 Glad to know that you're still there and watching the breakfast on PLOS TV Africa. Right now we're being joined by a guest to take the first hot topic of the day. EFCC begins extradition process by obtaining a arrest warrant for Desirney Allison Madueke, the former Petroleum Minister of Nigeria. And our guest this morning is Mr. Steven Ghiode, a legal practitioner. Good morning and welcome to the show. Good morning. Okay, extradition. We hear that the case of Desirney Allison Madueke has begun in far away country. Now the EFCC wants extradition. What is the advantage of trying her here? Is she going to be tried for her crimes? Are we seeking punishment for what she did? Or we're just doing a legal, what do I call it, exercise? Okay, so I think we should start by trying to understand what extradition is. Basically extradition is the process by which you seek to repatriate somebody for punishment. Somebody you suspect has committed a crime or someone who has been convicted and wanting for punishment. So that's basically what extradition is. Now my little confusion about the omatah is this. Extradition that is carried out in a certain jurisdiction. So for instance, if the EFCC is in a country, let's call it X, you start the proceedings in that country and seek to repatriate into another country. Under our extradition act, you really cannot start the process of extraditing somebody who is not in your territory. So in this case of Desyani, Desyani is clearly in the territory of the British government. So my confusion really is where has the arrest warrant been issued? Because that's the way you start extradition procedures, you go for a warrant of arrest. Now that Desyani is actually written, where was it started? Not only in Nigeria, you will go through the process in the federal high courts. It suggests to me that if any proceedings has been commenced, then it has been commenced in the UK, not here. Now that's what we hear, that he's being prosecuted over there. And now EFCC suddenly is looking for extradition and all that. But as a legal mind, I'm asking you to understand something. Because if there's a legal process against her in a faraway country, do we really need to extradite her or there can be a collaboration with the country that is doing that with the evidence that we have against her from Nigeria and all that and get justice done? What is that advantage of bringing her home before trying her? Well, we actually can start the process of bringing her back from a foreign country. We can, we can. Why? Why should we bring her back? That's the question I'm asking. First of all, she's a citizen of Nigeria. They are presidents to bringing back Nigerians who are born to Commonwealth countries. Chief Enahoro was famously brought back here to Nigeria to answer charges here. The only peculiar factor here is that she is undergoing trial at the moment in Britain. So whatever arrest warrant would be in Britain and would depend, I think, on the attorney general there. You have to present all those things before the attorney general there, then you will make a decision whether he will allow her to go. Whether he will allow her to go, when she's facing a trial at the moment in England is what I don't know because I cannot see England abandoning the process of a criminal trial against her for offenses she committed and allowing us to take, to now bring her here to answer for proceedings. So I would think that much of it is all drama. ESCC has just gone to the press to announce that they are bringing someone here who is undergoing trial there and the feasibility, it all depends on them and the feasibility of it looks very remote to me until she finishes her trial. So why the announcement and why the unfair? That's what I was wondering because the allegations against her in the UK may not be the same one against her in Nigeria. There it was bribery, here it was fraud and so many other things and why they are coming. The timing seemed odd to me, that's why I kept asking why do they need to bring her home at this moment. To me it's very odd too, it's absolutely odd. I don't see them extraditing the English people. Although we have a treaty with them, we have the under extradition act, we have the bilateral, what do I call it, bilateral arrangements. But the transfer of people from there and the transfer of people from there. But the problem is that especially a criminal trial there and I doubt if they would be willing to transfer her until the proceedings are over. But what is making it so difficult to prosecute Desani even in Nigeria? Because the amount they say she took was humongous, is humongous. And if they have all the evidences, why is it so difficult to prosecute her? It baffles me myself. What I would say is that I'm surprised that they waited for this long to start extradition proceedings. Because this British, the case in Britain started only recently. And there was a long time when she was not before any court and it would have been easy to seek an arrest warrant in Britain and bring her, start the process of bringing her here. Why it took so long to do all that, I can only say, one will find the answer to that in the political will of the government. Now that it is this way, I would only say that I think that what ECC is engaged in as usual is the usual drama and