The recent conviction of Simon Ekpa, a Nigerian-Finnish activist, to six years’ imprisonment in Finland for terrorism-related offences has raised pressing legal and political questions about his future—particularly regarding his citizenship status and possible repatriation to Nigeria.
As the dust settles on his trial, attention now turns to what fate may await Ekpa upon completing his jail term.
Finnish Legal Framework: Citizenship, Prison, and the Threat of Revocation
Simon Ekpa holds dual citizenship—he is both a Nigerian by birth and a naturalised Finnish citizen.
Under Finnish law, dual citizenship confers substantial rights but also comes with specific vulnerabilities, particularly in the context of national security and terrorism.
Finland’s Nationality Act (Kansalaisuuslaki, 359/2003) allows for the revocation of Finnish citizenship if:
The person holds dual nationality, and they have committed a crime that seriously endangers the interests or security of Finland (e.g., terrorism, treason); and the act is punishable under Finnish law by at least eight years of imprisonment, or the person has joined or assisted a terrorist organisation.
While Ekpa has been sentenced to six years, the nature of the crime—terrorism-related—places him within the scope of this provision. The Finnish Immigration Service (Migri) is empowered to initiate citizenship revocation proceedings. While such actions remain rare in Finland, they have precedent in other EU states like France and the UK, which have increasingly moved toward such security measures.
If Finland revokes Ekpa’s citizenship, he would become solely a Nigerian citizen, stripped of Finnish consular protection, freedom of movement within the EU, and the right to remain in Finland—unless protected by other international agreements or asylum claims.
Why the Question of Extradition to Nigeria?
Nigeria has made overtures in the past regarding Ekpa’s alleged role in inciting violence and secessionist agitation in the South-East under the banner of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). However, Nigeria and Finland do not have a bilateral extradition treaty, and Finland is known for its strict non-extradition policy—especially concerning its own citizens.
Under Section 9 of Finland’s Extradition Act (456/1970), a Finnish citizen cannot be extradited outside the EU or Nordic countries. Thus, as long as Ekpa remains a Finnish citizen, he is protected from extradition.
However, if his Finnish citizenship is revoked, Finland would no longer be legally bound by this protection. That said, deportation or extradition would still face serious hurdles, including:
Human rights considerations, especially given Nigeria’s record on detainee treatment and the political nature of the case;
Potential appeals to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which could delay or block removal;
The possibility of Ekpa claiming asylum or protection under Finnish or international law, arguing that returning to Nigeria could endanger his life or liberty.
Implications Under Nigerian Law
Under Nigerian law, Simon Ekpa would remain a citizen by birth, as provided under Section 25(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution. Nigerian law does not bar dual citizenship, nor does it automatically revoke citizenship based on a conviction abroad.
However, should he return or be extradited, Ekpa could most likely face prosecution under Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which prescribes severe penalties—including life imprisonment or even capital punishment—for financing, supporting, or directing acts of terrorism.
It is important to note that prosecution in Nigeria would depend on admissible evidence from Finland and the political will of the Nigerian state to pursue such a case amid the complex dynamics surrounding the Biafran agitation.
Post-Imprisonment Scenarios: What Likely Lies Ahead?
Simon Ekpa’s fate after completing his six-year sentence—or earlier, if granted pardon—will be determined by three key factors:
1. If he retains Finnish citizenship:
He will likely remain in Finland, possibly under surveillance or parole supervision.
He cannot be extradited to Nigeria.
He will retain full EU mobility and legal rights, though politically, he may remain under scrutiny.
2. If his Finnish citizenship is revoked:
He becomes solely Nigerian and loses all EU rights.
Finland could initiate deportation proceedings, especially if he is considered a threat to national security.
While not automatically extradited, Nigeria may renew its request, triggering diplomatic and legal battles.
He may seek asylum or protected status to avoid deportation, citing the risk of persecution in Nigeria.
3. If He Is Deported but Not Extradited:
He may be sent to a third country—not necessarily Nigeria—if that ensures compliance with human rights obligations.
Alternatively, he could become de facto stateless in terms of residency and rights if no country accepts him.
In all, if Finland strips him of his citizenship, it would mark a dramatic shift in his legal status, with potentially severe consequences: loss of protection, expulsion, and most certainly, exposure to Nigerian prosecution. Ekpa’s case may also set a precedent—not just for Finland or Nigeria, but for how democratic nations handle the complex line between national security enforcement and human rights obligations.
