Canada’s Policy Shift and the Changing Reality for Nigerian Migrants, By Boniface Ihiasota

Canada’s evolving immigration and asylum policies in 2026 mark a turning point that is being closely watched across migrant communities, including Nigerians who have, over the past decade, become one of the fastest-growing African diasporas in the country. What is unfolding is not a closure of doors, but a recalibration—one that prioritises economic utility, system efficiency, and stricter compliance over the expansive openness that once defined Canada’s migration model.

The most notable shift is in the asylum system. In March 2026, the Canadian government enacted new reforms through legislation widely reported as Bill C-12, aimed at tightening refugee intake procedures and reducing a backlog that has stretched the system for years. Canada’s asylum inventory had exceeded 260,000 pending claims by late 2025, according to data from the Immigration and Refugee Board, creating long waiting times that sometimes ran into several years. The new law introduces faster screening mechanisms, allowing authorities to determine early on whether claims are eligible for full hearings.

Early outcomes have already begun to reflect the impact. Tens of thousands of claims have been flagged for additional scrutiny, with some applicants required to provide further documentation within strict timelines or face removal proceedings. For Nigerians, who continue to feature prominently among asylum applicants, this introduces a new level of uncertainty. While Canada does not target specific nationalities, applicants from countries with complex migration patterns often face deeper scrutiny in credibility assessments.

Yet, the tightening of asylum pathways does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader restructuring of Canada’s immigration system, which has been under pressure from housing shortages, healthcare capacity constraints, and public debate over population growth. In response, the federal government adjusted its Immigration Levels Plan for 2026–2028, maintaining a target of approximately 500,000 permanent residents annually but reducing the intake of temporary residents, including international students and some categories of foreign workers.

For Nigerians, this dual-track approach—restrictive in some areas and targeted in others—presents a mixed picture. On the one hand, study pathways have become more competitive. Nigeria has consistently ranked among the top 10 source countries for international students in Canada, with over 16,000 Nigerian students holding study permits as of 2024, according to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. However, new policies introduced in early 2026 cap the number of study permits issued nationwide and tighten post-study work conditions, particularly for students enrolled in short-term or preparatory programmes.

On the other hand, economic migration pathways are being sharpened rather than reduced. Canada’s flagship Express Entry system has undergone targeted reforms designed to align immigration more closely with labour market shortages. In February 2026, Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab announced category-based selection draws focusing on healthcare, science and technology, transportation, and skilled trades. These sectors have faced persistent labour gaps, especially as Canada’s population ages.

For Nigerian professionals, this presents a clear opportunity—provided they meet the heightened requirements. The minimum threshold for relevant work experience in many categories has effectively increased, with greater emphasis placed on recent, verifiable employment within the last three years. Language proficiency benchmarks and credential verification processes have also become more stringent, reflecting a broader effort to ensure that newcomers integrate quickly into the workforce.

At the same time, enforcement has become more visible. The Canada Border Services Agency reported that hundreds of Nigerians were deported in 2025 for overstaying visas or failing to comply with immigration rules, with additional cases pending. While deportations remain a small fraction of overall migrant numbers, they signal a tougher posture toward non-compliance, reinforcing the message that entry into Canada now comes with stricter accountability.

Despite these changes, Canada’s immigration system retains key features that distinguish it globally. Unlike some Western countries, Canada does not impose nationality-based caps or bans. Instead, its system remains points-based and merit-driven, allowing applicants from countries like Nigeria to compete on relatively equal footing. Nigerians, in fact, continue to perform strongly in economic migration streams due to high levels of English proficiency and a growing pool of university-educated professionals.

From a diaspora perspective, the significance of these reforms lies in their long-term implications. Canada is moving away from a volume-driven immigration model toward one that is more selective and sustainability-focused. The emphasis is shifting from how many migrants the country can admit to how effectively those migrants can contribute to economic growth and social stability.

