Application of international law in regional and domestic courts in Nigeria: Opportunities and challenges

By YUNUS USTAZ USMAN (SAN)
Posted: Friday, February 11, 2011

"3.-(1) There shall be thirty six states in Nigeria, that is to say, Abia, Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bauchi, Bayelsa, Benue, Borno, Cross River, Delta, Ebonyi, Edo, Ekiti, Enugu, Gombe, Imo, Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Lagos, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo, Plateau, Rivers, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe and Zamfara.
(2) Each State of Nigeria named in the first column of part 1 of the first Schedule to this constitution shall consist of the area shown opposite thereto in the second column of that schedule.
(3) The headquarters of the Government of each state shall be known as the Capital City of that state as shown in the third column of the said part 1 of the First schedule opposite the state named in the first column thereof."
From 1970-1990 alone, there were 65 treaties between Nigeria and other countries (see "Nigeria Treaties in Force 1970-1990" published by the Federal Ministry of Justice, Nigeria under the then Attorney-General of the Federation, the charming prince Bola Ajibola (SAN)).
But, unfortunately, while both our leaders and our courts are eager to apply foreign laws, the foreign countries not only in many instances refuse to reciprocate but are easy tools in the hands of our corrupt public servants in stealing our wealth and taking them abroad without punishment. I will come to that at the end of this paper.
United Kingdom has refused to sanction any of its banks which have continued to be used by many of our past governors, etc, to launder their states' funds abroad. UBS and Barclays are in the lead. There have been too many reports in this regard. Wait for the details.
It is in other to give teeth to Section 12 of the Constitution that Nigeria made many legislations which acknowledge their existence.
Laws, which for amplification purpose, include:
i. Foreign Judgment Reciprocal Enforcement Act, 1933 (as amended). Section 3 provides:-
"Power to extend Part I of Act to foreign countries giving reciprocal treatment
(1) The Minister of Justice if he is satisfied that, in the event of the benefits conferred by this Part of this Act being extended to judgments given in the superior courts of any foreign country, substantial reciprocity of treatment will be assured as respects the enforcement in that foreign country of judgments given in the superior courts in Nigeria, may by order direct-
(a) that this Part of this Act shall extend to that foreign country; and
(b) that such courts of that foreign country as are specific in the order shall be deemed superior courts of that country for the purposes of this Part of this Act.
(2) Any judgment of a superior court of a foreign country to which this Part of this Act extends, other than a judgment of such a court given on appeal from a court which is not a superior court, shall be a judgment to which this Part of this Act applies, if-
(a) it is final and conclusive as between the parties thereto; and
(b) there is payable thereunder a sum of money, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty: and
(c) it is given after the coming into operation of the order directing that this Part of this Act shall extend to that foreign country, or if it is a judgment to which section 10 of this Act applies.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a judgment shall be deemed to be final and conclusive notwithstanding that an appeal may be pending against it, or that it may still be subject to appeal, in the courts of the country of the original court.
(4) The Minister of Justice may by a subsequent order vary or revoke any order previously made under this section."
Another Section of the Constitution which enables our courts apply International Law is Section 19 (d) of the Constitution which says:
"19. The foreign policy objectives shall be -
(a)……………………………………………..
(b)……………………………………………..
(c)……………………………………………..
(d) respect for international law and treaty obligations as well as seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication"
There are other local legislations for recognition of foreign laws which are too numerous to mention in this paper.
DIPLOMATIC LAW
This is an area of law that prevent the Nigerian Courts from punishing some reciprocal citizens (diplomats) of some foreign countries for breaching our own laws while at the same time enforcing foreign laws which give immunity to such foreigners.
Rules regulating the various aspects of diplomatic relations constitute one of the earliest expressions of international law. Whenever in history there has been a group of independent states co-existing, special customs have developed on how the ambassadors and other special representatives of other states were to be treated.
