More than 200 Nigerians are reportedly being held at a deportation facility in New Delhi, India, amid calls for urgent intervention by the Nigerian government to secure their release and facilitate their return home.
The situation came to public attention after Arise TV co-host, Rufai Oseni, raised concerns over the detention of a Nigerian identified as Ekene, who he said had been held at the Lampur detention centre, Sewa Sadan.
Oseni said he had previously contacted the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission (NiDCOM) after its Chairman, Abike Dabiri-Erewa, directed him to provide Ekene’s details through official channels.
According to the journalist, however, the detainee told him that neither NiDCOM nor the Nigerian mission in India had contacted him despite the information being submitted.
Oseni subsequently appealed for intervention, saying Ekene had described the conditions at the detention facility as difficult. He also called for assistance with flight arrangements to enable the detainee to return to Nigeria.
Responding to the criticism, NiDCOM said the Nigerian government had already engaged Indian authorities over undocumented Nigerians through an amnesty programme.
The commission said the amnesty, which commenced on May 1, 2025, initially provided a six-month window for undocumented Nigerian migrants to return home without legal or administrative penalties. It was later extended by three months following negotiations by Nigeria’s High Commission.
NiDCOM said more than 4,000 Nigerians took advantage of the programme and returned to Nigeria, but some others allegedly failed to regularise their status or leave India before the expiration of the grace period.
The commission explained that those who remained undocumented were subsequently arrested and placed in deportation facilities while awaiting removal from the country.
NiDCOM also said deportation arrangements were ultimately under the authority of the Indian government, adding that host countries often organise deportation flights after accumulating a sufficient number of detainees to reduce costs.
The commission disclosed that Nigeria’s High Commission in India was still engaging the Indian authorities in an attempt to secure another extension of the amnesty.
It further assured that its legal team would continue to monitor the cases.
However, Oseni rejected the explanation, arguing that the immediate priority should be securing the release and repatriation of Ekene and other affected Nigerians.
The controversy has since generated debate over the responsibility of Nigerian authorities to protect citizens abroad and the obligations of Nigerians living illegally in foreign countries.
While some Nigerians have criticised NiDCOM over what they described as inadequate response to the detainees’ plight, others have argued that migrants who failed to take advantage of the Indian amnesty should also bear responsibility for their immigration status.
