Nigerian Armed Robber Evades Deportation Due to Mental Health Concerns

A Nigerian armed robber, diagnosed with psychosis, has evaded deportation to Nigeria on human rights grounds, citing the risk of being viewed as possessed. Despite committing serious crimes, including armed robbery and drug dealing, he remains in Britain due to inadequate mental health resources in Nigeria. A judge ruled in his favor based on his need for treatment and his belief in demonic possession. This case raises concerns regarding the responsibilities of the UK regarding foreign criminals and their health issues.

A psychotic Nigerian armed robber and crack cocaine dealer has successfully avoided deportation to Nigeria due to the belief that he would be perceived as ‘possessed’ in his home country. The individual was incarcerated for seven years following an armed robbery in 2011 and another seven years for crack cocaine distribution. Although a deportation order was issued in April 2014, he appealed on the grounds of human rights and has remained in the UK over a decade later.

The judge ruled that the criminal’s belief in possession, coupled with inadequate treatment options available in Nigeria, warranted his continued residence in Britain. Despite the risks he poses, including a severe crack cocaine addiction and a high risk of harm to the public, the court has allowed him to stay as he participates in treatment programs. Presently, he is back in the community despite his history of mental health issues.

Evidence from a report by Amnesty International indicated that returning to Nigeria would likely expose him to stigmatisation related to his mental health issues as a manifestation of demonic possession. Reports from medical professionals identified him as suffering from trauma-related disorders characterized by psychotic features, including intrusive memories and nightmares influenced by his belief in demonic forces.

In the ruling, Upper Tribunal Judge Stephen Smith underscored that deportation would require evaluating the adequacy of treatment available to the appellant in Nigeria compared to the comprehensive mental health regime he currently receives. The appellant expressed a desire to abandon a life of crime, stating, “I really want to stay away from crime. I don’t want to get into that predicament again … I want to live a normal life.”

Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, expressed concern regarding the implications of this ruling, questioning the responsibility of the UK to address the mental health issues of serious criminals from abroad. He stated, “It shows serious issues with the law,” highlighting the complexities surrounding deportation cases involving mental health and criminality.

This case illustrates the intricate balance between human rights considerations and public safety in deportation matters involving mentally ill offenders. The ruling indicates concerns regarding the available mental health care in the individual’s home country and raises questions about the responsibility of the UK in such instances. As legal interpretations evolve, the decisions in these cases could have broader implications for immigration and criminal justice policy in the UK.

Original Source: www.telegraph.co.uk