UK Tribunal Explains Why Pastor Tobi Adegboyega’s Deportation Was Approved
Judges in the United Kingdom have provided a detailed explanation for the approval of the deportation of Nigerian pastor Tobi Adegboyega, founder of Salvation Proclaimers Anointed Church (SPAC Nation).
The pastor, who arrived in the UK in 2005 on an expired visa, had sought to remain in the country on human rights grounds. However, despite multiple appeals, his request was denied.
The tribunal acknowledged Adegboyega’s claims that his church initiatives have helped many youths in the UK escape issues such as drug addiction and depression. However, the tribunal found that the pastor’s work was “highly exaggerated” and failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. The tribunal specifically pointed out that Adegboyega had not produced corroborating evidence to show that his work was endorsed by key institutions such as the UK police, Downing Street, the Mayor of London, or the Home Office.
The judges highlighted a number of deficiencies in his case. For example, there was no supporting documentation for Adegboyega’s claims that his presence in London was critical for calming tensions among ethnic minorities following the “fascist uprising” in August 2024 or for combating crime. Furthermore, the tribunal stated that there was no evidence to substantiate his assertion that he had visited Downing Street “countless times.”
The tribunal emphasized that his marriage to a British citizen, which Adegboyega argued should have allowed him to remain in the UK, did not outweigh the fact that he had overstayed his visa. It concluded that the pastor had failed to provide sufficient proof of his influence or the necessity of his presence in the UK.
In the judgment, the tribunal noted, “There was nothing before us from the Metropolitan Police, Downing Street, the Mayor of London, or the Home Office, all institutions which the appellant claims to have enthusiastically endorsed his work. There was no corroboration for his claim to have visited Downing Street on ‘countless occasions.’ These are examples of areas of the appellant’s evidence where we are satisfied that he has sought to grossly inflate his influence.”
As a result, despite his efforts to argue for his right to stay in the UK, the tribunal upheld the decision for his deportation.