For prospective Nigerian migrants, the message is becoming increasingly clear. The era of broad accessibility—where multiple pathways could be explored with relative ease—is giving way to a more disciplined system that rewards preparation, skill alignment, and legal compliance. Success now depends less on aspiration alone and more on strategy: choosing the right immigration stream, meeting precise eligibility criteria, and presenting verifiable documentation.

Still, the Canadian dream remains very much alive. What has changed is the pathway to achieving it. It is no longer defined by openness alone, but by competitiveness. For those willing to adapt to these new realities, Canada continues to offer opportunities—not as a guaranteed destination, but as a carefully managed one.

Atiku, Why Again? By Alabidun Shuaib AbdulRahman

In Nigerian politics, ambition is not unusual. Neither is persistence. But when a politician has been on the presidential ballot for several years without success, it is fair to ask a simple question: what is the plan this time that was not there before?

That question has come up again after the recent television interview by Atiku Abubakar, where he made it clear that he intends to run for president in 2027. If he does, it will be his seventh attempt.

The interview, aired on ARISE TV on Wednesday, April 15th, was meant to position him as a leading figure in the opposition ahead of the next election. Instead, it has brought back old doubts about his long political journey, his repeated attempts, and whether anything has really changed.

Atiku did not present his ambition as something he was still considering. He spoke as someone already committed to the race. He also described the 2027 election as his “last outing,” suggesting that this would be his final attempt.

At the same time, he tried to balance two positions. He said he was open to working with others in a coalition under the African Democratic Congress (ADC). But he also made it clear that he would contest for the ticket and would not step aside for anyone, including Peter Obi, Kwankwaso and others.

That position is important. It shows that while he talks about unity, he is not ready to sacrifice his own ambition for it. This has been a consistent feature of his politics over the years.

Atiku has been in Nigerian politics for over three decades. He served as vice president under Olusegun Obasanjo from 1999 to 2007. That position gave him national visibility and influence. However, his main political identity today is built around his repeated attempts to become president. He first contested in the early 1990s. Since then, he has run in 2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, and 2023. He lost all.

This history matters. It is not just about numbers. It shapes how voters see him. Many Nigerians now associate him more with contesting elections than with holding office. So the issue is not just that he is running again. The real issue is why he believes this time will be different.

One major part of Atiku’s strategy over the years has been changing political platforms. He started with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) in the early 1990s, moved to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), later joined the Action Congress (AC), returned to the PDP, then moved to the All Progressives Congress (APC), and went back again to the PDP before aligning with the ADC for now.

This kind of movement is often explained as political strategy. Nigerian parties are not strongly ideological, so politicians move when they feel their chances are better elsewhere. But frequent defection also raises questions. It becomes difficult to clearly define what a politician stands for beyond personal ambition. In Atiku’s case, every move has been tied to his presidential ambition. When one platform does not work, he looks for another. That approach may be practical, but it also creates doubts about consistency.

The ADC is now being presented as a platform for a broad opposition coalition ahead of 2027. For Atiku, it is another opportunity to reposition himself and work with other opposition figures. The idea of a coalition is simple: bring together different political forces to challenge the ruling party, currently led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

However, coalitions are not easy to manage. They involve people with different ambitions, different support bases, and different strategies. In this case, figures like Peter Obi, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Rauf Aregbesola, David Mark, Rotimi Amaechi et al also have strong followings.

Atiku’s decision to insist on contesting may create crisis within the coalition. While his experience and national network are advantages, his ambition could also divide the group. So his presence in the ADC is both helpful and complicated.

Although Atiku said in the interview that 2027 would be his final attempt. By then, he will be close to 80 years old, so the claim is understandable. But Nigerian politics has seen similar claims before. Politicians often say an election will be their last, only to return again later. This is why many people are not fully convinced.

More importantly, the idea of a “last attempt” raises a bigger issue. Should leadership at this stage focus on long-term national direction or on completing a personal political journey? This is where age and generational change come into the conversation. Nigeria has a very young population. Many voters are looking for new faces and new ideas. Atiku represents experience, but he also represents an older political generation.

