Why UK-Nigeria Agreement On Deportation Can’t Be Enforced

By Femi Falana, SAN

During the State Visit of President Bola Tinubu tothe United Kingdom last week, it was announced that some agreements were signed by Nigeria and
the United Kingdom.

In particular, the Migration Partnership Agreement is aimed at fast-tracking the return of Nigerians with no legal right to remain in the UK, including failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals.

The agreement simplifies identification using “UK letters” instead of passports for returns and offers reintegration support.
While the agreement is being presented as a win for border control and bilateral cooperation, it
clearly risks sacrificing due process, constitutional safeguards, and human rights in the name of
administrative convenience. In the first place, the use of “UK letters” to return Nigerians is not and
cannot be a substitute for proper travel
documents.

While the use of such letters may theoretically remove bureaucratic delays, it is fundamentally at odds with international human rights standards, as it, for example, lowers the
threshold for deportation—potentially allowing individuals to be removed without proper verification of their identity or nationality.

This raises the risk of wrongful or arbitrary
deportations. The agreement also lacks fair trial guarantees and
is inconsistent and incompatible with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended],
which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, as it appears to facilitate removals without ensuring that affected individuals have had a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation.

It also sidesteps established processes for verifying citizenship, raising the possibility that individuals
could be wrongly identified and returned.
Apart from offending the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution, the agreement is also contrary to the
country’s international human rights obligations, including under the African Charter on Human and
Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Nigeria is a state party. Nigeria is bound by obligations under these human rights treaties to protect human dignity,
ensure access to remedies, and prevent wrongful return to harm. Any system that accelerates deportations without adequate safeguards risks violating these commitments.

The agreement also risks violating the right to family life of Nigerians in the UK, as many of those
targeted by the agreement have clearly built lives in the UK—raising children, supporting partners,
and contributing to their communities. UK courts
have in several cases warned against such
outcomes.

For example, in ZH (Tanzania) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Supreme Court made clear that the best interests of children must come first in immigration decisions. In Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 4, it was held that
deportation must be proportionate and carefully balanced against the right to family life.

There is also no clear evidence that the purported
agreement has undergone legislative scrutiny or public debate in Nigeria. In a constitutional democracy, agreements that affect fundamental
rights cannot be implemented solely at the discretion of the executive. Any perceived efficiency, as suggested by the agreement, cannot
come at the expense of due process of law,
fairness, justice, and accountability.
Judicial process guides
In Nigeria, the agreement may be declared illegal by a domestic court on the ground that under the
Criminal Code Act and Nigerian Correctional
Service Act, no person may be admitted to any
correctional centre in Nigeria without a court order or warrant issued and signed by a judge. To that extent, the provision of the agreement that
permits persons convicted in the UK to serve or complete jail terms in Nigerian prisons is illegal in
every material particular.

In other words, a person
awaiting trial in a Nigerian court may be ordered to be remanded in prison custody, while a convicted person may be committed to prison by a trial judge. The law never envisaged that Nigeria would be a dumping ground for persons convicted in the UK.
The agreement must, therefore, be revisited and reviewed in accordance with the country’s international human rights obligations. It must be
domesticated in line with Section 12(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which stipulates that:
“No treaty between the Federation and any other country shall have the force of law to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law
by the National Assembly.”

Until then, no Nigerian citizen should be arbitrarily returned to the country on the ground of serving
the UK’s objective of migration control.