Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, has criticised the recently announced UK-Nigeria Migration Partnership Agreement, warning that it cannot be enforced under Nigerian law in its current form.
In a statement issued following President Bola Tinubu’s state visit to the United Kingdom, Falana said the agreement, which aims to fast track the return of Nigerians without legal status in the UK, undermines constitutional safeguards and international human rights obligations.
According to the press release, the agreement allows the use of “UK letters” in place of passports to facilitate deportations. However, Falana argued that such a provision is fundamentally flawed.
“The use of the ‘UK letters’ to return Nigerians is not and cannot be a substitute for proper travel documents,” he said.
He added that while the measure may reduce administrative delays, “it is fundamentally at odds with international human rights standards,” warning that it “lowers the threshold for deportation—potentially allowing individuals to be removed without proper verification of their identity or nationality.”
Falana cautioned that this creates “the risk of wrongful or arbitrary deportations.”
The senior advocate also faulted the agreement for failing to guarantee fair hearing, stating that it is “inconsistent and incompatible with the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 [as amended].”
He noted that the arrangement appears to enable deportations “without ensuring that affected individuals have had a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation,” while also bypassing established processes for confirming citizenship.
Beyond domestic legal concerns, Falana said the agreement conflicts with Nigeria’s international obligations under treaties such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
He stressed that Nigeria is required to “protect human dignity, ensure access to remedies, and prevent wrongful return to harm,” warning that any system that accelerates deportations without safeguards risks breaching these commitments.
Falana further raised concerns about the potential impact on family life, noting that many affected individuals have built lives in the UK.
“The Agreement also risks violating the right to family life of Nigerians in the UK,” he said, citing legal precedents from UK courts that prioritise the welfare of children and proportionality in deportation decisions.
He also questioned the transparency of the process, stating that “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,” he added.
Falana warned that aspects of the agreement could be declared illegal by Nigerian courts, particularly provisions allowing convicted persons in the UK to serve prison terms in Nigeria.
“The law never envisaged that Nigeria would be a dumping ground for persons convicted in the UK!” he stated.
He explained that under Nigerian law, no individual can be detained in a correctional facility without a valid court order, making such transfers unlawful.
Falana insisted that the agreement must be reviewed and properly domesticated in line with Section 12(1) of the Constitution, which provides 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.”
He concluded by warning that until these conditions are met, “no Nigerian citizen should be arbitrarily returned to the country on the ground of serving the UK’s objective of migration control.”
Faridah Abdulkadiri
Follow us on:
