Some nurses at the centre of an investigation into widespread fraud that took place at a test centre in Nigeria have been served notice to leave the UK despite still awaiting the outcomes of their appeals, Nursing Times can reveal.
Letters sent by the Home Office, seen by Nursing Times, have asked nurses to leave the UK as soon as next week, after their visas were revoked following fraud allegations by the nursing regulator.
“The NMC could be accused of deliberate delay”
Peters Omoragbon
The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) has been accused of “deliberately delaying” hearings and has been urged to immediately remedy the situation so that nurses are not repatriated before their appeal has been heard.
The NMC has refuted claims that the delays are deliberate and said it was working to schedule the remaining hearings as soon as possible.
It comes as almost 2,000 internationally educated Nigerian nurses were impacted by the NMC’s investigation into fraud concerns at a testing site in Ibadan, Nigeria run by Pearson VUE on behalf of the NMC.
Nursing Times reported last year that almost 50 nurses were looking to take the NMC to court, claiming they had unfairly had their registration removed or their application to join the register refused following the fraud investigations.
Some nurses described how they had been prematurely fired by their employers and had their visas revoked while they awaited their hearing outcomes.
Now, several nurses have been issued letters to leave the UK by the Home Office.
Nursing Times can reveal that the same 50 nurses served the NMC with a “pre-action protocol letter” in February, giving the regulator 14 days to respond to their concerns or legal action would be taken.
Among several demands, the NMC was asked to liaise with the Home Office to ensure the nurses threatened with deportation can stay in the UK until their appeals have concluded.
In addition, the letter called for a complete reconsideration of all those who have been removed from the register or had their application refused, after one of the 50 nurses accused of fraudulent entry successfully appealed.
Nursing Times understands that the NMC failed to responsd to the pre-action protocol letter by the deadline, and that the nurses will now be looking to pursue legal action.
Background to the CBT investigation
The NMC launched an investigation in 2023 into the Yunnik Technologies Test Centre in Ibadan, Nigeria after it was alerted to anomalous data coming from the site.
Analysis of data coming from the test centre revealed that nurses were sitting their computer-based test (CBT) in record time.
The CBT is one of two parts of a test of competence that some international nurses must complete as part of their NMC application and is usually sat in their home countries.
The NMC concluded that some 48 current registrants and 669 applicants were more than likely to have obtained their test result fraudulently at the Yunnik test centre.
It said that proxy testing was likely taking place at Yunnik, meaning someone was sitting the test on behalf of applicants.
All registrants and applicants impacted were asked to re-sit and pass a new CBT.
Those suspected of fraud were asked to provide additional evidence and make representations to the NMC in relation to the circumstances of their original test.
For those already on the register, they were referred to an independent panel of the NMC investigating committee (IC) to determine whether fraudulent entry to the register had occurred.
Meanwhile, for applicants to the register, an assistant registrar (AR) has been assessing completed applications and making decisions about whether to admit people to the register.
At the time of writing, 20 individuals had admitted to using a proxy tester to achieve their CBT at Yunnik. One person was a registrant and the other 19 were applicants.
Of the 48 individuals on the register who were accused of obtaining their CBT fraudulently, the NMC has held 12 hearings with the IC panel.
Of these, 10 have been removed from the register, while two have been allowed to remain.
Meanwhile, the AR has reviewed 200 of the applications from people seeking to join the register who are suspected to have obtained their CBT fraudulently.
Of those, 191 applications have been refused on the basis that the character requirements were not met.
Meanwhile, the AR has admitted nine applications, having been satisfied with the reflection and responses provided.
There are currently a further 17 completed applications pending an AR decision.
NMC accused of ‘deliberate delay’
Nursing Times previously reported that many of the nurses were looking to appeal the decision of the AR, but that it was taking up to six months from the notice of appeal for a hearing to take place.
For those nurses who were sacked by their employers after the allegations of fraud were made public, the threat of deportation has now become very real.
As such, 48 nurses have declared their intention to take the NMC to court over the issue.
They are being supported by Nurses Across The Borders, an international charitable association, and are represented by Broad Street Solicitors.
In a pre-action protocol letter, sent to the NMC on 13 February 2025, Broad Street Solicitors set out that its clients had faced “severe repercussions” from the situation, including their employment being terminated.
It stated that several of its clients had now received notice from the Home Office cancelling their visas, with instructions to leave the UK. This is despite some of their appeal hearings yet to be scheduled.
Some of these letters from the Home Office, seen by Nursing Times, have instructed nurses to leave as early as 17 March.
Pastor Peters Omoragbon
Pastor Peters Omoragbon, executive president of Nurses Across The Borders and president of the Diaspora Nurses Association of Nigeria, accused the NMC of “deliberately delaying” appeal hearings so that nurses could be served with notice from the Home Office.
He told Nursing Times: “That saves them the troubles of trying to prove or trying to litigate.
“The NMC could be accused of deliberate delay, so that these nurses could lose their rights of abode here in the UK.”
