A Nigerian man, convicted of armed robbery and crack cocaine dealing in the United Kingdom, has successfully avoided deportation due to concerns that his mental health condition would be misinterpreted as demonic possession in Nigeria, potentially endangering him. The case has ignited debate about human rights laws, mental health provisions, and the responsibility of the UK towards foreign criminals with mental health issues.

The individual, who remains unnamed for legal reasons, was initially sentenced to seven years in prison in 2011 for an armed robbery at a brothel. Subsequently, in 2018, he received another seven-year sentence for supplying crack cocaine. A deportation order was issued in April 2014; however, the man appealed against it on human rights grounds. His appeal highlighted the potential risks he would face upon returning to Nigeria, given his specific mental health condition.

During the appeal process, it was argued that his psychosis would likely be viewed as demonic possession in Nigeria, leading to potential stigmatization and mistreatment. Judge Stephen Smith, of the upper tribunal, acknowledged the appellant’s belief that his mental ill-health stemmed from being possessed. He noted, "We assess that him expressing this belief would increase the likelihood that others will see his illness as being a manifestation of possession."

A report prepared by Amnesty International further supported this argument. It stated, "It is our assessment that on return to Nigeria [the appellant] is likely … to encounter widespread attitudes that confirm and amplify his belief in demonic forces and witchcraft as being at the root of his problems." The report also warned that he faced a "substantial risk of being identified as suffering from demonic forces and faces a resultant risk of being targeted as a result."

Medical evaluations revealed that the man suffers from a trauma-related disorder with psychotic features, including intrusive memories, nightmares, and a preoccupation with demonic forces. He also reported experiencing episodes of paralysis upon waking, which he attributed to demonic interference. These factors contributed to the judge’s concern that deportation would remove him from the “highly prescriptive treatment environment” he currently benefits from in the UK.

In his defense, the man expressed a strong desire to rehabilitate and lead a crime-free life. "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," he stated. His key worker testified that he regularly attends the gym and volunteers weekly, indicating a commitment to positive change.

However, the case has drawn criticism and raised questions about the broader implications of human rights laws in deportation cases. Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, questioned why the UK should bear the responsibility for the man's care, especially given his criminal history. He stated, "Why should we as a country, be picking up the health problems of people from other countries who have committed serious crime?" He further added, "I appreciate this man has serious mental health issues, but why should it be the responsibility of Britain to solve them, fund them, and allow him to stay when he is a very serious criminal? It shows serious issues with the law."

The ruling has paved the way for a new hearing, where the complexities of the case will be further examined, balancing human rights considerations with public safety concerns.