The invitations were already in hand. The conferences had dates, venues and programmes. For Jeremiah Adelu, travelling to Spain and France was supposed to be about professional opportunity: meeting people, learning, sharing ideas and taking part in international conversations.
Then came the visa applications.
Adelu applied through the Spanish and French embassies, assembling the documents he believed would demonstrate that he had both the means and the reason to make the trips. He said he submitted a bank statement showing more than ₦15 million, additional proof of funds, conference invitation letters, an approval for leave from his employer, and other supporting documents. But both applications were rejected.
The explanation, according to Adelu’s account published by The Nation, was that the authorities were not convinced he would leave the Schengen Area after his visit. Then came another frustration. Although applicants were generally told that decisions would be made within about 15 working days, Adelu said he waited for more than two months before getting his passport back.
His experience is only one application story. But it helps put a human face on a much larger number.
In 2024, African applicants paid an estimated €60 million, about $68 million, in visa application fees on short-stay European visa applications that were subsequently rejected, according to an analysis by the LAGO Collective, an international research and creative practice. The figure has attracted attention because of its size. But understanding what the €60 million represents is just as important.
It is an estimate of fees paid when applications were submitted and later refused. It is not money Europe charged Africans for rejection. Nor does the figure capture the other expenses that applicants may incur while preparing for a visa application.
For someone like Adelu, the application is not simply a €90 transaction. There may be transportation to a visa centre, insurance, photographs, document certification, translation, photocopying and, in some cases, payments to private consultants. Those expenses are real, but they are not included in the €60 million calculation.
That distinction sits at the heart of the financial story behind Europe’s visa system.
The Price of a Rejected Application
The European Commission recorded more than 11.7 million applications for short-stay visas across the EU and Schengen-associated countries in 2024. More than 9.7 million visas were issued, while the worldwide refusal rate stood at 14.8 per cent. Africa accounted for a significant share of the rejected applications.
LAGO estimated that applicants from 45 African countries paid about €60 million in fees on applications that were ultimately rejected.
Semafor, also reporting the analysis, said the amount represented about 40 per cent of the total funds received globally from rejected applications.
The distribution varied widely from country to country.
Algeria recorded about 529,000 applications and 185,000 refusals, according to data reported by TRT Afrika. Morocco had about 575,000 applications and 116,000 refusals, while Egypt recorded roughly 206,000 applications and 53,000 refusals.
Nigeria had about 111,000 applications and 51,000 rejections. Tunisia recorded around 176,000 applications and 38,000 refusals, while Senegal had approximately 70,000 applications and 33,000 refusals. The figures show why both application volume and refusal rates matter.
A country can generate a large amount of rejected application fees because many of its citizens apply, while another country may have a smaller number of applications but a much higher percentage of refusals.
The European Commission’s data show just how sharply refusal rates differed in 2024. Nigeria’s short-stay visa refusal rate was 45.9 per cent, up from 40.8 per cent in 2023. Senegal recorded 46.8 per cent, compared with 42.1 per cent the previous year. Congo-Brazzaville recorded 43 per cent, up from 35.3 per cent.
The global refusal rate was pegged at 14.8 per cent. These figures establish the difference in outcomes. They do not, by themselves, explain why one nationality records a higher refusal rate than another.
It Is Not a Higher African Visa Fee
One point is often lost in discussions about the cost of Schengen visas: African applicants do not pay a higher official visa fee simply because they are African. The standard short-stay Schengen fee for adults was increased from €80 to €90 in June 2024, while the fee for children aged six to under 12 rose from €40 to €45.
The fee is a standard charge within the Schengen visa system, subject to exemptions and special arrangements. The financial issue is therefore not an Africa-specific official fee. It is what happens when an applicant pays the required fee, incurs other expenses preparing the application, and still receives a refusal.
The European Commission requires applicants to demonstrate the purpose of their trip, sufficient financial means, accommodation and an intention to return before the visa expires. Applicants may also have to provide travel medical insurance and other supporting documents.
Applications normally take 15 days to process, although the period can extend to 45 days where further examination or additional documentation is required. For applicants, therefore, the process involves both money and time before the final decision arrives.
What Happens Beyond The €90?
The official fee is only one part of what an applicant may spend.
In Nigeria, for example, applicants using an external visa application centre may also pay a service fee. TLScontact’s Nigerian application information lists the short-stay adult visa fee at €90, alongside a separate service charge. Both the visa and service fees are non-refundable in cases covered by its terms.
