with Canadian immigration laws. While General Musa holds a high-ranking position, procedural issues or documentation discrepancies could be factors in the decision. Without facts, unfounded conjecture can further complicate diplomatic engagements and misrepresent the true nature of the refusal.
*General Grounds for Visa Refusals*
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) outlines several criteria under which temporary resident visa applications may be refused. Some of the common grounds include:
1. Failure to Meet Immigration Obligations – Applicants must satisfy the visa officer that they meet all requirements of the IRPA and its regulations (Section 11(1) IRPA).
2. Doubts About Temporary Intent – Visa officers must be convinced that an applicant will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay (Section 20(1)(b) IRPA).
3. Inadequate Documentation – A lack of proper or sufficient documentation can result in an automatic refusal.
4. Health Inadmissibility – Under Section 38(1) of the IRPA, an applicant can be denied a visa if they have a medical condition that poses a danger to public health or safety or could result in excessive demand on health or social services.
5. Criminal Inadmissibility – Section 36 of the IRPA states that individuals convicted of certain crimes, even outside Canada, may be denied entry. This includes both serious and minor offenses, depending on the equivalence under Canadian law.
6. Security and Human Rights Violations – Military personnel, government officials, members of certain political parties, members of cult groups, members of terrorist organizations etc. may face additional scrutiny under Section 35(1) of the IRPA, which pertains to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other human rights violations.
While these are broad categories applicable to many visa applicants, it must be emphasized that it is not suggested here that any of these grounds are reasonably linked to General Musa. He is a highly respected military officer with no known history of criminal, security, or medical inadmissibility concerns that would warrant such a refusal.
*Inadmissibility of Military and Police Personnel*
The IRPA contains provisions that can render individuals inadmissible to Canada based on their past roles and activities. Section 35(1)(a) of the IRPA states that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offense referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. This can include individuals who have served in military or police forces involved in such acts and their dependents.
However, inadmissibility assessments are highly individualized.
For instance, a military officer who served as a medical doctor may not be found inadmissible, whereas one who held an operational command position in a unit implicated in human rights violations might be. The specific duties and contexts of an individual's service are critical in these determinations.
*Relevant Case Law on Inadmissibility Under Section 35 of the IRPA*
Section 35 of the IRPA addresses inadmissibility on grounds of violating human or international rights, including involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity. This provision has been applied in various cases, some involving military and police officers:
* Ghirme v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 805: In this case, the Federal Court set aside a decision referring an Eritrean national to an admissibility hearing under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the IRPA. The applicant had been conscripted into the Eritrean military and argued that his involvement was not voluntary. The court emphasized the need to consider factors such as duress and the individual's role within the organization when assessing inadmissibility under Section 35.
* Akinpelu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 400 at paragraph 29: that “Furthermore, the ID did not find Mr. Akinpelu inadmissible simply for being a member of the NPF. The ID rather based its entire analysis on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Akinpelu made a voluntary, knowing, or significant contribution to the abuses committed by the NPF. To this effect, the inadmissibility process is not reflective of findings of guilt or innocence, but is rather informed by the “contribution” analysis
These cases illustrate the complexities involved in applying Section 35 of the IRPA, particularly concerning individuals with military or law enforcement backgrounds. The assessments often require careful consideration of the individual's role, the nature of the organization, and the context of their involvement. For example, in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 SCC 40, the Supreme Court of Canada held that mere membership in a government or organization engaged in such crimes is insufficient for exclusion; there must be a voluntary, knowing, and significant contribution to the crime or criminal purpose. Although a case that primarily relate to exclusion under Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, it is my position that the legal principles are applicable here. The nuanced approach of the Courts ensures that individuals are assessed based on their personal conduct rather than solely their affiliation.
*Conclusion*
The visa refusal of General Musa is unfortunate, but it presents an opportunity for both Canada and Nigeria to engage in constructive dialogue on visa processing and diplomatic respect. As former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson once remarked, “Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.” This situation underscores the importance of refining visa processes to ensure fairness, transparency, and respect for international partnerships. It also calls for continuous training and oversight to prevent unjustified refusals, particularly for high-ranking officials representing sovereign nations.
*Johnson Babalola, a Canada based immigration and refugee lawyer, author, storyteller, leadership consultant and corporate emcee, is a public affairs analyst. He is the Founder of JB Law & Life Compass (JBLLC), a mentorship platform for young Nigerian lawyers, law students and professionals (@jblifecompass). Follow him for discussions on real life issues that affect us all:* https://substack.com/@johnsonbabalola https://medium.com/@jblawyer2021 Website: www.johnsonbabalola://www.facebook.com/jbandthings
IG: @jbdlaw/@jbandthings
Email: [email protected]
*You can obtain a copy of his book, REJECTED on Amazon, FriesenPress, Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Google Play, Apple Books, Nook Store etc.*