Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, has argued that the recently announced migration agreement between Nigeria and the United Kingdom cannot be enforced under Nigerian law.
In a statement on Monday, the senior lawyer warns that it undermines constitutional protections and international human rights obligations.
The agreement, unveiled during the state visit of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to the UK, seeks to fast-track the return of Nigerians without legal status in Britain, including failed asylum seekers and convicted offenders. It also introduces the use of “UK letters” in place of passports to facilitate deportations and promises reintegration support for returnees.
However, Falana said the arrangement prioritises administrative convenience over due process, raising the risk of wrongful deportations.
He criticised the use of “UK letters” as a substitute for valid travel documents, arguing that such a mechanism lowers the threshold for removal and could lead to individuals being returned without proper verification of identity or nationality.
According to him, the deal is inconsistent with provisions of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, particularly the right to fair hearing, as it appears to enable deportations without giving affected persons adequate opportunity to challenge their removal.
He further warned that the agreement could violate Nigeria’s obligations under international treaties such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which guarantee protection of human dignity and access to legal remedies.
Falana also raised concerns about the potential impact on family life, noting that many Nigerians targeted by the policy have established lives in the UK. He cited judicial precedents in the UK, including rulings that emphasise the need to prioritise the best interests of children and ensure deportation decisions are proportionate.
Beyond human rights concerns, Falana questioned the legal validity of the agreement within Nigeria’s domestic framework. He argued that under existing laws, including the Criminal Code Act and the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, no individual can be held in custody without a valid court order issued by a Nigerian judge.
He said any provision allowing convicted persons in the UK to serve prison terms in Nigeria would be unlawful, stressing that the country cannot be used as a “dumping ground” for offenders convicted abroad.
Falana also pointed out that there is no indication that the agreement has undergone legislative scrutiny or public debate in Nigeria. He maintained that under Section 12(1) of the Constitution, international agreements must be domesticated by the National Assembly before they can have the force of law.
“The agreement must be revisited and aligned with constitutional and international human rights standards,” he said, insisting that no Nigerian should be arbitrarily returned in pursuit of the UK’s migration control objectives.
He concluded that until the agreement is properly reviewed and enacted into law, its implementation in Nigeria would remain legally questionable.