In a recent judgment, the ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed a request made by Richard Ugbah, a Nigerian serving a 12-year prison sentence in the United States for wire fraud. Ugbah sought an order from the court to transfer him to Nigeria to complete the remainder of his sentence. However, the court declared that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the matter.
In suit No: ECW/CCJ/ APP/ 18/21, Ugbah, having satisfied the conditions for transfer, approached the ECOWAS Court, arguing that he is a Nigerian citizen residing in the US, convicted and sentenced on charges of wire fraud. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve years in prison on February 14, 2017.
The court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma, stated that the Ministry of Justice of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is not a proper party before the court, upholding a Preliminary Objection raised by the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The court declared the claims as unfounded and without legal basis, consequently dismissing all reliefs sought by Ugbah.
Ugbah, having served eight years of his sentence, sought the court’s intervention based on the conditions outlined in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Handbook on the International Transfer of Sentenced Persons. He argued that the transfer of sentenced persons is a crucial means of international cooperation to combat crimes.
The Respondent, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, raised a Preliminary Objection, contending that Ugbah’s Initiating Application is incompetent under the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP./01/05). They argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and urged the court to strike out the notice of registration for want of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action.
The court, recognizing the removal of the Ministry of Justice as an improper party, struck it out. Additionally, the court found that Ugbah failed to present a valid reason for his complaint against the Respondent. The matter of competence was deemed a legal issue, and the court dismissed the claim while upholding the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection.
This judgment underscores the legal intricacies surrounding jurisdiction in international cases, emphasizing the need for adherence to established protocols and legal frameworks.