Diplomacy as a method of communication between various parties, including negotiations between recognised agents, is an ancient institution and international legal provisions governing its manifestations are the result of centuries of state practice. The special privileges and immunities related to diplomatic personnel of various kinds grew up partly as a consequence of sovereign immunity and the independence and equality of states, and partly as an essential requirement of an international system. States must negotiate and consult with each other and with international organisations and in order to do so need diplomatic staffs. Since these persons represent their states in various ways, they thus benefit from e legal principle of state sovereignty. This is also an issue of practical convenience.
Diplomatic relations have traditionally been conducted through the medium of ambassadors and their staffs, but with the growth of commercial intercourse the office of consul was established and expanded. The development of speedy communications stimulated the creation of special missions designed to be sent to particular areas for specific purposes, often with the head of state or government in charge. To some extent, however, the establishment of telephone, telegraph, telex and fax services, has lessened the importance of the traditional diplomatic personnel by strengthening the centralising process. Nevertheless, diplomats and consuls do retain some useful functions in the collection of information and pursuit of friendly relations, as well as providing a permanent presence in foreign states, with all that that implies for commercial and economic activities.
The field of diplomatic immunities is one of the most accepted and uncontroversial of international law topics, as it is in the interest of all states ultimately to preserve an even tenor of diplomatic relations, although not all states act in accordance with this. As the International Court noted in the US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran case:
The rules of diplomatic law, in short, constitute a selfcontained regime, which on the one hand, lays down the receiving state's obligations regarding the facilities, privileges and immunities to be accorded to diplomatic missions and, on the other, foresees their possible abuse by members of the mission and specifies the means at the disposal of the receiving state to counter any such abuse.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961
This treaty, which came into force in 1964, emphasises the functional necessity of diplomatic privileges and immunities for the efficient conduct of international relations as well as pointing to the character of the diplomatic mission as representing its state. It both codified existing laws and established others. There is no right as such under international law to diplomatic relations, and they exist by virtue of mutual consent. If one state does not wish to enter into diplomatic relations, it is not legally compelled so to do. Accordingly, the Convention specifies in article 4 that the sending state must ensure that the consent (or agrement) of the receiving state has been given for the proposed head of its mission, and reasons for any refusal of consent do not have to be given. Similarly, by article 9 the receiving state may at any time declare any member of the diplomatic mission persona non grata without having to explain its decision, and thus obtain the removal of that person. However, the principle of consent as the basis of diplomatic relations may be affected by other rules of international law. For example, the Security Council in resolution 748 (1992), which imposed sanctions upon Libya, decided that 'all states shall: (a) significantly reduce the number and level of the staff at Libyan diplomatic missions and consular posts and restrict or control the movement within their territory of all such staff who remain….
The main functions of a diplomatic mission are specified in article 3 and resolve around the representation and protection of the interests and nationals of the sending state, as well as the promotion of information and friendly relations. Article 13 provides that the head of the mission is deemed to have taken his functions in the receiving state upon presentation of credentials. heads of mission are divided into three classes by article 14, viz. ambassadors or nuncios accredited to Heads of State and other heads of mission of equivalent rank; envoys, ministers and internuncios accredited to Heads of State and charges d'affaires accredited to Ministers of Foreign Affairs. It is customary for a named individual to be in charge of a diplomatic mission. When in 1979, Libya designated its embassies as 'People's Bureaux' to be run by revolutionary committees, the UK insisted upon and obtained the nomination of a named person as the head of the mission.
The Inviolability of the mission
In order to facilitate the operations of normal diplomatic activities, article 22 of the Convention specifically declares that the premises of the mission are inviolable and that agents of the receiving state are not to enter them without the consent of the head of the mission. This appears to be an absolute rule and in the Sun Yat Sen incident in 1896, the Court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus with regard to a Chinese refugee held against his will in the Chinese legation in London. Precisely, what the legal position would be in the event of entry without express consent because, for example, of fire fighting requirements or of danger to persons within that area, is rather uncertain and justification might be pleaded by virtue of implied consent, but it is a highly controversial area. The receiving state is under a special duty to protect the mission premises from intrusion or damage or 'impairment of its dignity'. By the same token, the premises of a mission must not be used in a way which is incompatible with the function of the mission.
