Court orders extradition of alleged fugitive to UK over drug charges

In the application, AGF had sought an order for Adebiyi’s surrender following a request from authorities in the UK, where he is wanted in connection with two criminal complaints bordering on murder and narcotics offences.

READ ALSO: Reflections on developments in polytechnic education

In support of the application, AGF filed a five-paragraph affidavit deposed to by a Principal Executive Officer (PEO) in the Central Authority Unit of the International Criminal Justice Cooperation Department, attaching relevant documents including an authenticated arrest warrant issued by a magistrate court in Croydon, UK.

AGF’s lawyer had argued that the respondent (Matthew Chukwuemeka Adebiyi, a.k.a Matthew Adebiyi), qualified as a “fugitive criminal” under Section 21 of the Extradition Act, relying on judicial authorities including ORHTUNU v. FRN and ANUEBUNWA v. A.G.F.

The lawyer maintained that the court’s duty at this stage was not to determine guilt but to ascertain whether a prima facie case existed and whether the statutory preconditions for extradition had been met.

The respondent, (Matthew Chukwuemeka Adebiyi, a.k.a Matthew Adebiyi), through his counsel, Larry Ajanaku, opposed the application, filing a counter-affidavit and further submissions. Wherein he contended that extradition would violate his constitutional rights to fair hearing, personal liberty, and dignity as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution.

Ajanaku further argued that no domesticated extradition treaty existed between Nigeria and the UK and that the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth was merely administrative.

The lawyer also claimed that his client was suffering from a chronic medical condition requiring constant monitoring and that extradition would disrupt his treatment. While maintained that, as a Nigerian with dual nationality, he could be tried here for any alleged offences.

In resolving the issues, Justice Faji struck out several paragraphs of the respondent’s further and better counter-affidavit for offending Section 115 of the Evidence Act, describing them as legal arguments and conclusions improperly introduced in an affidavit.

The court held that the offences for which Matthew is sought are extraditable and are also offences under Nigerian law. It found that the warrant of arrest was duly authenticated and signed by the appropriate UK authority, and that the request complied substantially with Section 17 of the Extradition Act.

On the question of treaty domestication, the judge relied on appellate authority to hold that the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth has been substantially incorporated into Nigerian law through the Extradition Act and is binding on Nigeria as a Commonwealth country.

Justice Faji rejected the health-related objections, noting that the medical report did not state that the respondent was unfit to travel or incapable of receiving treatment abroad. He also dismissed arguments concerning the presumption of innocence, emphasizing that extradition proceedings are not a determination of guilt.

Holding that Nigeria must honour its international obligations and should not become a haven for fugitives, the court granted the application and ordered Adebiyi’s surrender to the UK.