In response, an NMC spokesperson said: “We’re sorry people feel this way and we want to be absolutely clear that there have not been deliberate delays – again we are working with all parties, including representatives, to schedule the remaining hearings in accordance with their requirements and availability.
“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.”
One nurse succeeds in quashing AR decision
Meanwhile, Broad Street Solicitors noted in its letter that an appeal by one of its clients against the decision of the AR had been recently successful.
It argued that the “facts and circumstances” of the nurse’s case were “materially the same” as its other clients and therefore the conclusion by the panel should be “consistently applied” to all the nurses it represents.
The NMC had previously concluded that Nurse D, who wishes to remain anonymous, had obtained her CBT fraudulently and referred her application to the AR.
It argued that it was very unlikely that she could have passed her test in the time it took her to complete it.
Nurse D claimed that she was able to complete the test in the time she did because of her extensive preparation, the low level of complexity of the questions and the 12 years of clinical nursing experience she had.
The AR considered this application but determined that it still did not provide sufficient explanation for the test time and concluded that Nurse D did not meet the character requirements for registration.
“We know it’s in everyone’s best interests for hearings to be held as swiftly and safely as possible”
Lesley Maslen
However, her appeal on the decision in December 2024 was successful.
Nurse D, who was represented by the Royal College of Nursing during her appeal hearing, told the panel she had a number of study guides and had accessed practice questions online, which she had used to extensively prepare for the test.
She stated that she had spent four-and-a-half months revising ahead of taking the test, during which time she had undertaken hundreds of practices questions and read each resource at least 16 times.
The panel accepted evidence that the test did not meet the expectations in terms of difficulty, and that Nurse D said 70% of the questions were word for word for which she had prepared for.
The panel accepted that the average amount of time spent per questions reflected this, in that she had spent less than five seconds on some of the more straightforward questions, and longer on others.
Nurse D also told the panel how she was a highly experienced nurse and had strong numeracy skills, as her role required her to be able to calculate medication doses for babies as well as adults.
The panel took into account the level of clinical experience and level of preparation Nurse D had undertaken and came to a view that she had provided a credible explanation as to the context and circumstances that enabled her to do the CBT in a quick time.
The panel was therefore satisfied that she had demonstrated that she met the character requirements for registration.
It allowed her appeal, quashed the decision appealed against, and directed the registrar to admit Nurse D to the NMC register.
Broad Street Solicitors called for the findings of Nurse D’s appeal to be “consistently applied” to the cases of all the other nurses it was representing.
Nursing Times asked the NMC if the regulator would consider the findings of Nurse D’s appeal in forthcoming hearings.
In response, the regulator said that, while it reflects on all panel decisions, the outcome of any one hearing does not change the underlying evidence of the CBT investigation, which uncovered a pattern of statistically significant quick test taking and evidence of people using proxy testers.
The NMC said independent panels would continue to assess cases individually, including the ability of people to provide their own evidence and accounts, alongside the evidence the NMC puts forward.
Demands in the pre-action letter
Broad Street Solicitors set out several demands for the NMC, similar to those included in the previous letter sent last year.
The first request was for the NMC to “expedite” the appeal process for all nurses, so that they can get a resolution more quickly.
Meanwhile, the letter also called on the NMC to reinstate nurses it has removed from the register to allow them to resume their professional duties while their appeals are being processed.
In addition, it requested that the NMC liaises with the Home Office and communicates the current status of the nurses’ appeals to prevent premature visa cancellations and deportations.
The final request was for the NMC to provide a detailed and evidence-based justification for not reinstating nurses onto the register or accepting their applications based on Nurse D’s successful appeal.
Broad Street Solicitors said that, if the NMC failed to act within 14 days, its clients would proceed with judicial review proceedings without further notice.
In addition, it said any costs, including legal fees, would be claimed against the NMC.
The NMC said it was not unable to discuss ongoing legal matters.
However, it did confirm that it had requested further information from the Home Office.
The regulator said it was a priority to resolve cases “as swiftly and safely as possible”.
It added that it continued to work closely with all parties to schedule the remaining hearings in accordance with their requirements and availability.
Where possible, the NMC said it would continue to schedule hearings sooner for individuals who told them about extenuating circumstances.
Lesley Maslen, executive director of professional regulation at the NMC, said: “We know that undergoing regulatory action is distressing for people and we are sorry about this.
“We’re determined to minimise that distress while fully resolving the concerns and being assured that everyone on our register is able to provide the safe and effective care that the public expect. This is of paramount importance.”
Ms Maslen echoed that it was right that independent panels consider individual cases, including giving nurses the opportunity to put forward personal accounts, but that the underlying facts of the case remained the same.
She added: “We know it’s in everyone’s best interests for hearings to be held as swiftly and safely as possible.
“We continue to work closely with all case parties to schedule the remaining hearings at the earliest opportunity.”
More on the CBT fraud investigation