In 1979, the US Embassy in Tehran, Iran, was taken over by several hundred demonstrators. Archives and documents were seized and fifty diplomatic and consular staff were held hostage. In 1980, the International Court declared that, under the 1961 Convention (and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations):-
Iran was placed under the most categorical obligations, as a receiving state, to take appropriate steps to ensure the protection of the United States Embassy and Consulates, their staff, their archives, their means of communication and the free movement of the members of their staff.
These were also obligations under general international law. The Court in particular stressed the seriousness of Iran's behaviour and the conflict between its conduct and its obligations under 'the whole corpus of the international rules of which diplomatic and consular law is comprised, rules the fundamental character of which the Court must here again strongly affirm'.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, Cap D9, Laws of the Federation 2004 provide:-
"Diplomatic immunities and privileges
Immunities of foreign envoys and consular officers
1. Immunities of foreign envoys, etc.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every foreign envoy and every foreign consular officer, the members of the families of those persons, the members of their or domestic staff, and the members of the families of their official staff, shall be accorded immunity from suit and legal process and inviolability of residence and official archives to the extent to which they were respectively so entitled under the law in force in Nigeria immediately before the coming into operation of this Act.
(2) Any writ or process sued forth or prosecuted before or after the coming into operation of this Act, whereby any foreign envoy or foreign consular officer authorised and received as such by the Government of Nigeria or any member of the official or domestic staff of such foreign envoy or foreign consular officer is liable to arrest or imprisonment, his or their goods or chattels are liable to distress, seizure or attachment, shall be void.
(3) Nothing in this section shall-
(a) authorise immunity from arrest of any member of the official or domestic staff of a foreign envoy or foreign consular officer unless the name of such person was, before the arrest, recorded with the Minister by the foreign envoy or foreign consular officer; or
(b) confer the benefits of this section on any merchant or other trader within the meaning of any Act relating to bankruptcy or insolvency, who is in the service of a foreign envoy or foreign consular officer.
2. Waiver of immunity of foreign envoys, etc.
A foreign envoy or foreign consular officer, with the consent of his Government, may waive any immunity or inviolability conferred by or under this Act on himself and without the necessity for such consent may waive immunity or inviolability so conferred on a are member of his official or domestic staff or on a member of his family or of the family of a member of his official staff.
3. Immunities of chief representative of a Commonwealth country
Subject to the provisions of this Act, a chief representative of a Commonwealth country shall be entitled to the like immunity from suit and legal process, and the like inviolability of residence and official archives as are accorded to a foreign envoy.
4. Immunities of members of staff and families
Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is-
(a) a member of the official or domestic staff of a chief representative of a Commonwealth country; or
(b) a member of the family of a chief representative of a Commonwealth country; or
(c) a member of the family of a member of the official staff of a chief representative of a Commonwealth country, shall be entitled to the like immunity from suit and legal process as would be accorded to him if the chief representative were a foreign envoy.
5. Consular immunity may be conferred by regulations
(1) Without limiting the power to make regulations conferred by section 20 of this Act, regulations may from time to time be made under that section conferring on-
(a) persons in the service of the government of any other Commonwealth country; or
(b) persons in the service of the government of any territory for whose international relations the government of any such country is responsible, (other than persons on whom immunity is conferred by the foregoing provisions of this Act), holding such offices or classes of offices as may be specified in that behalf in the regulations, the like immunity from suit and legal process and the like inviolability of residence and official archives as are accorded to foreign consular officers.
(2) Any person may waive any immunity or inviolability conferred on him under regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section.
