How to Stop Extradition from Nigeria: Grounds for Refusal, Appeals and Deadlines

First establish what decision is actually being challenged

Do not treat an INTERPOL Red Notice, a foreign arrest warrant, a Nigerian warrant and a Federal High Court surrender order as interchangeable. A Red Notice is a police alert, not a Nigerian surrender judgment. Obtain the Nigerian case number, warrant, application, affidavit, exhibits and custody orders. For provisional arrest, check the warrant and formal application; after a surrender order, appeal and stay work may be urgent.

The Nigeria country guide covers the stages. This page focuses on refusal grounds, evidence and remedy deadlines.

Refusal grounds and safeguards under the Extradition Act

Section 3 identifies statutory bars and safeguards. Plead and prove the exact subsection.

Which court hears the challenge?

Constitution section 251(1)(i) and (3) gives the Federal High Court exclusive extradition jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this in A-G Federation v Anuebunwa, SC.CV/118/2021, 13 April 2022. The Extradition (Amendment) Act 2018 amended sections 6–9 to replace the relevant references to a “magistrate” with a Judge of the Federal High Court and inserted section 9(6A) on mistaken identity. The 2015 Rules remain listed among the Federal High Court’s operative rules.

Order III rule 3 of the 2015 Rules directs that a person arrested under a provisional warrant be brought before the issuing judge within 48 hours, or longer if the court considers it reasonable. It does not mean the case ends in 48 hours.

Deadlines: use the trigger, not just the number

Appeals from the Federal High Court ordinarily go first to the Court of Appeal, with a further appeal to the Supreme Court where permitted. Section 24 of the Court of Appeal Act sets 14 days for interlocutory civil appeals and three months for final civil appeals; criminal appeals generally have 90 days from the decision. In A-G Federation v Anuebunwa, the Supreme Court described extradition as sui generis and a peculiar kind of criminal proceedings, but it did not decide how section 24 classifies every kind of extradition order or whether leave is required for a particular appeal. Do not infer a deadline from the label alone. Obtain the order and appeal record immediately, ask Nigerian appellate counsel to confirm the applicable period and leave requirement, and file any notice or application and a separate stay request without waiting. Treat the matter as urgent: these are statutory categories, not a universal deadline for every extradition order.

Habeas corpus is not the same as an appeal

Habeas corpus tests the legality of detention and regularity of the extradition process; it is not a second appeal on every issue. The statutory route is distinct from an ordinary appeal and must be framed around the legality of custody or a procedural defect, not as a second merits hearing.

Sections 10(1) and 12 do different work: a writ, once issued, delays surrender until the court decides the return; section 12 separately permits a discharge application after the two-month period, with reasonable notice to the Attorney-General. Attach the custody chronology and identify the exact statutory trigger. Do not confuse this application with an ordinary appeal.

The Attorney-General can act before or after the court hearing

Under section 6(2), the Attorney-General of the Federation may decline to send a request forward if the available information shows a section 3(1)–(7) bar. Section 14 permits discontinuance and release where surrender is precluded by law or the request is not forthcoming or pursued. If the person is already before the Federal High Court, these executive powers do not replace a court application: present the ground and documents in writing and preserve the judicial remedy.

For competing requests, section 6(4) lets the Attorney-General set priority by considering seriousness, dates, nationality and ordinary residence. Section 6(3) makes Nigerian citizenship relevant, but not an automatic bar. See extradition and dual citizenship.

Check the treaty and domestic legal basis for the requesting state

The instrument depends on the requesting country. Section 1 provides for an order published in the Federal Gazette where an extradition agreement exists; section 2 addresses Commonwealth countries. For the United States, the 1931 US–UK treaty was applied to Nigeria through the Extradition (United States of America) Order 1967. In A-G Federation v Rasheed Abayomi Mustapha (Federal High Court, 9 January 2012), the court treated it as enforceable; the Supreme Court later confirmed in A-G Federation v Anuebunwa (13 April 2022) that this pre-1999 treaty was preserved as existing law under section 315 of the Constitution. Check the instrument and any conditions for the actual requesting state.

Constitution section 12(1) generally provides that a treaty has force of law in Nigeria only to the extent enacted by the National Assembly; however, Anuebunwa confirms that a pre-1999 treaty preserved as existing law under section 315 can be different. Do not assume a convention alone creates an extradition basis. In A-G Federation v Edegbe (Federal High Court, Abuja, 1 July 2014), the Netherlands request was rejected because UNTOC had not been enacted into domestic law and no separate bilateral extradition agreement was identified. That lower-court decision is an example, not a substitute for checking the current treaty, implementing Act or Gazette Order for the requesting state. Nigeria is not an EU Member State, so the European Arrest Warrant does not govern surrender from Nigeria.

Mistaken identity and foreign documents: what Anuebunwa changes

Section 9(6A), inserted by the Extradition (Amendment) Act 2018, requires dismissal and discharge if a mistaken-identity claim is raised and the requesting side leads no evidence satisfactorily rebutting it. In A-G Federation v Anuebunwa, the Supreme Court explained that the requesting authority bears the legal burden of proving identity on the balance of probabilities, while the evidential burden can shift as the record develops. The Court found the photographs and identity documents in that package sufficient; on the cross-appeal, it also treated section 9(6A) as inapplicable to the particular twin-brother argument because the person sought did not claim that he was someone else under the same identity. This does not remove the safeguard in a genuine wrong-person case. Identify each mismatch precisely and support it with sworn identity records, photographs, travel history or biometric discrepancies. The legal burden remains on the requesting authority, but an unsupported denial may fail.

