The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the extradition of a Nigerian, Temitope Omotade, to the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to face trial on allegations including wire fraud.
Justice Peter Lifu ruled that the Attorney-General of the Federation’s (AGF) application for Omotade’s extradition to the U.S. was meritorious. Omotade is named in a superseding five-count indictment in case number 22-CR-24 SRN/HB, filed on Feb. 8, 2022, at the U.S. District Court.
Counts one, two, and three allege mail and wire fraud under Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1349, each carrying a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. Counts four and five allege aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting under Title 18, U.S. Code, Sections 1028A(a)(1) and 2, each carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison, to run consecutively to any other sentence.
The AGF’s application stated that the request was supported by an extradition packet and diplomatic notes from the U.S., including a sealed indictment and an arrest warrant for Omotade. He argued that all statutory requirements under the Extradition Act were met, as the offences are non-political, non-trivial, and committed in good faith. The Central Authority Unit confirmed that the request included proper certifications and documentation, such as affidavits from U.S. officials, relevant statutes, and passport details. The AGF also noted there were no pending local criminal proceedings against Omotade in Nigeria and that assurances of a fair trial in the U.S. had been obtained.
He stated that the request and supporting documents met all conditions for Omotade’s surrender, and that Omotade was the sole respondent in suit FHC/ABJ/CS/494/2024.
The AGF maintained that all legal procedures complied with the Oaths Act and the Extradition Act, and argued that justice required granting the request, “as the respondent is duly accused of the indictments brought against him abroad.” In response, Omotade, through his lawyer, asked the court to dismiss the suit.
Omotade denied all allegations of mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and aggravated. Omotade denied all allegations, stating that his connection to Roxanne Gilbert did not involve any criminal conspiracy or illicit proceeds. He argued that the extradition application lacked substantive proof and statutory basis. trails, chat histories, or video calls, reducing the case to mere identification particulars like a passport data page and air waybill rather than active culpability, while pointing to potential identity theft by third parties.
He stated he was receiving specialist medical care for hepatic steatosis (fatty liver) and elevated liver functions. He argued that extradition would be unjust and disproportionate due to his fragile health and the physical demands of international transfer and detention by the EFCC.
Justice Lifu, after reviewing the affidavits, documentary evidence, counsel submissions, and the Extradition Act, found that the AGF had established sufficient grounds for Omotade’s extradition to the United States.
The judge observed that although Omotade cited health reasons in his arguments, the materials as presented did not show that extradition would expose him to serious medical risks, that necessary treatment would be unavailable in the U.S., or that extradition would be practically unjust or oppressive.
“In the absence of sufficient evidence establishing the asserted degree of risk, I am unable to hold that the respondent’s medical condition, standing alone, constitutes a legal bar to surrender in this case.
“I have equally considered the other restrictions contained in Section 3 of the Act,” the judge said.
Justice Lifu, therefore, held that no sufficient material had been established before the court to show that the request was made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing Omotade on account of his race, religion, nationality, political opinions, “or that any of the other applicable statutory restrictions necessarily precludes his surrender.”
According to him, the purpose of extradition proceedings is not to determine the respondent’s guilt in advance, as noted earlier, nor to deprive him of the protections available under the law.
“It is to ensure that a request for surrender is examined judicially and that the person sought is surrendered only where the applicable statutory requirements have been satisfied.
“The respondent will retain the opportunity to contest the allegations against him in accordance with the law and procedure applicable to the criminal proceedings in the requesting country.
“The objections raised by the respondent do not, on the evidence and arguments presented, constitute sufficient grounds for refusing the application.
“Accordingly, an order is hereby made extraditing the respondent, Temitope Seyi Omotade, who is a subject in a superseding five-count indictment referred in this case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, United States of America,” he ruled.
The judge also dismissed Omotade’s bail application filed on September 16.
