Falana: UK–Nigeria Deportation Agreement Unenforceable Without Legal Backing, Rights Safeguards

Wale Igbintade

Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has faulted the recently announced migration agreement between Nigeria and the United Kingdom, warning that it cannot be enforced in its current form due to constitutional, legal, and human rights concerns.

The agreement, signed during the state visit of President Bola Tinubu to the UK, is designed to fast-track the return of Nigerians without legal residency status, including failed asylum seekers and foreign offenders.

Central to the arrangement is the use of so-called “UK letters” in place of standard travel documents, alongside provisions for reintegration support.

However, Falana argued that the arrangement undermines due process and lowers the threshold for deportation by permitting removals without proper verification of identity or nationality.

According to him, reliance on informal documentation such as “UK letters” raises the risk of wrongful or arbitrary deportations, in violation of established international standards.

He further contended that the agreement is inconsistent with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, particularly the right to fair hearing, as it appears to allow deportations without giving affected individuals adequate opportunity to challenge their removal.

The senior advocate noted that bypassing established procedures for confirming citizenship could lead to cases of mistaken identity and unlawful repatriation.

Falana also maintained that the agreement conflicts with Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

He stressed that Nigeria is required to uphold human dignity, ensure access to legal remedies, and prevent individuals from being returned to situations where they may face harm.

Raising additional concerns, Falana said the policy could infringe on the right to family life of Nigerians residing in the UK, many of whom have established homes, careers, and families.

He cited decisions of UK courts, including ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which emphasise that deportation decisions must consider the best interests of children and be proportionate to the circumstances.

He also criticised the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement, noting that there is no evidence it has undergone legislative scrutiny or public debate in Nigeria.

In a constitutional democracy, he argued, agreements affecting fundamental rights cannot be implemented solely by executive action.

Falana further warned that aspects of the agreement may be declared illegal by Nigerian courts, particularly provisions allowing convicted persons in the UK to serve prison sentences in Nigeria.

He pointed out that under Nigerian law, including the Criminal Code Act and the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, no individual can be admitted into a correctional facility without a valid court order or warrant issued by a judge.

He emphasised that the legal framework in Nigeria does not contemplate the transfer of foreign convicts into its prison system without due judicial process, cautioning that the country must not become a destination for persons convicted abroad.

The senior advocate called for a comprehensive review of the agreement to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions and international obligations.

He stressed that for the agreement to have the force of law in Nigeria, it must be domesticated by the National Assembly in accordance with Section 12(1) of the Constitution.

Until such steps are taken, Falana insisted that no Nigerian citizen should be subjected to arbitrary deportation under the guise of advancing the UK’s migration control objectives.