6. Immunities of Commonwealth representatives attending conferences
(1) Where a conference is held in Nigeria and is attended by representatives of the government or governments of one or more Commonwealth countries, the Minister may compile a list of representatives of the Commonwealth government or government attending the conference and members of their official staff, and cause the list to be published in the Federal Gazette; and every representative of a government of a Commonwealth country who is for the time being included in the list shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as if he were a foreign envoy and, subject to the provisions of this section, such of the members of his official staff as are for the time being included in the list shall be treated for the purpose aforesaid as if they were his retinue.
(2) Whenever it appears to the Minister that any person ceases or begins to be qualified for inclusion in a list compiled under subsection (1) of this section, he may amend the list and cause a notice of the amendment or, if he thinks fit, an amended list to be published in the Federal Gazette.
(3) Every list or notice published under this section in relation to any conference shall include a statement of the date from which the list or amendment takes or took effect
(4) A person who is a member of the official staff of the representative of the government of a Commonwealth country and is a citizen of Nigeria and is not a citizen of another Commonwealth country shall not be entitled under the foregoing provisions of this section to any immunity, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done in the course of the performance of his duties, and the name of the person whose immunity is limited by this subsection shall be entered in a separate part of any list compiled by the Minister under subsection (1) of this section.
8. Reciprocal withdrawal of personal immunities
Where it appears to the minister that any personal immunities conferred by law on a foreign envoy or foreign consular officer or a chief representative of a Commonwealth country, the members of the families of those persons, members of their official or domestic staff, and the members of the families of their official staff, or on persons coming under section 5 or section 6 of this Act, exceed in any respect those accorded in the territory of the foreign sovereign power concerned to an envoy or consular officer of the government or, as the case may be, in the Commonwealth country concerned to a chief representative of Nigeria or to Nigerian representatives attending a conference and to persons similarly connected with that envoy or that chief representative of Nigeria or those Nigerian representatives attending a conference the Minister may, by order withdraw those personal immunities in the case of that power or that Commonwealth country to such extent and in respect of such classes of persons as appear to the Minister to be proper."
Thus, applying these provisions in ZABUSKY vs. ISRAELI AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES (2008) 2 NWLR (PART 1070) 109, it was held that an ambassador is immuned from all suits and legal processes and that even their residences are inviolable.
Enforcement by Nigerian Courts
It must be stated from the word go that the Nigerian courts which can apply foreign laws are, and must be, those courts as are established under section 6(4) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 1(2) of the Evidence Act, Cap. E14, Laws of the Federation. The sections provides:-
Section 6(4) of the Constitution provides:-
"6-(4) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall be construed as precluding -
(a) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly from establishing courts, other than those to which this section relates, with subordinate jurisdiction to that of a High Court;
b) the National Assembly or any House of Assembly, which does not require it, from abolishing any court which it has power to establish or which it has brought into being.
(5) This section relates to -
(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;
(b) the Court of Appeal;
(c) the Federal High Court;
(d) the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
(e) a High Court of a State;
(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a state;
(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the federal capital territory;
(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a state;
(j) such other courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect to which the National Assembly may make laws; and
(k) such other courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction at first instance or on appeal on matters with respect to which a House of Assembly may make laws."
Section 1 of the Evidence Act provides:-
"(2) This Act shall apply to all judicial proceedings in or before any court established in the Federal Republic of Nigeria but it shall not apply-
(a) to proceedings before an arbitrator; or
(b) to a field general court-martial; or
(c) to judicial proceedings in any civil cause or matter in or before any Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal, Area Court or Customary Court unless the President, or the Governor of a State, by order published in the Gazette, confers upon any or all Sharia Courts of Appeal, Customary Courts of Appeal, Area Courts or Customary Courts in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or a State, as the case may be, power to enforce any or all the provisions of this Act.
In judicial proceedings in any criminal cause or matter in or before an Area Court, the Court shall be guided by the provisions of this Act and in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Law."
