Friday, January 12, 2018

*CAN THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS BE EXTRADITED?* by Dr. Mbeli Valentine Tebi, *Courtesy BA SAMA II.*



A MUST READ BY LAWYERS*. 

*Please take a time and read this post from Dr. Mbeli Valentine Tebi. He holds a PhD in law from Nigeria and is currently the dean of the faculty of law in a Ugandan university*. 

He explains the worries most of us have on the arrest of the leaders of Ambazonia. 

*CAN THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS BE EXTRADITED?*

*INTRODUCTION*

A few days ago i wrote on the arrest of the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia by the Nigerian authorities apparently at the behest of the Cameroonian authorities. In that write-up i dwelt more on the socio-political dimensions of the arrest and how possibly it will play out. 
In this piece, i intend to engage some topical legal issues relating to extradition in particular of whether those arrested are extraditable. 

*WHAT IS EXTRADITION?*

For purposes of this article, i will like to adopt the definition of the Nigerian Court of Appeal in George Udeozor v Federal Republic of Nigeria, where it defined extradition as "the process of returning somebody, upon request, accused of a crime by a different legal authority to the requesting authority
for trial or punishment". In other words, extradition is a legal process where one jurisdiction known as the requested state is made to deliver to another jurisdiction known as a requesting state, a person or persons accused or convicted of crime in the requesting jurisdiction. Such a person or persons are therefore returned to face trial or serve any punishment validly handed down by a court of competent jurisdiction in the requesting state. 

*LAWS GOVERNING EXTRADITION*
 
As a rule of international law, extradition is not automatic i.e. there is no obligation on states to extradite suspects or offenders to other sovereign states. To that extent, extradition is largely regulated by conventional international law through the instrument of treaties. This rule however operates subject to an exception as we shall see subsequently.

 Even where there exists an extradition treaty allowing a sovereign state to arrest and deliver a fugitive to another state to stand trial of serve a punishment, there is an explicit legal procedure that must be followed. This procedure is espoused in the relevant statutory instruments. A key point to note is that extradition is not simply an arrest and handover process. It has to go through the rigorous process of court adjudication where an application to that effect may either be granted or rejected. A decision not favourable to any party to an extradition suit may equally be appealed through the relevant appellate channels to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court. 

That having said, it is important to address the question as to the applicable law in extradition cases. Where there exist a valid extradition treaty between two sovereigns, and a request has been duly made by the requesting state, the matter has to be submitted to the jurisdiction of the requested state in which case the applicable law is that of the requested state. 

Assuming without conceding that a request has been duly made by Cameroon to Nigeria to arrest and deliver the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, it will follow from the foregoing analysis that the applicable law will be that of Nigeria.

In Nigeria, there is a plethora of statutory instruments governing extradition proceedings. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended lays down a broad legal framework which vest exclusive jurisdiction to hear extradition matters in the Federal High Court. The constitutional framework is operationalised by a number of legislative and regulatory instruments, notably, the Extradition Act and the Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules 2015. 

*REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTRADITION*

It has already been mentioned that the existence of a valid extradition treaty is condition sine qua non for extradition to take place. This stems from the fact that there is no obligation under international law to extradite. It equally resonates with the rule of international law that parties to a particular treaty should be bound by their agreement (pacta sunt servanda).

Following this principle, the court in George Udeozor v.Federal Republic of Nigeria, held that "the right of one State (country in the present circumstance), to request of another, the extradition of a fugitive accused of crime, and the duty of the country in which the fugitive finds asylum to surrender the said fugitive, exist only when created by a treaty"
Riding on the principle of law and the decision of court cited above, it may easily lead to the conclusion that the Nigerian Court will be in want of jurisdiction to grant an extradition order for the simple fact that there is no extradition treaty between Nigeria and Cameroon. 
However, it does not end there. There is indeed a leeway which the government of Cameroon may likely exploit. This comes from the categorisation of states under the Nigerian Extradition Act. Aside the general rule that the Extradition Act is only applicable to a State that has an extradition treaty with Nigeria, the Act, by way of exception makes special recognition of Commonwealth states under section 2 (1) in that that the Act is applicable to “every separate country within the Commonwealth" The necessary implication here is that in the absence of an extradition treaty, extradition proceedings are still maintainable having regards to section 2(1) of the Extradition Act. This is similar to the common law principle of rendition. 

But still this does not come cheaply as the court is bound to take into consideration all material facts and principles of law relevant to extradition. While it is clear on the face of it that Cameroon can make an extradition request to Nigeria on the strength of its membership of the Commonwealth as guaranteed under section 2(1) of the Extradition Act, it remains arguable whether the Attorney General of Nigeria can successfully initiate and secure the granting or an extradition order by the Federal High Court. This takes us to the procedure for extradition under Nigerian law.