Atiku’s biggest strengths are clear. He has experience, name recognition, and a strong political network across the country. He understands the system and knows how to run national campaigns. But these strengths come with weaknesses. His long history also connects him to past political practices that many Nigerians now question. Some voters see him as part of the old system rather than a candidate for change.

In his interview, he spoke about reforms, including constitutional changes and power rotation. However, critics point out that his positions on some of these issues have changed over time, depending on political circumstances. This gap between what he says now and what he has done before is part of the trust problem he faces.

From a political standpoint, Atiku’s decision to run again is not without logic. He is likely counting on strong support from the northern region and hoping that dissatisfaction with the current administration will work in his favour.

Economic challenges and public frustration could create an opportunity for the opposition. Atiku is trying to position himself as the candidate who can benefit from that situation. However, the situation is not simple. The opposition is not united. There are other strong candidates. Voters are also becoming less predictable.

Winning an election now requires more than regional strength. It requires broad national appeal and the ability to connect with younger voters. This is where Atiku faces his biggest test.

At a broader level, Atiku’s repeated candidacies reflect a pattern in Nigerian politics. The same group of politicians continues to dominate the system, moving between parties and positions. This makes it harder for new leaders to emerge. It also creates a sense that elections are contests between familiar faces rather than opportunities for real change. Atiku is not the only example of this, but he is one of the most visible.

If Atiku wants to convince Nigerians this time, he needs to do more than declare his intention to run. He needs to explain clearly why he has not succeeded before and what will be different now.

He also needs to show that his campaign is not just another attempt, but a new approach. That includes how he plans to govern, how he will address current challenges, and how he will work with other political actors. Without this, his candidacy risks being seen as a repeat of previous efforts.

Atiku Abubakar has the right to contest for president. That is not in question. The real issue is whether his continued participation adds value to the political process or simply repeats what Nigerians have already seen.

His recent interview has reopened an important debate. It is not just about him. It is about the direction of Nigerian politics, the need for new leadership, and the balance between experience and change.

As 2027 approaches, voters will have to decide. Do they want to give Atiku another chance, or do they want something different?

Alabidun is a media practitioner and can be reached via alabidungoldenson@gmail.com

12 Communication Habits That Annoy Your Coworkers And How To Fix Them

You know the coworker who messages “hi” and then disappears? The one who “circles back” well before you’ve had a chance to respond? What about the one who sends a five-paragraph email when one sentence would suffice? Of course you do: People with annoying communication habits exist in every conference room, Zoom tile, and inbox in the world. And they’re more than just a minor workplace woe.

“Communication is the most important aspect of our jobs,” says Tessa West, a professor of psychology at New York University and author of Jerks at Work: Toxic Coworkers and What to Do About Them. “We don’t realize this, but it’s [a major] reason why people are happy at work, and also why they disengage and leave.”

Your communication skills, or lack thereof, are on display during everything from daily banter in the break room to negotiating with your boss, running meetings, handling conflict, and dispensing feedback. “When these things break down, people feel really, really miserable at work,” West says.

We asked experts which communication habits are most likely to drive your colleagues up the wall, and why.

Being long-winded

One of the fastest ways to frustrate your coworkers is to bury the point. Think: turning a quick Slack into a TED Talk, or answering a yes-or-no question with context, history, nuance, and a surprise appendix. “You’re so caught up in your own work, and these details are so interesting and relevant to you, that you might not be stopping to ask, ‘OK, what does this other person actually need to know?’” says Alison Green, who runs the work-advice blog Ask a Manager. Often, the answer is: not all of that. As Green puts it, “What’s the upshot?” In many cases, you can skip the backstory and go straight to the one actionable thing your colleague actually needs. If they want more context, they’ll ask.

