The Abuja Division of the Federal High Court, Monday, gave the Federal Government 30 days to extradite an alleged fugitive to the United States of America, USA, to face criminal trial over his alleged involvement in health care fraud.
The Court, in a judgment by Justice Nnamdi Dimgba, said it was satisfied that Ayodeji Temitayo Fatumbi (a.k.a Paul Olawale), had a case to answer before the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
It okayed an application for extradition the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, filed on July 3, which indicated that the Respondent has a 9-count indictment in Criminal No CR13-0324, pending against him in the US.
The AGF had in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/695/2018, told the court that the Respondent was wanted for trial on charges bordering on conspiracy to commit health care fraud on or about September 2003, through in or about January 2013, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 1349.
“Health care fraud on or about June 11, 2008 (Counts 2 and 3), October 14, 2008 (Count 4), May 8 2009 (Count 5), June 17, 2009 (Count 6), September 10, 2009 (Count 7), January 19, 2010 (Count 8), in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Sections 1347 and 2”.
As well as for, “Conspiracy to commit money laundering from in or about August 2006, through in or about March 2010, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 1956”.
In a 5 paragraph affidavit that was deposed to by one Abdallah Mohammed, the AGF, attached a bundle of exhibit that included a certified true copy of the indictment in criminal case CR13-0324 by the Grand Jury in the Central District of California, United States of America and filed on 9th May, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Aside photograph of the Respondent, other exhibits the AGF also tendered before the court were, “A certified true copy of Warrant for the arrest of Ayodeji Fatumbi, Case CR13-0324 and issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California dated 9th May, 2013.
“A copy of the United States of America Laws or Relevant Statutes that provides for the offences and punishment which Ayodeji Fatumbi is indicted.
As well as, “Original copy of affidavit in support or request for Extradition of Ayodeji Fatumbi duly sworn to by Jill Mansfield, a United States Citizen, Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, United States sworn to before Honourable Christina A. Snyder, US District Judge, on the 16th day of May, 2018”.
He urged the court to determine whether the Applicant has placed enough evidence to justify all the preconditions for the grant of an Extradition Order against the Respondent.
The AGF told the high court that he was satisfied that the Respondent was validly indicted for the offences for which his surrender was sought, adding that the request for his extradition and surrender was one that was made in good faith, in compliance with the law and in the interest of justice.
He contended that the offences charged against the Respondent in the extradition request were not trivial nor political in nature and discriminatory.
“Furthermore, the applicant is also satisfied that there is no criminal proceeding against the Respondent in Nigeria for the offences for which his extradition and surrender is sought”, the AGF added.
However, in his reaction to the suit, the Respondent filed a preliminary objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the court to grant the AGF’s request.
Counsel to the Respondent, Mr. Alex Akoja, specifically urged the court to determine, “Whether in the peculiar circumstances of this case and relevant laws on extradition, the Applicant has placed substantial facts and materials to warrant the extradition of the Respondent from his native country Nigeria to the United State of America and whether the Application should not be declined for failure to satisfy the provisions of the law on extradition”.
The Respondent denied all the allegations he maintained were baseless and unfounded.
He argued that the federal government violated the provisions of Order III of the Court’s Extradition Proceedings Rules in that no provisional arrest warrant was issued before he was arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC.
While dismissing the objection, Justice Dimgba said it was not in doubt that the Respondent was arrested on April 11 by operatives of the EFCC and had remained in detention until the receipt of the extradition request that led to the application by the AGF.
“It, therefore, appears to me that when an alleged fugitive is under custody, the provisions of Orders III and IV may not to apply strict senso, since the whole essence is to bring the alleged fugitive before the Court to determine the merit of the extradition request. This I believe having regard to the wording of Order III which has the operative word may and not shall. I therefore do not believe that the Applicant overreached the powers of this Court or deliberately flouted the Extradition Rules.
“I have read all the processes, documents and exhibits before me and listened to the oral submission of counsel in respect of this case, which I must say, I fully understand. This case is on an extradition request from the US government to the Nigerian government.
“While I note the argument of the Respondent that the exhibits of the Applicant have not shown a prima facie case against him, I do not however agree with him.
”This is because such an argument cannot stand in the face of the affidavit of Claire Yan, Trial Attorney of the Fraud Section, Criminal Division of the US Department of Justice, and Exhibit A, the certified copy of the indictment in criminal case CR 13-0324 which respectfully narrated the circumstances that led to the indictment of the Respondent and the alleged offences in which a request for extradition is being made for him to face his trial, and Exhibit C which is a certified copy of the warrant of arrest of the Respondent issued by the US District Court for the Central District of California.
“In any event, the avenue to channel such arguments is before the trial court, which must be the US court that issued the criminal indictment on the basis of which the Extradition request was made. Consequently, I dismiss this argument for lacking in merit.
“In the final analysis, in extradition proceedings, a person is only deemed to be wanted for trial where a court of law has issued a warrant requiring that the person be brought to answer criminal allegations in court. This is quite different from where a person is wanted for questioning, for example, as a witness.
“It was enough to show to the Federal High Court that there was a subsisting indictment against the Respondent as well as a warrant issued by a United States Magistrate Judge for the Respondent’s arrest. These qualified the Respondent as an extraditable person.
“Having carefully examined the processes before me once more, I hereby state that I am convinced that the Applicant satisfied all the above conditions necessary for the extradition of the Respondent as provided in the Extradition Act.
“I, hereby, therefore, issue the order for the extradition of the Respondent to the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Extradition Act (Cap. E25) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria to face trial in respect of the Indictment in Case No. CR13-0323 before the United States District Court For the Central District of California filed on 09 May 2013, and this to be done no later than 30 days from the date of this Judgment.
This is the decision of this Court. And I make no order as to cost,” the Judge held.
