The Nation Newspaper

Tag: extradition

  • Wanted: A revised extradition policy

    Wanted: A revised extradition policy

    Is Nigeria too eager to extradite its citizens accused of crime? Yes, say some lawyers who have advocated a review of the country’s extradition policy, writes ERIC IKHILAE from Abuja.

    In recent time, the rate at which the Federal Government,through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN) approaches the court for permission to extradite its citizens abroad for trial is becoming alarming.

    The zeal often displayed by state officials, in arguing such extradition applications in court, always gives the impression that the Nigerian government enjoys shipping abroad, its citizens, accused of involvement in criminal activities.

    Even for offences that could be adequately prosecuted by Nigerian courts, the Federal Government is always too eager to extradite Nigerians abroad for trial.

    The government cannot be totally faulted, in view of the fact that most of such extradition requests are hinged on existing mutual agreements/treaties between Nigeria and such foreign countries.

    The government’s seeming willingness to honour every extradition request is however worrisome, when viewed in the light of the fact that most foreign countries, particularly the United States, hardly allow their citizens to be tried in foreign territories.

    While most of these foreign governments hinge their decisions on the need to protect their national interests and those of their citizens, it seems such considerations never count in the case of Nigeria, where state officials even attempt to extradite Nigerians to countries with which the country has no extradition treaties.

    One of such cases was that involving Kingsley Edegbe.  The Federal Government had, upon a request by the Kingdom of Netherlands, applied to the Federal High Court, Abuja for an order extraditing Edegbe to Netherlands for trial over his alleged involvement in human trafficking.

    Edegbe was said to have allegedly belonged to an international syndicate involved in the trafficking of Nigerian girls to the Netherlands for prostitution and other related acts. He was said to be particularly wanted in connection with the trafficking of about six Nigerian girls, aged 25 from Nigeria to the Netherlands between 2006 and 2007.

    The documents filed along with the extradition application showed that, if successfully extradited, Edegbe would face charges bordering on human trafficking, human smuggling, falsification of travel documents, forgery of travel documents, abduction of minors from the authority having legal custody over them and participating in a criminal organization.

    The alleged offences were said to be punishable by deprivation of liberty of more than one year and covered by Articles 3, 5 and 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (TOC Convention), which Nigeria signed and ratified with its protocol on December 9 and 14 2004.

    But for Justice Ahmed Mohammed’s refusal to grant the order of extradition, Edegbe would have been shipped to a foreign land for trial, even when he allegedly trafficked Nigerian girls, an offence that the Nigerian courts could effectively prosecute.

    Justice Mohammed held, in his judgment, that the Federal Government failed to show that an extradition treaty existed between the country and Netherland on which such order of extradition could be based.

    “The court has not been shown any extradition treaty between Nigeria and the Netherlands upon which the application sought could have been granted.  The reliance on the United Nation’s Convention against Transnational Organised Crime fails because it is not an extradition treaty Act as envisaged by section 1 of the Extradition Act of Nigeria.

    “This court is not prepared to hold that an extradition treaty exits between the Netherlands and Nigeria when there is none. It is a dangerous precedent to abandon an existing law to enable the extradition of the suspect,” the judge said.

    Even when a the country sought the extradition from Sudan, of a Nigerian, Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, the alleged mastermind of the Nyanya bomb blast, the Sudanese government did not jump at the request from Nigeria. It took months of rigorous scrutiny before the Sudanese government could release a Nigerian suspected to have been involve in the commission of a capital offence for trial in his country (Nigeria).

    Some few years ago some foreign citizens were accused of bribing some Nigerian officials in the Siemens, Julius Berger and Halliburton scandal. They were charged in Nigerian courts, but were never tried. Their companies were only made to pay some money as fine to the Nigerian government, after which the officials and their companies were let off the hook.

    However, two senior Siemens officials were found guilty of breach of trust and abetting bribery in Nigeria by a Munich court in Germany.

