Extradition, the cornerstone of international justice, facilitates the transfer of fleeing fugitives between countries to face trial for an offence allegedly committed against the state. Despite the noble intention of this practice, SILVER NWOKORO reports that applying the extradition law in Nigeria is very bumpy.
To extradite a suspect for prosecution in Nigeria is not as simple as it sounds. There are serious challenges that bedevil the process, which include corrupt practices, legal, political, and bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Despite being a signatory to various extradition treaties, Nigeria has struggled with delays, legal technicalities, and political interference in extraditing individuals accused of corruption, fraud, and other crimes.
Created as a veritable tool for combating transnational crimes and upholding the rule of law, extradition is a critical process in international law, enabling nations to collaborate in prosecuting or punishing individuals who want to flee from justice.
Nigeria’s extradition process is governed by the Extradition Act of 1966, which incorporates international conventions and treaties. Despite this, several structural and procedural issues have hindered the smooth functioning of the system.
Section 1 of the Act provides that the president can extend the application of the Act to any country with which Nigeria has signed a treaty regarding the surrender of persons wanted for prosecution or punishment. The president may do so by issuing an order that is published in the federal gazette.
However, the Act shall be applied subject to the provisions of the order made by the president and the terms of the extradition agreement. In addition, Section 2 of the Act provides that it shall apply to countries within the Commonwealth.
Interestingly, Nigeria also has an extradition treaty with the United States, which was signed on December 22, 1931, on its behalf by the United Kingdom, Nigeria’s colonial overlords. The treaty was signed for all of Britain’s colonies then. But despite the existence of the law, Nigeria is faced with serious difficulties extraditing individuals who have committed unspeakable offences.
A notable case is that of the former governor of Delta State, James Ibori, who successfully evaded justice in Nigeria, but was later convicted in the United Kingdom (UK).
Ibori was accused of corruption and money laundering, with evidence showing that he had looted over £50 million from public funds. While Nigerian authorities attempted to prosecute him, the case faced numerous delays due to judicial corruption and political interference, as well as, legal technicalities exploited by Ibori’s lawyers and weak law enforcement cooperation.
The government successfully extradited him from Dubai in 2011 and built a stronger case against him, leveraging their Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) with the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In 2012, Ibori pleaded guilty in a UK court and was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment.
Another is the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke, who was accused of embezzling over $2 billion while in office. Since fleeing to the UK in 2015, she has successfully avoided extradition to Nigeria, citing health issues and legal battles.
Despite the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) securing multiple forfeiture orders against her assets in Nigeria, Diezani is yet to be extradited. Instead, the UK authorities charged her with bribery in 2023, further complicating Nigeria’s case.
Also, a former high-ranking Nigerian police officer, Abba Kyari, was indicted in America for conspiracy in a $1.1 million fraud case involving Instagram influencer, Ramon Abbas, popularly known as Hushpuppi.
While a Nigerian court approved his extradition in 2022, the government has not yet acted, citing ongoing local investigations by the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).
Attempting to break down the extradition hurdles, Chinwike Ezebube, a lawyer, said the (Extradition Act of 1966 and Extradition Amendment Act of 2018) are the primary laws and other subsidiary legislations and Court Rules.
He argued that the dual components involved in applying extradition law (legal and political) are usually heavily influenced by corruption. He also explained that no particular offence is classified as falling into the extradition category.
According to him, any offence regarded as a crime could attract extradition if the alleged offender is out of jurisdiction.
“Although there is no clear limit to the nature of offences classified as extradition offences, offences with jail terms of over a year and offences with severe consequences can ignite the process, especially due to the aggravating effects of the alleged offence.
In recent times, offences like drug trafficking, terrorism, cyber crimes, have made nations seek extradition of foreign nationals to answer for their alleged crimes,” he stated.
The process, he further explained, involves a formal application by a country with an extradition pact with the other, the apprehension of the suspect, filing of extradition procedure in court, the court making an order approving it, and the subsequent transfer of the suspect to the foreign country requesting the suspect.