Then there are the costs that never appear on the visa receipt.
An applicant may have to travel long distances to a visa centre. There may be costs for passport photographs, document certification, translations, insurance and transportation.
Some applicants also turn to private visa consultants or travel agents for help with forms, appointments and documentation. But there is no reliable continent-wide figure showing how much African applicants collectively spend on these additional services.
That is why the €60 million should not be described as the total amount Africans lost pursuing European visas. It is specifically the estimated value of the application fees paid on applications that were subsequently rejected. The wider cost is harder to measure.
When The Paperwork Is Not Enough
For Adelu, paperwork was not the issue he expected to face. He said he had the invitations to the conferences, evidence of funds exceeding ₦15 million, proof of additional financial resources and approval from his employer to take leave. Yet the authorities were still not satisfied that he would leave the Schengen Area after his visit. That requirement is central to the European visa process.
The European Commission says applicants must demonstrate their intention to leave the Schengen Area before the expiry of the visa. A refusal can therefore occur even where an applicant has supplied evidence of funds and an invitation if the consular assessment finds the overall requirements have not been met.
The Commission identifies several possible grounds for refusal, including doubts about the purpose or conditions of the intended stay, insufficient financial means, problems with supporting documents or doubts about the applicant’s intention to leave.
Applicants whose visas are refused are informed of the reason and the procedure for appeal. The system is therefore built around an assessment of the entire application rather than one document. And that helps explain why an invitation letter alone does not guarantee a visa.
The Geography Of Rejection
The numbers become more striking when the comparisons of African countries are made. The European Commission recorded refusal rates of 45.9 per cent for Nigeria and 46.8 per cent for Senegal in 2024. Congo-Brazzaville recorded 43 per cent, while Mauritania recorded 32.5 per cent. Cape Verde recorded 13.4 per cent.
Outside Africa, Türkiye recorded 14.5 per cent and Russia 7.5 per cent. LAGO’s analysis also identified Comoros, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Nigeria and Ghana among African countries with refusal rates above 45 per cent.
The data raise questions about why outcomes differ so widely, but the statistics alone cannot answer them.
Refusal rates can reflect many factors within the application process, and the European Commission’s published statistics do not provide a single causal explanation for the differences between nationalities. That is why individual refusal reasons and the quality of supporting evidence remain important when interpreting the figures.
The ‘Reverse Remittances’ Debate
For Marta Foresti, founder of the LAGO Collective, however, the financial numbers reveal another dimension of international mobility.
Reacting to the findings, Foresti described the financial cost of rejected visas as “staggering” and referred to the flow of money from applicants in poorer countries to wealthier countries as “reverse remittances.” The phrase is Foresti’s description of the phenomenon, not an official classification of visa payments.
However, the underlying figures are measurable: about €60 million in estimated fees associated with rejected applications from African countries in 2024. And that figure grew from about €48 million in 2023, according to the LAGO analysis reported by Semafor.
The Business Around Visa Applications
The complexity of the process has also created an extensive market for visa assistance. There is an important difference between official external application centres and private consultants.
External centres operate under arrangements with governments or consulates and perform administrative functions such as receiving applications and collecting biometric information.
Private consultants, travel agents and other intermediaries offer additional services, often helping applicants complete forms, organise documents, schedule appointments or plan their travel.
Their fees are commercial charges, not European visa fees. The difference matters because applicants can sometimes pay several different parties during the same application process. But none of these payments guarantees a visa.
An intermediary can help an applicant organise documents. It cannot make the consular decision. The European Commission itself warns applicants about intermediaries that may falsely claim they can influence the outcome of an application. The final decision remains with the relevant consular authority.
What A Refusal Can Disrupt
The economic implications of visa refusals extend beyond the application fee, but measuring them requires care.
A business traveller may have planned meetings abroad. A researcher may have been invited to an academic conference. An artist may have been selected for an international event. A tourist may have booked travel. A family may have planned a visit. But there is no comprehensive Schengen dataset that puts a monetary value on all such opportunities lost following visa refusals.
The available European data measure applications, visas issued and refusals. They do not calculate lost contracts, missed conferences, forgone tourism spending or the value of professional networks that applicants might have developed.
Adelu’s experience therefore illustrates the human dimension without being used to make a continent-wide calculation. He had international invitations, prepared financial and employment documentation, paid for the application process and waited more than two months for his passport before receiving a refusal.
