Court orders extradition of Nigerian to US over alleged wire fraud, others

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 his trial over allegations bordering on wire fraud, among others. Justice Peter Lifu, in a judgment, held that the application made by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) was meritorious. The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the AGF had made the application for the extradition of Omotade to the U.S.

He is a suspect in a superseding five-count indictment bordering on five counts in case number 22-CR-24 SRN/HB filed on Feb. 8, 2022, at the US District Court. The offences in counts one, two and three bordered on mail and wire fraud in violation of Title 18 US Code, Sections 1341 and 1343, and 1349, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison in each of the counts.

Counts four and five bordered on aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, in violation of Title 18 US Codes, Sections 1028A (a)(1) and 2, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison for each count, consecutive to any other term of imprisonment imposed on the defendant. In the AGF’s application, he contended that the request was grounded on an extradition packet and diplomatic notes from the US, including a sealed indictment from the U.S.

District Court for the District of Minnesota and a warrant for Omotade’s arrest. He argued that all statutory requirements under the Extradition Act have been met because the offences are non-political, non-trivial, and made in good faith. He submitted that the Central Authority Unit had established that proper certifications and documentation, including affidavits from US officials, relevant statute copies, and passport details, accompanied the formal request.

Besides, the AGF said there were no pending local criminal proceedings in Nigeria against Omotade for the specified offences, and adequate assurances regarding nonprejudicial trial conditions in the US had been secured. He asserted that the request and accompanying materials satisfied all conditions for the surrender of Omotade, who was the sole respondent in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/494/2024.

The AGF maintained that the legal procedures complied with the Oaths Act and the Extradition Act, adding that the interest of justice dictated that the request be granted, “as the respondent is duly accused of the indictments brought against him abroad.” But Omotade, in his counter-affidavit filed by his lawyer, prayed the court to dismiss the suit.

Omotade denied all allegations of mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and aggravated identity theft, maintaining that his connection to Roxanne Gilbert involved no criminal conduct or digital proceeds. He contended that the extradition application lacked substantive proof and statutory backing for several reasons. According to him, the supporting documents lack any blockchain analysis, financial trails, chat histories, or video calls, reducing the case to mere identification particulars like a passport data page and airway bill rather than active culpability, while pointing to potential identity theft by third parties.

He said he was under active specialist medical management for hepatic steatosis (fatty liver) and elevated liver functions, among other arguments. He argued that his surrender would be unjust, oppressive and disproportionate given his fragile health and the physical rigours of international transfer and detention by the EFCC, among other arguments.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Lifu held that upon careful consideration of the affidavits, the documentary evidence, the submissions of learned counsel and the relevant provisions of the Extradition Act, he was satisfied that the AGF had established the necessary basis for Omotade’s extradition of the United States of America. The judge observed that though Omotade cited health reasons in his arguments, he said the materials as presented in the record did not sufficiently establish that if Omotade surrendered himself, it would expose him to a grave and unavoidable medical consequence, or that the necessary medical attention could not be obtained in the requesting country.

He agreed with the AGF that medical care is available in the US and that Omotade had not discharged the burden of establishing that the 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, or political opinions, “or that any of the other applicable statutory restrictions neces