    Also, the Nigerian government once brought charges against a former ýUnited States’ Vice President, Dick Cheney, who it charged with corruption. He was charged as the Head of Halliburton when the company’s engineering subsidiary, KBR purportedly paid bribes to secure contract in Nigeria.

    The trial never went on as the Nigerian government, on October 14, 2010 ýdiscontinued the case. It was not in public domain whether Federal Government applied to the countries of these foreign nationals for their extradition to Nigeria for them to be tried here.

    Observers are of the view that since the Nigerian government is always eager to send its citizens abroad for trial, it should have also insisted that these foreign citizens were brought to Nigeria for trial.

    The latest case is that involving a former managing director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting (NSMPC) Plc, Emmanuel Okoyomon, who the Federal Government seeks extradite to the United Kingdom for trial.

    Okoyomon is purportedly wanted in UK over his alleged role in the bribery scandal involving officials of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), NSMPC and Securency International Pty of Australia, between 2006 and 2008.

    The government, through AGF applied on September 23 this year, for an order to enable it extradite Okoyomon to the United Kingdom based on a purported request by a UK’s Diplomatic Representatives, based on a supposed extradition treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain, signed in London on December 22, 1931.ý

    At the hearing of the extradition application recently before Justice Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the AGF argued that the 1931 treaty  between the US and Great Britain was binding on Nigeriaý.

    Alex Iziyon (SAN), representing Okoyomon, disagreed, arguing that the treaty which the AGF relied on is not applicable to Nigeria and could not be a ground to extradite a Nigerian Citizen to the UK.

    “There is no treaty between the UK and Nigeria for the purpose of extradition of the respondent (Okoyomon) or any other person contrary to the submissions and assertions of the applicant (AGF). The treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain applied on to pre-independent Nigeria as part of the British colony at the time, and therefore subject at that time, to the treaty.

    “However, after Nigeria’s independence, all the imperial treaties and Acts applicable to Nigeria were repealed by the Extradition Act, Decree No. 87, 1966 which came into force on January 31, 1967.  In the absence of any Act of the National Assembly domesticating or making the said treaty applicable to Nigeria, no Nigerian can be extradited to the UK,” Iziyon said.

    Justice Chukwu has fixed judgment in this case for December 17.

    While many await the court’s judgment on this important case, lawyers have suggested that rather than ýsending Nigerians abroad for trial over cases that could be effectively tried by courts in the country, the government should consider strengthening the courts and prosecuting agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to enhance their capacity to deal with such cases.

    Dr. Richard Chukwuemeka noted that the EFCC hasý experienced investigators and prosecutors, who can handle complex cases. He argued that pandering to foreign authorities by sending our citizens abroad for trial makes the country look cheap before other countries.

    “Nigerian authorities should be reminded that patriotism is not imposed on citizens. It is only when citizens believe that their country can protect their interests at any time that they will be willing to do anything for such a country. We should let citizens’ interests drive our policy direction in this country, particularly on foreign relations.” he said.

    Another  lawyer, Abdulazeez Ahmed of the Centre for Democratic Right (CDR), noted that the prison transfer agreement the country recently signed with the UK will be defeated if “we extradite our people to be tried in the UK only to have them shipped back to Nigeria to serve their prison terms. Those in authorities should reconsider the idea of taking Nigerians abroad to face trial at the behest of other countries, who are always reluctant to treat their citizens that way,” he said.

     

     

  • Ex-Mint boss detained ahead extradition to UK

    Ex-Mint boss detained ahead extradition to UK

    Former Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company (NSPMC) Managing Director Emmanuel Ehidiamhen Okoyomon is to be extradited to Britain for trial.

    Attorney-General of the Federation Mohammed Bello Adoke(SAN) has filed extradition papers in the Court in Abuja as a precondition for Okoyomon’s relocation.

    An Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) source, who spoke in confidence, said: “Okoyomon has been arrested and detained by the anti-graft agency in preparation for his presentation to the court for extradition.