Anuebunwa does not create a blanket exemption for every electronic record. The Court held that the section 84 certificate requirement did not automatically apply to the original authenticated foreign letters and affidavit before it; section 17 of the Extradition Act governed duly authenticated foreign extradition documents in that setting. Authentication, evidential weight, identity, relevance and compliance with statutory or treaty requirements remain distinct issues; challenge only where the record supports it.

How the leading Nigerian judgments fit together

• A-G Federation v Olaniyi Jones, Supreme Court, SC.824/2013, 10 March 2017: same-offence Nigerian proceedings must be pending when the extradition application is filed; later discontinuance did not cure the defect.
• A-G Federation v Anuebunwa, Supreme Court, SC.CV/118/2021, 13 April 2022: confirms Federal High Court exclusivity, limits blanket section 84 objections and requires evidence-based identity analysis; it did not overrule Jones on section 3(5).

For each remedy, connect the legal rule to evidence, the competent court and binding appellate authority. A favourable foreign judgment or an older Nigerian case alone is not enough.

Asylum, human rights and international interim measures

Fear of persecution may support a section 3(2) objection and may also need to be raised through a separate protection process in Nigeria. These are distinct processes: an asylum application does not itself prove the statutory ground or automatically stay surrender. Preserve registration and interview records and seek a specific Federal High Court stay if needed.

For risks to life, dignity or fair hearing, identify the constitutional right and individualised risk linked to surrender. Constitution sections 33–36 address life, dignity, liberty and fair hearing, but do not guarantee refusal for every complaint about the requesting state.

ECtHR Rule 39 is not a remedy against Nigeria. The OHCHR table does not list Nigeria as accepting individual communications under ICCPR Optional Protocol I and marks CAT article 22 as “N/A”. Do not promise either route as an urgent remedy; an international communication is not an automatic stay and does not replace a Nigerian court application.

INTERPOL action is separate from the court case

If a Red Notice or diffusion is involved, check the data and whether the notice remains active. INTERPOL’s official Red Notice guidance says that the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF) can be contacted about personal data. A CCF request is a separate track from the Nigerian court case; do not assume that filing it cancels a Nigerian warrant, releases the person or automatically suspends surrender. Continue meeting court deadlines. See Red Notice removal and CCF representation.

A practical decision tree for the first days

1. No formal application: obtain the provisional warrant and first order; calculate the 48-hour production direction and 30-day section 8(6) period from arrest.
2. Application filed: oppose it with evidence for each section 3 ground. For section 3(5), prove same-offence Nigerian proceedings were pending on the filing date.
3. Identity disputed: raise section 9(6A) and attach evidence comparable with the foreign package.
4. Surrender ordered: calculate the appeal period, file the notice and any leave application, and seek a stay. The 15-day wait is not an appeal deadline.
5. Detention timing is unlawful: consider habeas corpus and, where section 12 applies, discharge after two months with reasonable notice to the Attorney-General.

Example: if neither the section 6 order nor a cancellation-and-release order has arrived within 30 days after arrest under a provisional warrant, section 8(6) requires release at the end of that period. Release does not bar a later request or arrest.

Mistakes that can weaken a sound objection

• Calling a case political without evidence of political character, bad faith or discriminatory purpose.
• Confusing the same-offence bar in section 3(5) with postponement for a different charge or sentence under section 3(6).
• Claiming prior jeopardy without certified proof and a careful comparison of offences.
• Treating a Red Notice as a surrender order or assuming a CCF request pauses court proceedings.
• Confusing habeas corpus, statutory discharge, appeal and stay applications.
• Assuming citizenship, an asylum filing, treaty signature or general human-rights report automatically prevents surrender.
• Using section 84 as a universal objection after Anuebunwa or raising mistaken identity without evidence.
• Waiting while a statutory or appellate clock is running.

Documents to assemble before the next hearing

• Nigerian warrant, extradition application, affidavit, exhibits, custody orders and dated docket.
• Foreign warrant, indictment or conviction judgment, offence and penalty provisions, and limitation material.
• Certified records of prior acquittal, conviction or same-offence proceedings in Nigeria.
• Identity documents and any discrepancy in name, birth date, passport, photograph or biometrics.
• Evidence of persecution, discrimination, political character, delay, health risk or specialty concerns.
• Applicable treaty, implementing Act or Gazette Order, written assurances and a dated custody chronology.

Family abroad can obtain certified records and translations and send complete files. Preserve originals and identify each document’s source.

Questions to ask Nigerian counsel immediately

Ask which section 3 ground the evidence supports; whether the treaty and implementing instrument are verified; what the last order decided; which deadline runs; whether leave or a stay is needed; and whether habeas corpus or section 12 discharge is available. Confirm the binding Supreme Court rule and later cases.

For a case-specific review, use the request page.