Starting messages with “hi” and no  context

It’s the Slack message heard ’round the world: a lone “hi” followed by… nothing. The habit creates ambiguity and forces the recipient to wait and guess how urgent it is with zero clues. Surely the person messaging you wants something other than to extend a greeting; why can’t they come out and say it? The catch: There’s a communication divide at play. “Some people feel like it’s very rude to just launch into their question,” says Green, who’s received an increasing number of reader emails about this issue. Others feel the exact opposite way, because “you have no ability to assess how to prioritize it.” The middle ground? Be polite and direct. Say hello, then immediately get to the point. Your coworkers don’t need a suspenseful reveal.

Setting a deadline and then acting like it’s  urgent days later

You say something is due in two weeks. Then, a few days later, you fire off a check-in message: “Hey, how’s that coming along?” To your coworker, it raises an immediate question: Did the deadline change? Why the sudden panic? This habit comes up a lot, Green says. “The person sets a deadline but then acts like there’s a problem well before the deadline because they haven’t heard anything,” she says. “It’s not that there’s no room for doing that, because sometimes it does make sense to check in, but often, it’s going to aggravate people because they’re going to feel like, ‘You told me I had two weeks. Why are you nagging me about this now?’”

Often, it’s not about the work, it’s about nerves. If that sounds familiar, make sure the deadline you’re setting is the right one, Green suggests, and accounts for any check-ins you’ll want along the way.

Slow response time

Silence speaks volumes—especially at work. When you’re clearly online but don’t respond to a colleague for hours, if at all, “It’s really a signal of the level of respect,” says Erica Dhawan, a leadership expert and author of Digital Body Language: How to Build Trust and Connection, No Matter the Distance. Long delays can trigger what she calls “digital anxiety,” where colleagues start to wonder: Is she ignoring me? Did I do something wrong? The fix is simple: Acknowledge the message, even if you can’t answer right away. A quick “Got this will respond later today” goes a long way toward keeping everyone on the same page.

Sending emails with vague subject lines

RE: We need to talk. (About your subject line.) When it’s vague, or missing entirely, the person on the receiving end has to spend time parsing the email to understand what you need. That’s what psychologist Liane Davey calls “thought load”: the strain we create for others when we don’t communicate clearly. “We should have ‘return to sender’ with emails that are vague and unclear,” she says.

A better approach, Dhawan adds, is to treat the subject line as “the new eye contact”, a quick signal that tells people exactly what matters. For example: “Decision required by 3 p.m.,” which helps people triage the request. If your colleague can’t instantly tell what you need, it’s time to rewrite it.

Softening feedback so much the message gets lost

Managers often think they’re being kind when they soften criticism but doing so can backfire. When Green coached managers professionally, she saw the same scenario play out repeatedly: Someone would believe they’d delivered clear, serious feedback, while the employee walked away having missed the message entirely. “It came up so much that it was almost comical, except the stakes were so high that it was actually tragic,” she says. “Managers would think they had given very serious performance feedback to an employee, like the kind of thing that could potentially jeopardize someone’s job.

But they softened it so much that the message was not actually delivered.” Green would often ask: “Did you use the words, ‘I could end up needing to let you go over this’?” At least 75% of the time, the answer was no, and it turned out the manager had sugar-coated their message, even after role-playing the scenario.

The fix is to be clear, not harsh. If something is serious, say so plainly. Otherwise, you’re not sparing someone’s feelings; you’re leaving them without the information they need to improve.

Creating unnecessary uncertainty

Anyone who’s ever received a vague meeting request or a “can you hop on a quick call?” message,  knows how fast anxiety can spiral. It’s called “uncertainty-based stress,” and it’s a top trigger for work place anxiety, West says. “Bosses do this all the time: ‘I need to meet with you. It’s important. How does Monday sound?’ You don’t know what it’s about, and you spend the whole weekend stressed out.” (No wonder, she adds, that couples’ therapists spend so much time discussing work issues that bleed into their clients’ relationships and overall well-being.)