    Britain is seeking Okoyomon’s extradition over his alleged role in the bribery allegation involving officials of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Nigeria Security, Minting and Printing Company (NSPM) and Securency International Pty of Australia between 2006 and 2008.

    “The AGF will argue the application for the extradition in court and once it is endorsed by the judge, we will extradite Okoyomon to the UK,” the source said.

    Okoyomon was the chief executive of the NSMPC until November 2013 when he was suspended by the Board of the CBN in the wake of the N1000 notes disappearance scandal.

    According to some sources, the extradition was approved by the Federal Government, following substantial investigation into the scam by the EFCC in collaboration with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the British National Crime Agency (BNCA).

    It was learnt that the outcome of the investigation revealed a “kind of international network and the diversion of the bribe sums into slush accounts in the UK and Canada”.

    Okoyomon has been under investigation since 2012, following a request by the British National Crime Agency.

    “The request for extradition also followed the discovery by the Australian authorities that some CBN and Mint officials received bribes and kick backs from Securency Pty Limited, a polymer substrate producing company for the contract to produce N20 polymer notes for the CBN between 2006 and 2008.

    Another source gave some insight into the findings of the EFCC and international agencies involved in the probe.

    The bribes were routed through offshore accounts in the UK and other jurisdictions

    The EFCC investigation uncovered a web of forgery, identity fraud and money laundering running into millions of naira.

    The erstwhile Mint boss allegedly used the names of his driver and clerk to open bank accounts in which he diverted funds without their knowledge.

    He allegedly forged a driver’s licence with the photograph of his driver but bearing a different name belonging to his official clerk to open the account in which N368million proceeds of laundered bribery funds were traced, with Okoyomon as the sole beneficiary.

    “Over N750million is alleged to have exchanged hands between officials of the CBN, the NSPMC and Securency International Pty of Australia (now Innovia Security Pty Limited).

    President Umaru Yar‘Adua launched the N5, N10 and N50 polymer notes  on September 30, 2009 at the Presidential Villa.

  • Kashamu: court didn’t order my extradition

    A Chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State, Prince Buruji Kashamu, has refuted media reports that the Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos gave a judgment ordering his extradition to the United States over alleged narcotic charges, adding that “nothing of such exists”.

    He described the report as misleading.

    In a statement yesterday in Lagos by his Media Adviser, Austin Oniyokor, Kashamu said: “Whereas it is true that the court had in an earlier ruling given on the 7th of July, 2013, allowed the appeal by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) against the judgment of the Federal High Court restraining it from exercising its powers against him under Section 6 (2) of the Extradition Act, it did not order the AGF or any institution of the Federal Government to arrest or surrender him to the government of the United States for any offence whatsoever because no such request exists in the first place. As a matter of fact, that ruling has already been appealed to the Supreme Court.

    “The latest court proceedings which his opponents now seek to make political capital out of, has to do with the refusal of the Court of Appeal to uphold his application that it set aside its earlier ruling on the grounds of the “likelihood of bias” given other events that played out while the suit was still pending before the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal.

    “Having been wrest to the ground and defeated on the political front, his opponents have resorted to mudslinging and twisting of obvious facts, goaded on by an obviously interested and biased judge,” he said.

    Giving the background to the issue, Oniyokor said: “The case has its roots in a case of mistaken identity in a drug-related offence, which happened over 19 years ago and for which Prince Kashamu had been discharged and acquitted by the British courts.

    “Following his activities in the political terrain, he got information that his opponents were pressuring the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) to re-open the case and use his office to cause his extradition. He then went to the Federal High Court where he filed a suit to challenge such a move in view of the fact that the British courts had exonerated him.

    “Based on the infallible evidence before it, the Federal High Court held that the AGF could not exercise his powers under the Extradition Act to activate extradition proceedings against Kashamu in circumstances where an English High Court and a District Judge had found that the US authorities had suppressed evidence that exculpated Kashamu from commission of any offence and that Kashamu was not the person involved in the alleged offence. The Federal High Court’s intervention was also based on the finding of the U.S. Circuit Judge that Kashamu is not a fugitive and it had held in its judgment that that decision makes it wrong for the US authorities to bring any extradition proceedings against him in Nigeria.

