The AGF had filed an application dated March 5, 2025, seeking an order for Adebiyi’s surrender following a request from authorities in the United Kingdom, where he is wanted in connection with two criminal complaints bordering on murder and narcotics offences.
To support the application, AGF filed a five-paragraph affidavit sworn by a Principal Executive Officer (PEO) from the Central Authority Unit of the International Criminal Justice Cooperation Department, along with relevant documents, including an authenticated arrest warrant issued by a magistrate’s court in Croydon, UK.
The lawyer for the AGF argued that Adebiyi qualified as a “fugitive criminal” 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 argued 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.
But the defence lawyer, Larry Ajanaku, citing potential violations of his client’s constitutional rights, health issues, and dual nationality, argues his case against extradition.
Ajanaku submitted that no validly domesticated extradition treaty existed between Nigeria and the UK and that the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth was merely administrative in nature.
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 maintaining that, as a Nigerian citizen with dual nationality, he could be tried locally for any alleged offences.
In addressing the issues, Justice Faji struck out several paragraphs from the respondent’s further and better counter-affidavit, ruling that they contained legal arguments and conclusions improperly presented in affidavit form, thus violating Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
The judge held that the offences attributed to Matthew Chukwuemeka Adebiyi, also known as Matthew Adebiyi, are both extraditable and offences under Nigerian law.
He further held that the arrest warrant was properly authenticated and signed by the correct UK authority, and that the extradition request largely complied with Section 17 of the Extradition Act.
Regarding treaty domestication, Justice Faji cited appellate authority to affirm that the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth has been largely incorporated into Nigerian law through the Extradition Act, thereby making it binding on Nigeria as a Commonwealth member.
Justice Faji also dismissed health-related objections, noting that the medical report did not state that the respondent was unfit to travel or unable to receive treatment abroad.
He further rejected arguments based on the presumption of innocence, clarifying that extradition proceedings do not establish guilt.
Concluding that Nigeria should honour its international commitments and not serve as a refuge for fugitives, the court granted the application and ordered Adebiyi’s surrender to the United Kingdom.
