The Supreme Court has ordered extradition of ex-Chairman of Nigerian Security Printing and Minting Company, Okoyomon, to United Kingdom for trial over alleged bribery charges.
The Court approved UK extradition request after legal review. Judges ruled Okoyomon must face trial abroad, dismissing arguments against surrender to British authorities.
In a unanimous decision, a five-member panel of the apex court dismissed an appeal Okoyomon filed to set aside the June 6, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which gave the Federal Government the go-ahead to extradite him to the UK for trial.
The appellate court had found no reason to overturn an order the Federal High Court in Abuja made on May 4, 2015, granting a request by the Attorney General of the Federation for permission to extradite Okoyomon to the UK. While upholding the concurrent verdicts of the lower courts, the Supreme Court panel, led by Justice Mohammed Garba, held that Okoyomon’s appeal was “bereft of merit.”
In the lead judgment, prepared by Justice Emmanuel Agim but read on Friday by Justice Mohammed Idris, the apex court held that the former NSPM boss did not make out any case to require it to interfere with the findings of the two lower courts. The court dismissed the appeal, though the panel refrained from awarding costs against the appellant.
The Attorney General of the Federation had applied for the appellant to be extradited to face trial in the UK, where he has been accused of complicity in a bribery allegation involving officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria, the NSPM, and Securency International Pty of Australia. Shortly after the application was granted, Okoyomon took the case before the appellate court, where he alleged a breach of his right to a fair hearing.
The appellate court, in its lead judgment delivered by Justice Moore Adumein, resolved three out of four questions raised by the appellant against him. Justice Adumein held that, contrary to Okoyomon’s contention, Nigeria has an obligation under the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth to extradite a person sought in respect of an extradition offence to another Commonwealth country.
“This provision is substantially supported by the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act 2004. The lower court was right to have acted the way it did, so as to avoid a situation whereby Nigeria could breach its obligations to a fellow Commonwealth country, the UK,” Justice Adumein held.
“The provisions of the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth have been substantially enacted into law in Nigeria. The learned trial judge, in my humble view, rightly held that the respondent made out a case to justify why the extradition application should be granted, while the appellant failed, by his defence, to convince the court why the application should be refused.”
The appellate court further stated: “The resolution of issue number three in favour of the appellant would not affect the final outcome of this appeal. This is so because the appellant has not shown how the failure to hear him on the point raised suo motu by the trial judge, on whether or not he is a British citizen, occasioned any miscarriage of justice.”
“The law is that to warrant an appellate court’s reversal of a lower court’s decision, the appellant must show that the failure to hear him on the point raised and resolved suo motu occasioned a miscarriage of justice. In this case, whether or not the appellant is a British citizen did not affect the merit of the application for an order for his extradition, which the trial court rightly found to be meritorious based on the facts supplied by the applicant.”
“Since the threshold issues in this appeal have been resolved against the appellant, this appeal ought to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed,” the appellate court held. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellant filed the appeal that the Supreme Court dismissed on Friday.
