Several nurses received official letters from the Home Office instructing them to depart as early as March 17, following the revocation of their visas.
Nigerian nurses caught in an ongoing fraud investigation have been ordered to leave the United Kingdom, even as they await the outcomes of their appeal hearings, Nursing Times reports.
Several nurses received official letters from the Home Office instructing them to depart as early as March 17, following the revocation of their visas.
This comes amid an investigation by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) into alleged fraud at the Yunnik Technologies Test Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria, where proxy testing reportedly took place for the UK’s nursing competency exam.
Nearly 2000 Nigerian nurses were affected by the NMC probe, which flagged anomalies in computer-based test (CBT) results from the Pearson VUE-run centre.
Some nurses were fired from their jobs and removed from the register, prompting legal action against the NMC.
A group of 50 nurses, represented by Broad Street Solicitors and backed by Nurses Across The Borders, had previously served the NMC with a pre-action protocol letter in February, demanding intervention to prevent deportations before appeals are concluded.
The NMC, however, failed to respond by the deadline, escalating the legal battle.
The affected nurses argue that the NMC has deliberately delayed their hearings, a claim the regulator denies, stating it is working to conclude proceedings swiftly.
So far, 12 out of 48 accused registrants have faced hearings—10 were removed from the register, while two were cleared.
For those seeking to join the register, the assistant registrar has rejected 191 applications over character concerns, with only nine approvals granted. At least 17 cases remain under review.
Nursing Times reports that Pastor Peters Omoragbon, executive president of Nurses Across The Borders and president of the Diaspora Nurses Association of Nigeria, has accused the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) of "deliberately delaying" appeal hearings, allowing the Home Office to serve affected nurses with notices.
Omoragbon stated, "That saves them the troubles of trying to prove or litigate. The NMC could be accused of deliberate delay so that these nurses lose their rights of abode in the UK."
In response, an NMC spokesperson denied any intentional delays, emphasizing that the regulator was working with all parties to schedule hearings efficiently. "Our priority is to maintain the integrity of the register, and it is in everyone's best interests for hearings to be held as swiftly and safely as possible."
Meanwhile, Broad Street Solicitors highlighted a recent appeal victory for one of its clients, arguing that the circumstances of the case were "materially the same" as those of other nurses it represents.
The firm insisted that the appeal outcome should be consistently applied to all similar cases.
The NMC had previously concluded that Nurse D, who wishes to remain anonymous, had fraudulently obtained her Computer-Based Test (CBT) and referred her case to the Appeal Review (AR). It claimed the time she took to complete the test was implausibly short.
However, Nurse D maintained that her extensive preparation, the test’s simplicity, and her 12 years of nursing experience enabled her to finish quickly.
Despite her explanations, the AR ruled that her test time remained unexplained and deemed her unfit for registration. However, in December 2024, Nurse D successfully appealed this decision.
During the hearing, Nurse D, represented by the Royal College of Nursing, provided evidence of her rigorous study routine, including four-and-a-half months of preparation, extensive use of study guides, and practice with hundreds of sample questions.
The panel accepted that 70% of the exam questions matched those she had prepared for and acknowledged her high level of clinical experience and numeracy skills.
As a result, the panel found her explanation credible, quashed the NMC’s decision, and directed the registrar to admit her to the register. Broad Street Solicitors has since urged the NMC to apply the same reasoning to all affected nurses.
When asked whether Nurse D’s case would influence upcoming hearings, the NMC maintained that while it considers all panel decisions, individual cases are assessed separately.
The regulator reiterated that its investigation had identified patterns of rapid test completion and proxy testing, necessitating independent case-by-case assessments.
Broad Street Solicitors issued several demands to the NMC, including expediting all appeal processes, reinstating removed nurses during their appeals, and liaising with the Home Office to prevent visa cancellations and deportations.
It also demanded a detailed justification if the NMC refused to reinstate nurses despite Nurse D’s successful appeal.
The firm warned that failure to act within 14 days would result in judicial review proceedings, with legal costs claimed against the NMC.
In response, the NMC stated it could not comment on ongoing legal matters but confirmed it had sought further information from the Home Office.
It reaffirmed its commitment to resolving cases swiftly and working with all parties to schedule hearings at the earliest opportunity.
Lesley Maslen, the NMC’s executive director of professional regulation, acknowledged the distress caused by regulatory action, stating, "We are determined to minimize that distress while ensuring public safety.
Independent panels must consider each case individually, but we remain focused on resolving these cases as swiftly and fairly as possible."