In a country where many of her citizens are hungry for greener pastures abroad, the business of procuring visas blossoms at a high rate. Many see the same as an opportunity to swindle unsuspecting persons. The fraudulent activities associated with procuring work visas are in various categories including crimes such as human trafficking. Even where the visas are successfully procured, in many occasions, the victims are made to go through different degrees of hardship and betrayals before they eventually find their feet abroad. In worse scenarios like the recently decided case of Richard Ola Bello v. Commissioner of Police [2020] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1718) 451; (2019) LPELR-48057(CA) shows, the victim may only “find his or her feet” back in Nigeria either by way of deportation or in frustrated departure. 

The Story

The facts of the case of Bello v. Commissioner of Police as narrated by Honourable Justice Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud, JCA was that one Emmanuel Demehin and his mother approached Mr Bello (“The Appellant) who is the owner of a travel agency, Rich View Travel Agency, and an alleged agent in Nigeria recruiting people for employment for a company in Dubai to process a work visa for Emmanuel in the USA or Qatar. This request was informed by the fact that Emmanuel had a sister in the U.S. and a friend in Qatar. Mr Bello however informed Emmanuel that it was easier to get a work visa in Dubai than in the other two places. They settled on Dubai and agreed on a total fee of N580,000. This was paid in two installments of N300,000 and N280,000. After the first installment was paid, Emmanuel and his mother went to visit Mr Bello to follow up on the progress of the work visa. It was on that visit that Mr Bello informed them that the Dubai Government had suspended the issuance of work visas. He however suggested to them to get a visitor’s (tourist) visa and then get a work visa when he got to Dubai. He actually told Emmanuel that he had a job waiting for him in Dubai. He also assured them that this latter arrangement would not attract extra charges to the agreed amount of N580,000. Emmanuel eventually travelled to Dubai on 24/02/2014. He alleged that he faced a lot of difficulties in Dubai and could not get the job promised. That Mr Bello’s agent in Dubai was not forthcoming on any of the promises made to him in Nigeria. He indeed expressed his fears to his mother that he thought they had been duped. Emmanuel evenutually had to return to Nigeria as his visa to Dubai had expired. On returning to Nigeria, he wrote a petition against Mr Bello to the Commissioner of Police and Mr Bello was eventually charged with the offence of obtaining by false pretence. The Magistrate Court found him guilty sentenced him accordingly. His appeal to the High Court failed. He further appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Position of the Court of Appeal 

Upon a proper review of the evidence and the testimony of Emmanuel, Mahmoud, JCA was convinced that the case is a classic example of obtaining by false pretence. Her Ladyship stated:

It is obvious to me from the testimony of PW1 [Emmanuel] that all the seven elements of the offence of obtaining by false pretence were present in this case. It is clear that there was pretence to get a work visa for PW1 by the Appellant  [Mr Bello] which was false and which the Appellant also knew was false. There was an obvious intention by the Appellant to defraud PW1. This is apparent from the way the story about the work visa was changing from stage to stage. Also, why was it after the Appellant collected more than 50% of the agreed fees that he realized that the Dubai Government suspended the issuance of work visa? What are all those levels of agents who make more than twenty people sleep in one room at S250 per month? To me the whole set up appears like an orchestrated scheme to defraud people. I shudder at the number of people who fell victims to this fraud and got stranded in Dubai without a hope of getting enough money to come back home. PW1 was luckier than most as he had the support of his mother, PW2, who supported him throughout his ordeal in Dubai and made it possible for him to return home after all the ordeal.

The essential elements of the offence of obtaining by false pretence under Section 419 of the Criminal Code which must be proved are:

1. that there is a pretence;
2. that the pretence emanated from the accused person;
3. that it was false;
4. that the accused person knew of its falsity or did not believe in its truth;
5. that there was an intention to defraud;
6. that the thing is capable of being stolen and
7. that the accused person induced the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property.

As seen above, the Court of Appeal held that all the elements were present and sufficient to nail Mr Bello. As a result, his appeal was dismissed.

The tendency by a few Nigerians to defraud others remains a huge problem which is not only affecting many Nigerians at home but also abroad. This is sad and must be strictly condemned.