Justice Ayokunle Faji of the Federal High Court in Lagos has ordered the extradition of convicted drug offender Uzoma Ilomuanya to the United Kingdom to serve a 66-month prison sentence imposed on him by a British court for drug-related offences.
Ilomuanya, also known as Val, Valentine Ilomuanya, and Henry Ilomuanya, was ordered to be surrendered to the UK after the court upheld an application filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation under the Extradition Act.
In the judgment delivered on July 6, 2026, Justice Faji held that the Federal Government had satisfied all the legal requirements for the fugitive’s extradition.
The application, filed on March 6, 2026, followed a formal request by the United Kingdom for Ilomuanya’s return after he was convicted and sentenced by the Isleworth Crown Court. He had absconded while on bail and was subsequently tried in absentia.
Justice Faji held that the Attorney-General established a prima facie case by producing all the necessary extradition documents, including an authenticated certificate of conviction, a warrant of arrest issued by UK authorities, and diplomatic communications requesting Ilomuanya’s surrender.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney-General of the Federation v. Princewill Ugonna Anuebunwa (2022), the judge ruled that the offences for which Ilomuanya was convicted were extraditable and that the UK’s request complied with the provisions of Nigeria’s Extradition Act.
The court dismissed Ilomuanya’s argument that the application was invalid because it was not personally signed by the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Justice Faji held that under Section 4 of the Law Officers Act, the Attorney-General is permitted to delegate the signing of official documents to officers within the Federal Ministry of Justice.
He said, “The presence of the seal of a law officer in the chambers of the Attorney-General substantially complies with the law. Technical objections relating to signatures, seals, or the failure to tick the signatory’s name cannot invalidate these proceedings.”
The judge also rejected Ilomuanya’s challenge to the authenticity of the conviction documents from the United Kingdom.
According to him, the certificate of conviction and other supporting documents bore original signatures and were authenticated before a district judge in the UK, making them presumptively authentic.
He held that original public documents from a foreign jurisdiction do not require further certification where there is no evidence challenging their validity.
Justice Faji further dismissed the argument that the extradition request did not emanate from the proper authorities.
He held that communications from officials of the UK Central Authority and the British High Commission in Nigeria constituted valid diplomatic requests under the Extradition Act.
“The principles of international comity require Nigerian courts to accord due recognition to official communications issued by competent foreign authorities in extradition matters,” the judge held.
On Ilomuanya’s claim that pending criminal proceedings in Nigeria barred his extradition, the court found that the objection lacked merit.
Justice Faji noted that the criminal charge previously pending against the respondent had been discontinued by the prosecution before the extradition proceedings commenced.
He held that the Notice of Discontinuance filed on February 24, 2026, effectively terminated the case, leaving no pending criminal proceedings capable of preventing his surrender under the Extradition Act.
The court also rejected Ilomuanya’s contention that the 13-year delay between his conviction and the extradition request rendered the proceedings oppressive.
Justice Faji observed that the respondent had fled the United Kingdom while on bail and could not rely on the delay caused by his actions to defeat justice.
“I do not, however, see anything inordinate in sending a convict back to the place of conviction, even after 13 years, as in this case,” the judge said.
He added, “What it means is that a duly convicted person who jumped bail must not be allowed to escape the long arms of the law.”
The judge equally dismissed Ilomuanya’s claim that ill health prevented him from travelling to the UK.
Ilomuanya had told the court he was undergoing traditional medical treatment in Imo State and could not endure flights lasting more than two hours.
However, Justice Faji held that no credible medical evidence was placed before the court.
“There is no report from any orthodox medical practitioner, no meaningful description of the alleged ailment, and no particulars identifying the traditional medical practitioner said to be treating the respondent,” the judge held.
He also questioned how Ilomuanya was able to travel from the United Kingdom to Nigeria if he was medically incapable of undertaking long-distance flights.
Justice Faji concluded that the health claim appeared to have been raised merely to frustrate the execution of the sentence imposed by the British court.
Emphasising Nigeria’s international obligations, the judge said, “The treaty obligations of Nigeria ought to be complied with and observed by all organs involved in law and order.”
Having found merit in the Attorney-General’s application, the court granted the request and ordered Ilomuanya’s extradition to the United Kingdom to serve the outstanding 66-month prison sentence imposed by the Isleworth Crown Court.