*PROCEDURE FOR EXTRADITION*
 
Attention must be brought to the fact that an extradition proceedings is in many ways similar to any other court proceedings with the parties relying on all relevant facts and the court guided by the rules of evidence in particular of relevancy and admissibility. 
The procedure for extradition starts with a request for the surrender of a fugitive criminal, made in writing to the Attorney-General of the Federation of Nigeria. The request is made by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of the country making the extradition request. Upon receiving the request, the Attorney-General has the discretion as to whether or not to initiate extradition proceedings. The discretion of the Attorney-General means he cannot be compelled by order of mandamus or otherwise to initiate extradition proceedings where he has exercised the discretion to not proceed. 

Where the Attorney General opts to initiate extradition proceedings, he makes a substantive application to the Federal High Court alongside the relevant supporting documents as required by the Federal High Court (Extradition Proceedings) Rules. On the basis of the application, an extradition hearing is then slated with the A.G first addressing the Court and arguing for the surrender of the fugitive to the requesting state. Where the court makes an order for the extradition of the fugitive then he may be surrendered after the time stipulated by the order.

WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE

 *DEFENCES AGAINST THE EXTRADITION REQUEST OF CAMEROON AGAINST THE AMBAZONIA LEADERS?*

Should it turn out that the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria decides to make a substantive application to the Federal High Court for an extradition order against the leaders of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia, this will be a fiercely contested legal battle where the standard of proof must be beyond all reasonable doubts. Here are some possible line of defences that may be explored by Counsel to the respondent. 
Failure to convince the court that the application for extradition order is incompetent for want of an extradition treaty between Nigeria and Cameroon, Counsel may proceed to argue that the offences alleged to have been committed by the leaders are not extraditable offences. This can successfully be argued within the ambit of the Nigerian law. 

1.) It is trite law that an extradition order will not been granted where it is aimed at prosecuting or punishing the fugitive on account of the fugitive’s race, religion, nationality or political opinions. See Section 3(2) (a) Extradition Act. Political offences are clearly not extraditable. According to United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Country Office Nigeria these offences are "acts or conducts that are directed against government or sovereign authorities of state without elements of common crime. These crimes violate the State and not any individual person". Examples of political offences have been given by Kenelly J.J. to include: treason, sedition, espionage and to a large extent disagreement with state ideology. The crimes alleged to have been committed by the Ambazonian leaders by all descriptions fit the notion of political crimes which as earlier indicated, are not extraditable.
2.) The likelihood of an unfair trial in the requesting country. The idea behind extradition is not to try the accused for alleged crime but to ensure that the fugitive is delivered to face trial under the relevant penal laws of the requesting country. Although rules of private international law forbid the application of foreign penal laws in Nigeria, the Nigerian court must however take cognizance of the basic rules of criminal procedure, in particular of the right to fair hearing. Therefore even where the offence committed by the fugitive is not political and is otherwise extraditable, an extradition request will nonetheless be rejected if the fugitive offender is likely to be prejudiced at his trial, or to be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty, by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions. If the Attorney General makes a request for extradition and the fugitive will be subjected to an unfair trial or unlawful discrimination in the requesting State, the fugitive may prove the relevant facts to the notice of the Judge. A clear case of impermissible unfairness that is likely to result from the extradition of those arrested and which the Nigerian court must remain alive to is the fact that the said offences are to be tried by a military tribunal in clear violation of the fundamental rule of criminal justice which forbids the trial of civilians in military court. Under the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, it is a mandatory ground for refusing extradition if the offence for which extradition is requested is an offence under military law. 
3.) Torture. The Nigerian Court will not grant an extradition order where there is incontrovertible evidence to show that the fugitive criminal will be exposed to torture by the requesting state. This is because Nigeria is a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 3 of the Convention expressly prohibits state parties from expelling, returning “refouler”, or extraditing any person to a state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Evidence gathered from the Maximum Security Prison in Yaounde, the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment administered on prisoners, and most especially those hidden in BUNKERS can all attest to an eminent danger of torture. It fact, there is informed public opinion that a release of the leaders of Ambazonia will mean releasing for execution and nothing less. The is a strong point which the court can rely on to dismiss any application for an extradition order.  
In summation, the Ambazonian leaders stand a good chance of challenging the the request for their extradition by the Federal Government of Nigeria to Cameroon.

*JUST TO INCREASE THE LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OF LAWYERS ON EXTRADITION LAW.* 

 *Courtesy BA SAMA II.*


No comments: