Schengen Bias?: Report Sparks Outrage Over Africa’s 50% Visa Rejection Rate

Editor's note: In this commentary, Benedict Were, a seasoned communications professional, reflects on a recent CNN investigation that exposed the high rejection rates for Schengen visas among African nationals. Drawing from the report, Were critiques the widening gap between the European Union's diplomatic rhetoric and its restrictive mobility practices.

A recent CNN investigative report, published on May 21, 2025, has shed renewed light on a growing asymmetry in EU-Africa relations, one that is unfolding not in diplomatic chambers but across consular offices from Lagos to Nairobi.

The report published by CNN shows that African nationals face some of the highest Schengen visa rejection rates globally, with countries such as Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal experiencing refusal rates exceeding 50%.

The reality behind EU-Africa visa disparities

This subtle bureaucratic pattern extends beyond a mere technicality, representing a systemic impediment to equitable engagement for the union. It increasingly undermines the European Union's stated commitment to mutual partnership with Africa, particularly evident in the context of visa issuance, where an apparent disparity emerges, revealing a disconnect between rhetoric and practice. So, if we can lose $70M on visa rejections, it communicates a lot about our approach to the market, which is highly beneficial.

At the core of this dilemma lies a profound contradiction in the heart. In policy papers, the EU emphasizes its ambition to be Africa's partner of choice by collaborating on a range of issues, including green transitions, digital innovation, migration governance, and peacebuilding. The implementation faces a discriminatory wall that enforces a mobility regime that restricts access for precisely those African actors — diplomats, scholars, entrepreneurs, and artists — who are essential to advancing such goals. The consequences of this disconnect are profound, and the cost, though often obscured, is mounting.

It is important to note that visa regimes are not neutral instruments; they reflect policy priorities, political will, and institutional attitudes. The persistence of disproportionately high rejection rates for African applicants sends an unmistakable message, one that loudly says that African mobility is less legitimate, less trustworthy, and less welcome. Why would the EU, for example, decline almost 50% of visa applications? I feel that this undermines not only bilateral and multilateral cooperation but also Europe's' soft power, which communicates a strategic asset that has historically relied on openness, cultural diplomacy, and normative leadership.

Moreover, the financial and reputational costs borne by African applicants are non-trivial. In 2023 alone, Schengen states collected tens of millions of euros in non-refundable application fees from African nationals, many of whom received rejections without clear justification or recourse. This dynamic creates a perverse incentive structure, one where African citizens subsidize a system that systematically excludes them. The opacity of the process, coupled with the absence of meaningful appeal mechanisms, reinforces perceptions of arbitrariness and post-colonial power asymmetries. The EU seems to hold all the power here, and to an African applicant, you invest your money with a false hope that, maybe, just maybe, your application would be successful.

The diplomatic and developmental costs of visa restrictions

However, from a diplomatic standpoint, these restrictions erode trust and confidence in the governing body. We continuously interpret high visa refusal rates as symptomatic of a broader reluctance by European institutions to engage on equal terms. They call us partners, but when the partnerships are highly in demand, they coil, leaving us hopeless and broke. While the EU nationals enjoy visa-free travel to most African countries, the reciprocity is conspicuously absent. This imbalance is not lost on African policymakers and publics, many of whom view Europe's regime as emblematic of the broader inequities in North-South relations.

Moreover, the impact on development cooperation is both immediate and long-term. Examining significant events, such as conferences, technical trainings, and joint initiatives where Africans discuss global challenges, reveals that their standard visa application process has been significantly disrupted, hindering African participants from securing visas promptly. When African experts are excluded from global fora on climate change, digital governance, or public health, the quality of dialogue and the legitimacy of outcomes suffer. How, then, do we expect African leaders to contribute effectively in an international forum if they have to wait centuries for a visa to be processed? This exclusion curtails Africa's agency and diminishes the relevance of European-led platforms in an African context.

Calls for reform

I think this is something we can address. I challenge the European Union to move beyond rhetorical affirmations of partnership and confront the structural exclusions embedded within its visa policies. We nonetheless need incremental reforms, such as enhancing consular transparency, simplifying documentation requirements, and expediting applications for officials, researchers, and cultural workers who are often insufficiently supported. What is required is a paradigmatic shift, which recognizes a reconceptualization of mobility as a mutual right and a cornerstone of 21st-century diplomacy.

The world, and most importantly, Kenya, requires mechanisms such as mobility partnerships, bilateral visa facilitation agreements, and regional mobility frameworks to be tailored with African stakeholders at the table. These tools already exist within the EU's migration policy; what is lacking is the political will to deploy them equitably. Institutions like the African Union should also leverage their collective bargaining power to demand fairer treatment for African citizens seeking to engage with Europe in good faith.

Finally, suppose the EU is genuinely committed to establishing a strategic partnership with Africa. In that case, it must outline this in its Joint Vision for 2020 and recognize that mobility is not ancillary to diplomacy, but rather fundamental, as denying Africa's generation of innovators and negotiators undermines the very objectives of shared prosperity and global collaboration.

We can conclusively challenge that Europe cannot credibly champion multilateralism while selectively closing its doors to the Global South. The EU should recognize that the credibility of its foreign policy hinges on its willingness to open those doors, not just to goods and investments, but also to people, ideas, and dialogue. Until then, visa denials will remain a quiet, corrosive force, undermining diplomacy one refusal at a time.

The author is Benedict Were, a communication professional with over eight years of experience in strategic communication, policy analysis, and advocacy.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the editorial position of TUKO.co.ke.

Source: TUKO.co.ke