ABSTRACT
It is unarguable that Nigerian government agencies have been doing many efforts to curb human trafficking. First of all, a specific normative framework has been constructed and reinforced over the last two decades. Even earlier, Nigeria was one of the first countries to ratify the Palermo Protocol and some of the Nigerian states passed the Child Rights Act to domesticate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2003, the Nigerian Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act was passed - with subsequent amendments. More recently, in 2017, a National Referral Mechanism was introduced and specific guidelines published to ensure its implementation.
Considerable efforts have been made also by various NGOs with their engagement in anti-trafficking activities first and in return, rehabilitation and reintegration in the more recent years, often leveraging on partnerships and funding by international organisations, embassies, the EU and EU Member States. Our interviews have highlighted that more funding is needed and should be prioritised on reintegration programmes, while EU institutions and EU Member States seem to be prioritising returns and the fight against trafficking in a transnational dimension, with less attention on trafficking internal to Nigeria, that is increasingly relevant in quantitative terms.
Our fieldwork in Nigeria aimed to provide an overview of the reintegration and rehabilitation programmes, by collecting the experience of relevant stakeholders, but also by visiting shelters and interviewing returnees. The possibility to meet returnees was severely constrained by the pandemic restrictions. We only managed to meet two young girls and therefore decided to integrate their point of view with references from secondary literature. More work is certainly needed to explore the experiences of returnees in order to continue giving them voice and ensuring their full involvement in the definition of policies and programmes, which, in our view, is the only way forward towards customised services.
Regarding reintegration programmes, our research highlighted a series of critical issues. First, the capacity of shelters is insufficient. NAPTIP has shelters in different states but cannot cover many areas of the federal territory. The capacity of NGOs is even lower. Second, various reports suggest that shelters are poorly managed, provide scarce facilities, are run by staff who is not adequately trained, particularly as far as the specific needs of women and children are concerned. Specific criticism has been advanced regarding the closed shelter policy operated by NAPTIP, as it severely limits the liberty of movement of people, similarly to detention centres, while not necessarily contributing to protect them from external dangers. Third, our interviews pointed to the scarcity of adequate psycho-social and counselling support, although both are crucial for many returnees who are suffer from severe traumas. Medical services are often delegated to hospitals - with the exception of NAPTIP shelters - and only a few shelters provide minimal medical assistance in-house. Family tracking is another service that is missing. Fourth, critical issues have been identified in training programmes and yet they should be the very core of reintegration programmes, in the measure they can offer returnees with resources and skill development opportunities that can help them find a sustainable employment or engage in a business project. To cite a few, returnees are rarely informed of all the available opportunities for training and are rarely asked about their wishes and plans. Listening to returnees would not only .