    “The appeal of the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal and the judgment of that Court as reported in the newspaper did not derogate from these findings as the only issue it appears they were concerned with was how Kashamu knew that the Attorney General was being pressurised to commence extradition proceedings against him. Kashamu had said he got information from someone in the security services whose identity he could not reveal. The Court of Appeal was of the view that this was hearsay as the person should have been brought for cross-examination and on this basis held that Kashamu’s suit in the Federal High Court was premature.”

    Oniyokor said it was laughable that anyone could hurriedly conclude from the decision of the appellate court, which is still subject to appeal, that the court has ordered Kashamu’s extradition for the same allegations that the British courts had exonerated him.

    “The British court, as per Lord Justice Pill and Mr. Justice Bell of the High Court of Justice, Queen Bench Division, has said the US authorities suppressed exculpatory evidence in their desperation to indict Kashamu and discharged him in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Human Rights Act, 1998. The District Judge Tim Workman in finally discharging Kashamu in 2003 had found from the evidence adduced during the three-year trial that Kashamu was not the person sought by the U.S. authorities and it was a case of mistaken identity. The U.S. Judge Norgle, in whose court the indictment was filed, has also held that Kashamu is not a fugitive from Justice. On what basis will the US authorities justifiably request for the extradition of such a person?” Oniyokor said

  • Appeal panel reserves ruling on PDP chieftain’s extradition

    The independent panel set up by the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, to hear the application filed by a chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State, Prince Buruji Kashamu, on his extradition to the United States (U.S.) by the Federal Government, yesterday reserved ruling on the matter.

    Kashamu wants the panel, comprising Justices Isa Akeju, Adu Aboki and Ibrahim Shata, to set aside a judgment regarding his purported extradition to the U.S. by the government.

    The Court of Appeal, Lagos, in its judgment on July 2, set aside an order of perpetual injunction granted in favour of Kashamu by Justice Okechukwu Okeke (rtd.).

    The Attorney-General of the Federation earlier appealed Justice Okeke’s judgment, which restrained the government from entertaining or making any order in respect of any request by the U.S. government for Kashamu’s extradiction for alleged importation of narcotics into the U.S. between 1993 and 1995.

    The government raised three issues for determination – whether the suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action, whether the suit should have commenced by way of an originating summons and whether there was merit in the suit to warrant the granting of Kashamu’s prayers by Justice Okeke.

    In a judgment delivered by Justice Ibrahim Saulawa, the Appeal Court resolved the issues in favour of the Federal Government.

    Kashamu contended that the judgment was delivered without jurisdiction.

    He argued that while the appeal was pending, a petition was written accusing the panel of justices of alleged compromise in another appeal.

    In an affidavit in support of the appeal, Kashamu said he wrote another petition urging the court to constitute an independent panel to hear pending appeals involving him.

    He argued that despite the petition alleging likelihood of bias against the Lagos Division of the court, and without awaiting the outcome of the said petition written to the PCA, a hearing notice was sent out fixing hearing for April 18.

    Kashamu argued that the panel of the Court of Appeal, Lagos, lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal in the circumstances of the unresolved allegation of bias made against it.

    “The judgment of this court delivered on July 2, 2013, is, therefore, a nullity, having been delivered without jurisdiction,” he added.

    At the resumed hearing, counsel to the Federal Government, Emeka Ngige (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, describing it as mischievous and an abuse of court process.

    Ngige asked why Kashamu decided to raise the issue of bias after the judgment was delivered, adding that he had all the time to do so before the court delivered its verdict.

    He said since the appellant had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

    But Kashamu’s lawyer, Ajibola Oluyede, said the issue before the Supreme Court was different from the issues raised in his application, hence there is no abuse of court process.

    He urged the court to grant the application, arguing that the judgment was not delivered on merit.

