The ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed a plea by Richard Ugbah, a Nigerian convicted of wire fraud in the United States, seeking a transfer to complete his remaining sentence in Nigeria. The court ruled on Thursday, December 14, 2023, that it lacked jurisdiction to grant his request.
Ugbah, a Nigerian residing in the U.S., was convicted in February 2017 for wire fraud by the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. He pleaded guilty to another count of conspiracy to commit fraud in November 2017, leading to his 12-year imprisonment. Having served eight years of the sentence, he sought transfer to Nigeria, claiming eligibility under the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Handbook on the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons.
The court began hearing on his application on May 2, 2023.
Represented by legal counsel Augustine Ezenwankwo and Kayode Fasetire, Ugbah sought an order from the ECOWAS Court directing the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Federal Ministry of Justice to initiate the process for his transfer to Nigeria to serve the remainder of his sentence. He argued that such a transfer was justified under international conventions and treaties against transnational crimes.
In response, the Nigerian government, represented by Mrs. Maimuna Lami Shiru and two others, opposed Ugbah’s suit, contending the court’s jurisdiction and challenging the competence of the Ministry of Justice as a proper party in the case, urging the dismissal of the applicant’s claim.
However, the court, represented by Judge Rapporteur Sengu Koroma, supported by a three-member panel, on Thursday, December 14, 2023, upheld the objection raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the first respondent, dismissing Ugbah’s claims as “unfounded and without legal basis.”
In its ruling, the ECOWAS Court struck out the Ministry of Justice’s involvement in the suit following mutual agreement between both parties. It concluded that Ugbah failed to present a valid reason for his complaint against the respondent and that the court lacked the legal authority to hear and determine the case, consequently dismissing the claim and upholding the respondent’s preliminary objection.
