On the 5th of June 2026, a room full of young people gathered in Abuja, Nigeria to mark the launch of the Youth Friendly Standards by ComDev Africa under the AU-EU Youth Voices Lab. It was the kind of event that reminds you why this work matters. Young people from diverse backgrounds, articulate about the issues affecting their communities, eager to contribute, and willing to hold institutions accountable. But within minutes of the open floor discussion, a familiar frustration surfaced. Not for the first time, and certainly not for the last. It was the discussion on migration, free movement and visa restrictions.   

What the Room Was Actually Saying  

When young people at a youth participation forum, convened under the banner of a joint African Union and European Union initiative, spend a significant portion of their time discussing how difficult it is to simply  move , something is structurally wrong. These were young professionals, civil society actors, and emerging leaders describing a pattern they live with constantly, a pattern that directly undermines the very frameworks their institutions claim to champion.  

The complaints were visa denials with no substantive explanation, prohibitive application fees, processing timelines that make participation in international programming nearly impossible, and a system that treats young African applicants not as partners in continental development, but as risks to be managed.  

I have had two of such experiences recently. I will not rehearse the details here, but I will say that both instances involved legitimate, professionally relevant travel connected to programmes that are themselves supported by regional and international organisations. The irony is that you get selected to participate in a programme designed to amplify African youth voices on the regional or global stage, and the visa system becomes the ceiling that caps how far that voice can actually travel.  

A System That Has Become More Exclusive, Not Less  

The data is difficult to look away from. According to the European Commission, visa applications reach 11.7 million in EU and Schengen associated countries in 2024 and 14.8% of the applications were refused worldwide. The Guardian reported that an estimated 50,376 short-stay Schengen visa applications of Nigerians were rejected in 2024 accounting to about $5 million.   

Then came the reforms. Between 2024 and 2025, the Schengen framework introduced sharper fee increases, expanded digital surveillance infrastructure through the Entry/Exit System, and tighter processing protocols. The Entry/Exit System, operational since October 2025, now collects biometric data on all non-EU nationals crossing Schengen borders. Framed as a security measure, its practical effect, particularly for African travellers already subject to elevated scrutiny has been longer waiting times and reinforced presumptions of irregular intent, regardless of the actual travel record of the individual in question.  

Meanwhile, at the continental level, the African Union's own data tells a similarly uncomfortable story. Over half of African nations still require visas for fellow Africans to enter. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) promises the free movement of goods, yet the people who are meant to drive that trade still queue at embassies, submit payslips and bank statements, and wait, sometimes for opportunities that have long since passed them by.  

The Specific Cruelty of Programme-Linked Denials  

There is a particular dimension of this problem that rarely receives adequate attention. What happens when the young person being denied a visa was selected by, funded by, or in partnership with a regional or international organisation.  

Across the youth development space in Africa, it is understood that selection to a programme does not guarantee you will actually be able to attend. Young people receive acceptance letters for EU-funded programmes, AU-endorsed convenings, UN youth forums, and regional capacity-building workshops, only to find themselves navigating visa processes that appear wholly indifferent to the institutional endorsement their invitation represents.  

The programme organisers know this. The donors often know this. And yet the operating assumption remains that visa procurement is the individual applicant's problem to solve. The result is a quiet distortion of who actually gets to show up, systematically skewed towards those with prior travel histories, dual nationalities, diaspora connections, or the financial buffers to absorb application costs across multiple attempts.  

This means the young people who most need these opportunities, such as first-generation participants, young women from underrepresented communities, youth from fragile or conflict-affected contexts are disproportionately filtered out before the programme even begins. The Youth Friendly Standards we launched in Abuja are explicitly designed to address inclusion. But inclusion is not possible when the infrastructure of movement excludes people before they reach the room.  

What Actually Needs to Change  

Acknowledging progress matters. Digitalising visa applications is a step in the right direction, reducing the need to physically surrender a passport or wait months for an embassy appointment is a meaningful improvement in process. Multiple-entry visas for verified frequent travellers are a sensible reform that several countries have been slow to implement. The African Union and African Development Bank (AfDB) Visa-Free Roadshow, engaging policymakers and civil society on accelerating intra-African liberalisation, reflects genuine political momentum at the continental level.  

But process improvements are not structural reform. Several things need to happen with considerably more urgency.  

First , for any programme receiving AU, EU, or UN institutional funding, visa facilitation must be built into the programme design as a standard component, not an afterthought, not the applicant's burden, but a core logistical responsibility. If an organisation is serious about genuine inclusion, the travel architecture must reflect that.  

Second , the persistent opacity of rejection decisions must be addressed. Receiving a denial with no substantive explanation is not just frustrating but makes it impossible for applicants to understand what would constitute a successful application. Transparency in decision-making is a basic requirement for a system that claims to operate on the rule of law.  

Third , at the intra-African level, the gap between political commitment and implementation on free movement must close. The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) cannot reach its potential without meaningful labour and people mobility. The AU Agenda 2063 vision of an integrated Africa requires that Africans can actually travel across Africa. The political will expressed at the 2025 AU Summit needs to translate into concrete, time-bound visa liberalisation commitments from member states.  

Fourth , and perhaps most importantly, the young people most affected by these barriers need to be formally integrated into the policy conversations that shape mobility frameworks. Not consulted after decisions are made. Not included as observers at forums they were almost denied the visa to attend. Included from the design stage, with genuine decision-making powers.  

What Abuja Reminded Me  

What struck me most about the 5th of June was not the frustration in the room, though it was palpable and even legitimate. It was the clarity in the room that struck me. The young people articulating these issues were not simply venting. They understood the structural dimensions of the problem, they could name the specific policy levers that needed adjusting, and they were doing so in the very forum that was supposed to be measuring how youth-friendly our institutions are.  

That, in itself, is an answer to a question institutions sometimes ask, whether young people are ready to participate meaningfully in policy dialogue. They are more than ready. The question is whether the systems around them will stop treating them and their movement as a liability and start treating them as an asset.  

The Youth Friendly Standards exist because some people recognised that good intentions are not enough, that inclusion needs to be measured, evaluated, and held to account. It is time to apply that same discipline to the visa and mobility systems that determine who gets to participate in the first place.  

The passport paradox, where young people are invited to build a shared future whilst being denied the basic freedom to travel towards it, is not a contradiction we can afford to normalise any longer.  

Hashimu Adamu is a Youth Advisor with the AU-EU Youth Voices Lab