    After oral submissions by both counsel, the court reserved judgment for a date to be communicated to parties.

     

     

  • Court okays suspect’s extradition to U.S

    Court okays suspect’s extradition to U.S

    A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Federal Government’s request to extradite to the United States (U.S) a Nigerian, Lawal Olaniyi Babafemi, suspected to be a member of the terrorist organisation, al-Qaeda.

    In a ruling yesterday, Justice Ahmed Mohammed granted the application filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and argued by Mr Muslim Hassan, the Head, Central Authority Unit, Federal Ministry of Justice.

    The AGF explained that the application followed a request by the U.S. authorities through its Embassy in Nigeria.

    Justice Mohammed ordered that Babafemi, also known as “Abdullah” and “Ayatollah Mustapher”, be sent to the U.S. within 15 days. He is to remain in the custody of the State Security Service (SSS) until his extradition.

    Justice Mohammed said: “The respondent, Lawal Olaniyi Babafemi (aka Abdullah Ayatollah Mustapher), is not contesting these proceedings, which are meant to extradite him to the United States of America.

    “The respondent’s solicitor only urged the court to take into account the fact that the respondent has been in the custody of the SSS for over 24 months and that the respondent has cooperated with the local authorities in Nigeria.

    “Since there is no form of any objection by the respondent, Lawal Olaniyi Babafemi (aka Abdullah Ayatollah Mustapher), to the application for his extradition, this court is satisfied that the application by the Attorney-General for the extradition of the respondent to the United States of America is proper and in accordance with the Extradition Act 2004.

    “An order is hereby made that the respondent in this case, Lawal Olaniyi Babafemi (aka Abdullah Ayatollah) be extradited to the United States of America to face the indictment against him.”

  • US can’t ask for my extradition, says PDP chief

    A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Ogun State, Prince Buruji Kashamu, has said the government of the United States cannot ask for his extradition because he has not committed any offence against it.

    In a statement yesterday by his Media Adviser, Mr. Austin Oniyokor, he said: “The case referred to in the report was a case of mistaken identity in a drug-related offence which happened over 10 years ago and for which Prince Kashamu had been discharged and acquitted by the British and American courts.

    “Following his activities in the political terrain, he got information that his opponents were pressuring the Attorney- General of the Federation (AGF) to re-open the case and use his office to cause his extradition. He then went to the Federal High Court where he filed a suit to challenge such a move in view of the fact that the British and American courts had exonerated him.

    “Based on the infallible evidence before it, the Federal High Court held that the AGF could not order his extradition because he had been exculpated by the British and American courts. This was the judgment that the AGF appealed against. However, instead of looking at the merits of the case, the appellate court relied on technicalities to set aside the injunction against the AGF. It said it was not enough to rely on information from a source to file an action in court and that the source should have been made to come to court to give evidence and be cross-examined,” the statement read in part.

    Oniyokor said: “The British court, as per Lord Justice Pill and Mr. Justice Bell of the High Court of Justice, Queen Bench Division, has said he did not commit any crime.

    Also, the American Court, as per Lord Tim Workman, in the Row Street Magistrates’ Court, has said he is not a fugitive from justice. So, how can the US Government justifiably request for the extradition of a man who had been discharged and acquitted of the same allegations?’’

    In his ruling, Lord Workman of the US court said “As a result of the evidence that the Defence has placed before me and the evidence which the Government has tendered in rebuttal, I find the following facts: that the defendant has a brother, Alhaji Adewale Adeshina Kashamu who bears a striking resemblance to that of his brother; I am satisfied that the defendant’s brother was one of the co-conspirators in the drugs importation which involved Catherine and Ellen Wolters; I am satisfied that the defendant informed both interpol and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency of the activities of this group.

    “I am however satisfied that the overwhelming evidence here is such that the identification evidence, already tenuous, has now been so undermined as to make it incredible and valueless. In those circumstances, there is then no prima facie case against the defendant and I propose to discharge him.”