In 2000, purporting to act under an un-enacted Reciprocal Act, Obasanjo, caused Muhammed Sani Abacha to be tried in Kirikiri Maximum Prison by a Swiss Magistrate, Jekkins, for violating a Swiss law. We had to file a Fundamental Rights application to prevent his extradition to Switzerland for trial. That was International Law politically misapplied. I will come to the details later.
Our courts subscribe to and do infact, apply foreign laws. In Oruk Anam Local Government Council vs Ikpa (2003) 12 NWLR (PART 835) 558 the Court of Appeal unanimously held at page 577 (paragraphs C-G) that:-
"The provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights have full force of law in all parts of Nigeria and the judicial arm has been enjoined to give it full recognition and to apply its provisions when a litigant has lodged a complaint on breach of the Charter. Moreover, Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is in pari materia with the Charter. The contention of the appellant, in the instant case, that the respondents have not complied with the procedure for bringing or filing a complaint under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 is wrong as the respondents did not file their suit under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution."
In African Reinsurance Corporation vs AIM Consult Ltd (2004) 11 NWLR (PART 884) 223 it was not only agreed that the Doctrine of State Immunity applies to Nigeria, but did apply it. The Court of Appeal held at page 242-243 (Paras G-A):
"The basis of which one state is considered to be immuned from the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of another country is expressed in the latin maxim, "par in parem imperium non habet" which literally means that an equal has no authority over an equal. In other words and in legal parlance it means that the sovereign or governmental acts of one state or country are not matters on which the court of another country will adjudicate; and this is the principle of law encapsulated as the absolute doctrine of state imlafisoye vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) 4 NWLR (PART 864) 580 the Supreme Court held at page 669 (paras G-H) that:
"The word "State" conveys different meanings in different circumstances. In international law, it means a nation with full status of statehood, as a sovereign entity. In this context, it is regarded as a person in international law with power to sue and be sued in the State name. It must go beyond status nascendi. In municipal law, it also conveys same meaning. But it could also mean component parts of the nation. That is one meaning of the expression in section 4(6) of the 1999 Constitution."
In Meducal and Health Workers Union of Nigeria vs Hon. Minister of Labour & Productivity &ORS (2005) 17 NWLR (PART 953) 120, the Supreme Court held at pages 156 (pars A-F), 157 (paras B-E) that:
"An international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. Before its enactment into law by the National Assembly, an international treaty has no such force of law as to make its provisions justiciable in Nigerian courts. Where, however, the treaty is enacted into law by the National Assembly, it becomes binding and our courts must give effect to it like other laws falling within the judicial powers of the court. In the instant case, there was no evidence before the court that the International Labour Organisation Convention, even though signed by the Nigerian Government, had been enacted into law by the National Assembly. In so far as the International Labour Organisation Convention has not been enacted into law by the National Assembly, it has no force of law in Nigeria and it cannot possibly apply. This means that relief (iii) was granted based on a non-existing right and law and it was consequently set aside. [Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.660) 228 referred to and applied] (Pp. 156, paras. A-F; 157, paras. B-E)"
In Shona-Jason Nigeria Ltd vs Omega Air Ltd (2006) 1 NWLR (960) 1 AT PAGES 39, (PARA E); 27-28 (PARAS H-A); 28-29 (PARAS G-A), it was held that:
"The High Court has power to register foreign judgments. (P 39, para. E)"
"The power, authority or jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment is provided by statute i.e. section 6(1) of the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, Cap. 152, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, and the courts have recognised that position in a number of decisions. [Hyppolite v. Egharevba (1998) 11 NWLR (Pt. 575) 598; Berliet (Nig.) i Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (Pt.420) 478; Dale Power Systems v Witt and Busch (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt.716) 699; Halaoui v. Grosvenor Ltd. (2002) 17 NWLR (Pt.795) 28 referred to.] (Pp. 2 7-28, paras. H-A, 28- 29, paras. G-A)"