media, looking for media clicks and all that. Because I don't see how she can be transferred to Nigeria when a case is pending. That's why my first question was whether it was really absolutely necessary and whether the timing was good enough or whether it was just a legal or academic exercise that needs to be put out there for people to just see and say, okay, you're working and all that. What really are the powers of EFCC by law? Well, by law, the EFCC is empowered to prosecute criminal people suspected of having committed financial and economic crimes. And although, of course, before EFCC was set up, that rule was with the Nigerian police. So they have powers to prosecute financial and economic crimes. And these kinds of kids will seem within their own view if all conditions were right to pursue. Well, it's not only designing that deserves persecution and we always wonder what happens in the courts. We try to peek into the legal minds and see how judges think, how lawyers think and all that. For instance, you have a governor or a former governor who is accused of fraudulent activities. And the EFCC is going against this person trying to get the person prosecuted and the person goes to court and asks for a stay of action and it is granted. Why does this happen? Because if you are accused, you are not guilty until proven guilty, that's the legal parlance that is being used. Why does the court grant people stay of action in a case that they could just go and prove themselves either right or wrong? This is a national improvement. Now, first of all, if your allegations of crime against you are considered against you to be in no sense until proved guilty. But the modern phenomenon we are seeing in this, people rush to court to seek injunction against, a normal thing would be for you to stand trial, any crime. But we find nowadays that sometimes some people go to court and get an injunction restraining them from being tried. It's really an anomaly and all that. And we have situations where, sorry, we have situations where even when people are being convicted in this country or even up to the Supreme Court, we have an organ. We seem to have lost audio there. We've been talking with Mr. Stephen Aguio, the illegal practitioner. And the topic is, EFCC begins extradition process by obtaining arrest warrant for discerning, at least in Madueke. We've talked about the process and why, according to him, it seems odd. And he's surprised that it is happening at this time. And he expresses reservations that there may not be a possibility of doing the extradition for Alison Madueke. And then we were talking of sundry other issues. We're hoping that he might rejoin us. But in the meantime, that is what is happening. Alison Madueke is facing criminal trials in the UK and is bordering on bribery and corruption. Bribery and corruption go hand in hand. And he's facing those criminal charges in the UK. But right now the EFCC at this point, this very time is asking for extradition, which was, according to Stephen, supposed to have been done a long time before now. Now that the courts have an issue with Desani Alison Madueke, or now that Alison Madueke is standing trial in the UK, he's expressing concern that this may not be a possibility. So the question is why is the EFCC making so much noise right now about trying to get her back to the country to do that. It's been so many years after she left office and there's this talk about fraud and all that. And then she's always been outside the country. So if they wanted extradition, why didn't they not do it before now? And Stephen doesn't seem to have an answer to that as well. Nigerians are asking, is this just like I asked in the first question, is this just an academic exercise? Is this just a legal exercise? You just want to do it so that people will know that you're working or what are we standing to gain from the entire process. But we will cross our fingers and see how things play out in the coming days, whether there is going to be any success to that. And if there is a success and she comes back to Nigeria, how are we sure that the legal system will not give her the opportunity to do what everybody else has been doing. You have taken XYZ amount of money and then you run to the court and say give me a perpetual injunction and the court grants it. Perpetual injunction for you not to be prosecuted. Why not just go and free yourself? That's how the court works. That's how it should work at least. You go to the court, bring your evidences, everybody knows that you are a free man and then you go. But you take perpetual injunctions that makes people even suspect you the more and the courts are granting it. So who do we now trust if the courts are saying do not prosecute this person whether you have evidence against the person being a thief or not, do not prosecute him because he has come to us first. Is it because the person came first? Is it by first come first serve? Is that what is happening? The legal luminaries need to explain to us what happens in the legal world. But in the meantime, let's just take another break. We'll be back as soon as possible to take another hot topic. I would like to thank in absentia Mr. Stephen Agiode, the legal practitioner who was talking with us. It was a pleasure having you in the short time that we could.