Rethinking travel bans: Balancing protection, prejudice, and global ethics

Introduction

One of the outcomes of globalisation is the increase in interconnectedness among different nations. This has made travel the cornerstone for most countries in order to reap the benefits that come with it — think improved relationships that automatically extend to facilitating improved forms of education, technology, and economies. While this is quite interesting to watch, the rise of travel bans by the governments of some countries has grown to become a huge concern. It is a concern because of the complexities involving its practice, especially as it questions some salient travel ethics, whether these bans are truly measures to protect or another ploy designed to emit prejudice. The implementation of travel bans is mostly captured under the need to solve issues of national security, migration issues, and public health emergencies when in reality it imposes economic hardship, increases racism and discrimination, and also leads to international hostility. It’s therefore important that the morality of travel bans be examined, particularly within the context of African and Nigerian realities.

The concern

Travel restrictions were widely implemented as a first line of defence against the Covid-19 pandemic. Following the discovery of the Omicron variant in Southern Africa in late 2021, the United States, the United Kingdom, and a number of EU member states immediately banned travel from South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and other nearby nations. However, the fact that the variant had already been found in some regions of North America and Europe prior to the prohibitions’ implementation presented ethical questions. Despite the fact that South African scientists had been open and prompt in their disclosure of the variant, the world focused on Africa rather than closing borders to those countries. This resulted in numerous African leaders and public health experts labelling the response not as protective but prejudiced.

Economic implications of travel bans

The fallout from these decisions was complex and far-reaching. Economically, countries that relied heavily on tourism—like South Africa—faced immediate financial setbacks. International travel bookings took a nosedive, hotels experienced a wave of cancellations, and local businesses connected to the hospitality industry were hit hard.

Nigeria also felt the impact. Even though it wasn’t on the initial list of banned countries, Nigerians found themselves facing stricter visa checks and entry limitations because of their perceived closeness to outbreak areas. Data from the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) revealed a staggering 60% decline in outbound international travel from 2023 to the third quarter of 2024, dropping from 2.04 million travellers to around 816,000.

Ticket prices, already affected by Nigeria’s economic struggles and the floating of the naira, soared to unbelievable heights. A round-trip ticket from Lagos to London or New York, which used to cost ₦350,000, skyrocketed to over ₦2.7 million. Many Nigerians who travelled for education, healthcare, or business found themselves stranded, not by their own choice, but by a tangled web of geopolitical decisions.

Issues of racial tension and discrimination

The discriminatory nature of travel bans is not limited to public health emergencies; they have long been tied to race-based immigration enforcement. Citizens in many African countries, particularly Nigeria, have been placed on watchlists or outright travel bans not on the basis of individualised threats but because there are sweeping, overly generalised notions about security, governance, or health infrastructure on the continent.

The UAE’s travel ban for Nigerian citizens in 2022 is one of such bans. The official reason cited those cases as being for visa fraud or overstaying by some Nigerians, but the ban generally victimised Nigerian diplomats, students, business owners, and families without regard to individual records. The Nigerian government took offence to the action, which it deemed discriminatory and harmful to bilateral relations. Although negotiations are underway, the ban has dragged on for months, affecting thousands of Nigerians who had hoped to work, invest, and tour in the UAE.

From a legal perspective, travel restrictions regularly push the limits of international law and human rights standards. While countries have legal authority to regulate borders, that authority must be weighed against the countries’ international obligations, especially in regard to the freedom of movement, non-discrimination, and the right to seek asylum.

Related News

The International Health Regulations (2005) issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) expressly discouraged excessive and discriminatory travel restrictions in public health emergencies and admonished states to rely on the best available scientific evidence and take proportional actions where reasonable. However, throughout the pandemic, the WHO guidance was consistently disregarded.

The experience of Nigerian citizens is a grim illustration of discrimination. Travel restrictions affecting Nigerian passport holders contributed to new biases about Nigeria beyond financial ramifications. Students have been jettisoned despite having been awarded scholarships and admission letters, business opportunities were abandoned, and skilled, educated Nigerian professionals missed international meetings or training courses.

Also, non-health emergencies continually added complications and discomfort for Nigerians travelling abroad. Nigerians face more visa requirements, longer waiting periods, and higher visa rejection rates to Europe and the West than their continental counterparts. The African Union’s African Visa Openness Index reported 2023 data that Nigerians were subject to greater restrictions than other Africans to travel abroad and often more stringent even when there was no articulated threat.

The way forward

An ethical approach to travel bans should actually begin with openness and responsibility for all the decisions. Governments shall communicate the eligibility criteria for restriction implementation as well as the duration of such measures and means of redress or appeal.

Bans need to be grounded in evidence: grounded not at all in quantitative threat assessments but in political expediency or racial generalities.

In addition, there is an increase in international cooperation. Risk reporting must never be a reason for punishment so that potential risks of countries that identify them cannot be repressed further—it only creates distrust.

This also calls for bilateral and/or multilateral platforms to prescribe the implementation of policy. Under the surface, nothing replaces a good blanket ban, and they almost always make the problem worse. More precise regional solutions (i.e., international vaccination passes during COVID-19 and African Union mobility frameworks). But civil society and media, too, play a role—they point out bias, amplify the obscured voices, and demand oversight of policies that impact hundreds of millions.

Overall, we should rethink the application of travel bans as a policy instrument from an ethical standpoint which appreciates their protective functions and discriminative capacities. Banned or inadequately implemented, these bans debilitate economies, encroach on rights and reinforce systemic discrimination. Materially and symbolically, the stage worsens in Africa – the global playing field is screaming pervasive narratives of exclusion & inequality emanating from African nations, particularly Nigeria.

Moving towards the world’s post-pandemic recovery, creating a more inclusive, fair and human mobility framework is indispensable for protections without prejudice and security without costly concessions.

Michael Ajassi is an accomplished business executive with nearly a decade of experience in Travel Business Management. He has a proven track record of driving long-term growth and profitability through robust training programs and sound financial strategies.