The solution is to be specific. A quick note about what you want to discuss can prevent unnecessary stress and make conversations more productive from the start.

Letting your stress spill onto others

We all have bad days at work. The problem is when they become everyone else’s problem, too. After an unpleasant exchange in a meeting or a tense one-on-one with your boss, people naturally want to talk to someone else about what’s going on. “That’s what we need to regulate our emotions and to feel better about the situation,” says West, who studies stress contagion. “But that pulls that other person in, and they can catch our stress. It can be super disruptive when it happens all the time.”

That’s why immediately venting, especially in the middle of the workday, isn’t always the best move. Instead, West suggests giving yourself some space first: Resist the urge to hop on the phone or Slack or plant yourself on a friend’s desk, and instead take 10 or 15 minutes to cool off. Then share more intentionally, ideally at a time that works for both of you.

Ignoring or mismatching communication norms

Emojis have become corporate lingo, but only certain ones, and only in some offices, and only part of the time. That’s the tricky thing about workplace communication: The rules aren’t universal. Every team develops its own unwritten norms, including how quickly to respond, how formal to be, and even which emojis register as friendly vs. unprofessional. “We have norms for how we communicate that we don’t realize we have,” West says.

She recalls working with an organization that brought her in to solve a communication breakdown, only to discover it all stemmed from something surprisingly small. “The person used smiley emoticons, and their team didn’t like it,” she says. It became such a sticking point that the company paid West, as she puts it, “a stupid amount of money” to fix what was essentially a clash over emoji use.

No one had said anything directly, but it was bothering people enough to derail communication. The fix is simple, if a little awkward: Talk about it. Making expectations explicit, around communication tone, timing, and even emoji use, can prevent small misunderstandings from turning into bigger ones.

Poorly run meetings that waste everyone’s time

Few things sour the workday like a meeting that should have been an email. In most cases, the issue isn’t the meeting itself: It’s how it’s run. “The person in charge of running the meeting isn’t good at facilitating it,” Green says. “Without someone actively guiding the discussion, conversations drift, time gets wasted, and people leave wondering why they were there in the first place.”

A better approach: set a clear agenda (ideally distributed beforehand) and stick to it. “Be willing to be very assertive about managing the time,” Green says. That includes setting expectations upfront and cutting things off when they go off track.

Being too loud and not realizing it

The return to the office brought something else back, too: noise. “Being too loud at work is a real problem coming back from the pandemic,” West says. People got used to their own spaces—and their own volume, and those habits didn’t always translate well once they were back around coworkers.

That can show up in all kinds of ways: taking Zoom calls at full volume, playing music out loud, or chat ting in shared spaces while others are trying to focus. “There’s a tendency for people to raise their voice when they’re on Zoom,” West says. “They talk louder than they do in person, they’re actually kind of yelling quite a bit.” Part of the issue is that today’s offices aren’t built for this kind of noise. “We’ve shrunk our workspaces,” she says, which means people are often working just feet away from someone else’s meeting (or their personal phone call). And while it might feel awkward to say something, especially if the person is more senior, staying silent can leave you “miserable all the time.”

The fix isn’t complicated, but it does require some coordination. Teams should set basic norms around sound, where to take calls, when to move conversations elsewhere, and what’s appropriate in shared spaces.

Oversharing at work

The workplace has gotten more open but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Some people are comfortable sharing everything from health struggles to relationship issues, while others would rather keep things strictly professional. “Don’t assume that these are things you can bring to work,” West says. Without clear norms, those differences can create awkward moments for everyone involved.

West says she’s seen situations where one employee opens up, expecting support, only to be met with visible discomfort. Why? Because expectations weren’t aligned. “We’re seeing lots of variability in the workplace around acceptability,” she says. And while openness can be valuable, “bosses are not therapists, they’re not trained to do that.”

The fix: Set clearer boundaries. That often starts at the organizational level, through HR policies and team conversations about what’s appropriate. Otherwise, people are left to navigate these gray areas on their own.