In D.S.P Alamieyesiegha vs The Crown Prosecution Service (2007) 18 NWLR (1066) 423 AT (436 PARAS E-G), 446 paras C-E, it was held that:
"It is a basic principle of international law that one Sovereign State (the forum State) does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign State. The foreign State is entitled to procedural immunity from the process of the forum State. This immunity extends to both criminal and civil liability. State immunity probably grew from the historical immunity of the person of the monarch. In any event, such personal immunity of a head of state persists to the present day; a head of state is entitled to the same immunity as the state itself. (P 436, paras. E-G)"
"The fact that a part of Federal State does not conduct international relations does not mean it cannot automatically be entitled to State Immunity. Nevertheless, the fact that it does not conduct international relations is in itself a powerful factor which indicates that it is not entitled to State Immunity and thus to that extent importance must be attached to that factor. (P 446, paras. C-F)"
In George Udeozor vs Federal Rpublic of Nigeria (2007) 15 NWLR (PART 1058) 499 AT P. 522 (PARAS B-F), the court held that:
"The right of one State or country to request of another the extradition of a fugitive accused of crime, and the duty of the country in which the fugitive finds asylum to surrender the said fugitive, exists only when created by a treaty. Due to the divergence in the Penal Codes of the world, most nations give definite terms in treaties to their mutual obligations to extradite. The extradition treaty between Nigeria and the United States of America is embodied in the Legal Notice No. 33 of 1967 published in the official Gazette No. 23, Vol. 54 of the 13th day of April, 1967, known as Extradition (United States of America) Order. Such treaties enumerate what offences the two nations consider extraditable. The general rule is that extraditable crimes must be those commonly recognised as malum in se (acts criminal by their very nature) and not those which are malum prohibituin (acts made crimes by statute). This in most cases explains why the type of crime and the punishment prescribed are included in the extradition treaty. By this principle also, it is generally regarded as an abuse of the terms of the treaty for a state to secure the surrender of a criminal for an extraditable offence and then to punish the person for an offence not included in the treaty. (P 522, paras. B-F)"
In The Registered Trustees of National Association of Community Health Practitioners of Nigeria & ORS vs Medical and Health wORKERS Union of Nigeria (2008) 2 NWLR (PART1072) 575 AT Pp. 615-616, PARAS H-C; 631-632, PARAS H-C, the apex court held that:-
"By virtue of section 12(1) of the 1999 Constitution, no treaty between the Federation and any country has the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty has been enacted into law by the National Assembly. Thus, an international treaty entered into by the government of Nigeria (does not become binding until enacted into law by the National Assembly. in the instant case, in so far as the International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions have not been enacted into law by the National Assembly, they have no force of law in Nigeria, and they cannot possibly apply. Abacha v. Fawehinini (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 referred to and applied.] (Pp. 615-616, paPas. H-C; 631-632, paras. H-C
In Mr. Daniel Orhiunu vs Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) 1 NWLR (PART 906) 39 AT PAGES 53-54, (PARAS G-B) it was held thus:-
"By virtue of section 251 (1) (i) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to citizenship, naturalization and aliens, deportation of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and emigration from Nigeria, passports and visas. The Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by sub-section (1) of the section. (Pp. 53-54, paras. G-B)"
"By virtue of section 6 (1) and (2) of the Extradition Act, Cap 125, Laws of the Federation, 1990, a request for the surrender of a Nigerian fugitive criminal of any country should be made in writing to the Attorney-General by a diplomatic representative or consular officer of that country and shall be accompanied by a duly authenticated warrant of arrest or certificate of conviction issued in that country. Where such a request is made to him, the Attorney-General may by an order under his hand signify to a Magistrate that such a request has been made and require the Magistrate to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act; but shall not make such order if he decides on the basis of information then available to him that the surrender of the fugitive criminal is precluded by any of the provisions of subsections (1) and (7) of section 3 of the Act. (P 55, paras. D-G)"