Court Orders AGF To Produce Ozekhome’s Passport, Fixes Thursday For Ruling On UK Medical Trip Application

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Maitama, Abuja, has scheduled a ruling on an application by Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, seeking permission to travel to the United Kingdom for medical treatment. The application arose in the context of a 12-count charge of forgery and impersonation against Ozekhome and his co-defendant, Ponfa Useni, related to a disputed property in London. Crucially, the court ordered the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to produce the international passports of the defendants, which were held by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) despite earlier bail conditions requiring their submission to the court. This development highlights the intricate balance between an accused person's fundamental right to health and liberty, and the state's interest in ensuring due process and preventing flight risk in ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, recently made a significant order directing the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to produce the international passports of Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, and his co-defendant, Ponfa Useni. This directive came during proceedings concerning an application filed by Chief Ozekhome, a prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria, seeking leave to travel to the United Kingdom for urgent medical attention. The court, presided over by Justice Chizoba Oji, has fixed a date for ruling on the medical trip application, a decision that underscores the judiciary's role in adjudicating complex matters at the intersection of criminal justice, fundamental human rights, and the exercise of judicial discretion.

This development is particularly noteworthy for legal practitioners, as it touches upon critical aspects of bail conditions, the custody of travel documents in criminal trials, and the procedural requirements for seeking temporary variations of such conditions. The underlying charges against Chief Ozekhome and Mr. Useni involve serious allegations of forgery and impersonation related to a property dispute in the United Kingdom, adding a layer of complexity to the court's deliberations. The prosecution, represented by the Office of the AGF, notably did not oppose the application for medical travel, which may influence the court's ultimate decision, provided the passports are duly produced.

The article will delve into the legal framework governing travel restrictions for defendants on bail in Nigeria, examine the implications of the court's order for the AGF and the EFCC, and discuss the broader considerations for courts when balancing an accused person's right to health against the imperatives of criminal prosecution.

The legal framework governing bail and associated conditions in Nigeria is primarily enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015. Section 35(4) of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and stipulates that any person arrested or detained should be brought before a court within a reasonable time and shall be entitled to bail, except in specific circumstances. The ACJA 2015, particularly Section 158, further reinforces the right to bail, outlining conditions under which bail may be granted or denied.

When granting bail, courts often impose conditions designed to ensure the defendant's attendance at trial and to prevent interference with the administration of justice. Common conditions include the provision of sureties, financial security, and, significantly, restrictions on movement, which often entail the submission of international passports to the court. These measures are intended to mitigate the risk of flight, especially in cases involving serious offenses or where there is a perceived likelihood of the defendant absconding from the jurisdiction. The discretion to impose and vary these conditions rests with the court, which must exercise it judiciously and judicially, considering the facts of each case.

In the present matter, Chief Ozekhome and Ponfa Useni were arraigned on February 27 on a 12-count charge of conspiracy, forgery, and impersonation, stemming from a dispute over a property in the United Kingdom. Following their arraignment, the FCT High Court granted them bail, mandating the submission of their international passports as a condition. The subsequent revelation that the passports were held by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) rather than the court registry, as directed, raised procedural questions and necessitated the court's order for the AGF to produce the documents.

The court's order for the Attorney-General of the Federation to produce Chief Ozekhome's passport is a critical procedural step, highlighting the complexities of inter-agency cooperation and compliance with judicial directives in Nigeria's criminal justice system. The fact that the passports, which were part of the bail conditions, were with the EFCC and not the court registry, as initially ordered, suggests a potential lapse in the execution of the court's directive or an administrative oversight. The AGF, as the chief law officer of the federation, is ultimately responsible for the prosecution of criminal matters and ensuring compliance with court orders by federal agencies. The court's insistence on the production of the passports before ruling on the travel application underscores the principle that all parties, including state agencies, must adhere strictly to judicial pronouncements.

Chief Ozekhome's application to travel for medical treatment invokes the fundamental right to health and the right to liberty, which are protected under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution. While bail conditions, including travel restrictions, are legitimate tools to ensure a defendant's presence at trial, courts are often inclined to grant temporary variations for compelling medical reasons, provided there is credible evidence of the medical necessity and assurances of the defendant's return. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 emphasize the speedy and efficient enforcement of human rights, treating cases involving liberty as emergencies. The defence counsel's assurance that Ozekhome would return the passport within three days of his return from the six-week medical trip, coupled with the prosecution's lack of opposition, are factors that typically weigh in favour of such an application.

However, the court's discretion is not unfettered. It must consider the nature and seriousness of the charges, which in this case involve allegations of forgery and impersonation related to a UK property dispute, where a London tribunal had already implicated Ozekhome in a web of fraud and forged documents. The Nigeria Immigration Service has also disowned the 'Tali Shani' passport at the centre of the allegations, stating it has no record in its database. These circumstances could raise concerns about flight risk, despite the prosecution's non-opposition. Courts generally require robust medical evidence, including reports from local and international doctors, to substantiate the necessity of foreign medical treatment. The court will likely scrutinize the medical reports to ascertain the urgency and the inadequacy of local medical facilities before granting the application. Precedents in Nigerian jurisprudence show that courts balance the constitutional right to health with the need to prevent abuse of court processes and ensure that justice is not perverted. The court's decision will ultimately hinge on its assessment of these competing interests and the reliability of the assurances provided by the defence.

The FCT High Court's impending ruling on Chief Mike Ozekhome's application for a medical trip to the UK serves as a crucial reminder to legal practitioners of the delicate balance courts must strike between upholding fundamental human rights and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice process. The procedural hiccup regarding the custody of the passports highlights the importance of meticulous adherence to court orders by all parties, including prosecuting agencies, to avoid unnecessary delays and potential challenges to judicial authority. Practitioners must ensure that bail conditions are clearly understood and strictly complied with, and that any applications for variation are supported by comprehensive and verifiable evidence.

For attorneys representing clients facing similar travel restrictions, this case underscores the necessity of presenting compelling medical evidence and providing credible assurances of return. The prosecution's non-opposition, while significant, does not automatically guarantee a favourable outcome, as the court retains its inherent discretion to evaluate all circumstances, including the gravity of the charges and any potential flight risk. The ultimate decision by Justice Oji will provide further clarity on the judicial approach to such applications, reinforcing the principles of justice, fairness, and the protection of fundamental rights within the Nigerian legal landscape. Practitioners should closely monitor the ruling for its implications on the practice of criminal defence and the enforcement of bail conditions in high-profile cases.