As with all judicial procedures, he noted, the extradition process is influenced by political connections as a suspect may use his position to either delay or frustrate the entire process. Another lawyer, Dr Yemi Omodele, decried what he described as dishonesty in pursuing extradition matters in Nigeria.
“Persons who commit crimes across the border, tried and found guilty are easily extradited to Nigeria to complete their jail terms while persons who stole billions of naira and ran outside the country are not easily extradited to Nigeria to face their trials. Nigeria is a signatory to some treaties on extradition with some developed countries, but to date, extradition of corrupt Nigerians who ran for safety from criminal prosecution is only done on the pages of newspapers. Should it be so? It seems to me that countries where Nigeria’s stolen nobles are being kept are happy with that since they also use the money to grow their land,” he lamented.
He argued that extradition would have served as a deterrent to others, but the way it is being handled. “The federal ministries of internal and external affairs, in conjunction with the attorney general and minister of justice, have a lot to do by calling on stakeholders for guidance.
“Our laws and treaties in those areas must be overhauled to ease extradition of corrupt persons to Nigeria to face trials. Also, the judiciary should be firm in hearing cases that deal with extradition,” Omodele stated.
Speaking on the problems surrounding extradition in Nigeria, an Abia State-based lawyer, Mike Ibeneme, listed ambiguities in the Extradition Act, political influence, abuse, death penalty concerns, lack of bilateral or multilateral agreements, slow legal process, bureaucratic delays, corruption and the lack of transparency among factors that affect extradition.
The overall deterrent effect, Ibeneme said, depends on how extradition is implemented and enforced. According to him, where well applied, extradition could serve as a deterrent, eliciting accountability, international cooperation, trust, reduction in safe havens and encouragement of lawful behaviour.
Also, Malcolm Nwobi, a lawyer, pointed out that the lack of fair trial and the country’s poor prison facilities are part of the problems affecting Nigeria’s extradition process.
The danger, he said, is that many of these offenders would prefer to be tried abroad due to a fairer trial process and better prison facilities in case of conviction. On possible solutions, the lawyer advocated for strong institutions devoid of corruption, nepotism, tribalism, or political affiliations.
“Our laws must be reviewed periodically to be in line with common best practices and to ensure that they serve the interest of justice,” he stated. Another lawyer, Deji Fasusi, outlined key restrictions on the surrender of fugitives under the Extradition Act, North Edition of Nigeria (2004).
Speaking on the legal complexities of extradition, Fasusi emphasised that Nigerian law places significant limitations on when and how a fugitive can be surrendered to another country.
According to him, Section 3 of the Act states that a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered if the attorney general or a court determines that the offence for which extradition is sought is of a political character. Additionally, he said that Section 2 highlights various legal conditions that may prevent extradition.
“One of the major provisions is found in Section 5, which states that a fugitive criminal from any country to which the Act applies is liable to arrest and surrender, regardless of whether the crime was committed before or after the law took effect,” Fasusi explained.
However, he pointed out that the process depends heavily on the existence of an extradition treaty between Nigeria and the requesting country. Fasusi cited the ongoing case of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who was renditioned from Kenya instead as an example of extradition challenges.
“Despite calls for Simon Ekpa’s extradition, Nigeria does not have an extradition treaty with Finland, where he is residing. “When there is no extradition treaty, it becomes difficult to extradite a person,” he noted, adding that this legal limitation has played a role in Nigeria’s inability to bring Ekpa back to face charges.
While Nigeria has extradition treaties with several countries, particularly Commonwealth nations, Fasusi explained that even within Nigeria, extradition can be challenging.
Citing Section 11 of the Act, he stated that if a fugitive is already facing trial or serving a sentence in Nigeria, extradition may be postponed until the person is either acquitted or has completed his sentence.
This, he said, was one of the legal arguments raised by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Mike Ozekhome, who contended that Kanu’s rendition was questionable since he was already standing trial in Nigeria.
“If a country has an extradition treaty with Nigeria, a fugitive cannot hide under the guise of being in another country,” he said. He further noted that, when properly managed, extradition laws reinforce the principle that crime has no borders. “The fact that you are in Australia or anywhere does not mean that you cannot be extradited if you have committed a crime,” Fasusi declared.