For him, the issue was not simply the visa fee. It was also the opportunity attached to the journey.
Africa Has Its Own Mobility Problem
The visa debate becomes even more interesting when the direction of travel is reversed. African countries themselves continue to impose visa requirements on citizens of other African states.
The African Union and African Development Bank’s 2024 Africa Visa Openness Report found that 28 per cent of intra-African travel scenarios were visa-free, while 25 per cent allowed visas on arrival. But in 47 per cent of travel scenarios, African travellers still needed to obtain a visa before travelling.
There has nevertheless been progress.
In 2016, only 20 per cent of intra-African travel scenarios were visa-free, while 55 per cent required a visa before travel. By 2024, the visa-free share had risen to 28 per cent and the proportion requiring visas in advance had fallen to 47 per cent.
The report also recorded growing use of e-visas across the continent. But an e-visa still requires a traveller to obtain authorisation before departure. The figures therefore show both progress and continuing restrictions.
Can Easier Movement Support African Trade?
This is where visa policy meets the continent’s economic integration agenda. The African Development Bank and African Union have increasingly linked mobility with the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area.
At a 2026 high-level symposium on visa-free travel and economic transformation, the AfDB and AU said restrictive visa regimes could limit trade in services, investment flows, tourism and labour mobility as the continent works towards deeper economic integration.
Alex Mubiru, Director General for Eastern Africa at the African Development Bank Group, said visa-free travel, interoperable digital systems and integrated markets could help support enterprise, innovation and regional value chains.
AU Commissioner Amma Adomaa Twum-Amoah has similarly linked freer movement with intra-African trade and investment, labour mobility, tourism, education, research, innovation and entrepreneurship.
She has also pointed to the need for stronger systems to manage mobility, including border management, identity systems and information sharing. The argument, therefore, is not simply that removing visas automatically produces economic growth.
Rather, AU and AfDB officials see mobility as one component of the wider infrastructure needed to make continental integration work.
The Challenge Of Opening Borders
For governments, visa liberalisation also comes with practical questions. Opening borders more widely requires countries to consider security, migration management, identity verification, trafficking, irregular migration and reciprocity.
The AU’s free-movement framework is intended to create a continental system covering visa-free entry, residence and the right to establish businesses, among other areas. Yet implementation remains incomplete.
The Free Movement Protocol, adopted by African leaders in 2018, has not entered into force because the required number of ratifications has not been reached. That leaves African countries to pursue mobility reforms at different speeds.
Some have removed visa requirements for African travellers. Others offer visas on arrival or electronic visas. Many still require advance applications. The result is a continent where the ease of movement can change significantly depending on the passports involved.
The Cost Behind the Numbers
The €60 million figure is powerful precisely because it can be measured. It represents estimated visa application fees paid on African short-stay applications that were rejected in 2024. But it is not the full financial cost of seeking a visa.
Applicants may spend additional money on transport, insurance, photographs, document preparation, certification, translation, accommodation and private assistance. The scale of those additional expenses has not been established across Africa. What is clearer is the variation in refusal rates.
Nigeria recorded a 45.9 per cent refusal rate in 2024, Senegal 46.8 per cent and Congo-Brazzaville 43 per cent, compared with a worldwide refusal rate of 14.8 per cent.
The African Union and African Development Bank, meanwhile, found that 47 per cent of intra-African travel scenarios still required travellers to obtain visas before departure in 2024, despite significant progress since 2016.
Behind those figures are people such as Adelu, who can have an invitation, financial evidence, employment documentation and a clearly stated professional purpose, yet still face a refusal after weeks of waiting. There are also the millions of other applicants whose applications are represented only as numbers in official statistics.
For Foresti, the financial outflow associated with rejected applications can be described as “reverse remittances.”
For African institutions working on continental integration, meanwhile, mobility remains tied to wider questions of trade, investment, tourism, labour, education and research.
The evidence leaves a clear picture: in 2024, African applicants paid an estimated €60 million in fees on applications that were subsequently rejected; refusal rates varied substantially across nationalities; the official visa fee was only one component of what many applicants spent; and nearly half of intra-African travel scenarios still required a visa before departure.
Those figures provide a measurable account of the financial and mobility costs surrounding visa restrictions, while the experiences of individual applicants show what those numbers can mean beyond the statistics.
