orlovlegal.com — A Nigerian national recently found to have overstayed his Indonesian visa by more than eight years became the subject of heated discussion on social media, particularly among residents of Bali. To most people, the number alone sounds implausible — a foreigner slipping past immigration oversight for that long. But for Oleg Orlov, an advocate at PT Southeast Partnership Indonesia who handles immigration and foreign-national cases as part of his daily practice, this kind of case is nothing new. If anything, it reopens a bigger question: at what point does an administrative violation become a criminal one?
The Cases That Sparked Public Reaction
In early September 2026, the public in Bali was struck by two immigration enforcement stories that surfaced almost simultaneously. The first involved two Nigerian nationals arrested in Ubud and Sanur by the Denpasar Immigration Office; one of them had overstayed for 379 days and attempted to flee during the inspection. The second was the case of Maduabuchi John Ndummadu, a Nigerian man detained in Tabanan after running into a resident’s plantation when asked to show his passport. His stay permit had expired back on February 28, 2018, and his passport itself had been invalid since 2022. All told, he had been living in Indonesia illegally for more than eight years before being handed over to the Denpasar Immigration Detention House to await deportation.
Commenting on the case, Oleg didn’t hide his surprise.
“I find that extraordinary,” he said,
adding that in his own experience representing foreign clients, he had come across situations he considers even more complicated.
A Lawyer Who Sees the Pattern Behind the Headlines
Oleg isn’t an outside observer commenting from a distance. As an advocate at an Indonesia-based firm that handles cross-border cases involving foreign nationals, he once represented a female client who had overstayed for more than three years — and during that time, gave birth to a child in Indonesia without any documentation whatsoever.
“And her child had no legal status at all,” he recalled,
citing the case as an example of how far an administrative lapse can spiral if it’s left unaddressed for years.
It’s experiences like these that have shaped his view on how the state should respond to long-running overstay cases.
The Core Argument: Years-Long Overstays Are No Longer Just an Administrative Issue
Oleg’s position is unambiguous. He agrees that deportation is the reasonable response for anyone staying without valid authorization, but he rejects the idea that an overstay spanning years should be resolved through administrative channels alone.
“When the overstay runs into years, it’s no longer just an administrative issue — it’s already a criminal one,” he said,
describing that kind of prolonged violation as an open disregard for the laws of the country someone is living in.
For him, firm enforcement also serves another purpose: sending a message to other foreign nationals.
“It sets a good example for other foreigners, so they think twice,” he said,
pointing to the deterrent effect he considers essential if Indonesia’s immigration rules are to be taken seriously.
Notably, Oleg’s argument tracks with existing precedent. Last month, the Bekasi Immigration Office named a Nigerian national with the initials OCO a criminal suspect after his overstay was recorded at 3,073 days — more than eight years — and he is now being held at Bekasi Class IIA Prison under Article 119(1) of the Immigration Law. That case shows the criminal route for long-term overstays isn’t merely theoretical; authorities have already gone down that path.
How Each Case Should Ideally Be Handled
Despite his firm stance on deliberate violations, Oleg doesn’t treat every overstay case the same way. In his view, each case should be examined individually before any penalty is decided. He points to scenarios such as someone overstaying because they fell ill, or ran out of money after being robbed — circumstances beyond that person’s control.
In cases like these, he believes immigration authorities should still move toward deportation, but with a more humane approach.
“Immigration authorities could do more to help that person find, say, a sponsor to cover a plane ticket, or work out a solution so the person is deported without added trauma,” he explained.
But when a violation is committed knowingly, with no objective justification behind it, his stance hardens again:
“That person should face criminal charges.” For Oleg,
the line between a forgivable lapse and defiance that warrants punishment comes down to intent and context — not simply how long the overstay lasted. (*)
