Opinion ID: 6317061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The United States-Nigeria MLAT

Text: “We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a treaty.” Swarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F.3d 123, 132 (2d Cir. 2010). An MLAT is an agreement between two sovereigns to provide assistance in criminal matters where evidence, persons, or property potentially useful to one sovereign’s prosecutors may be found within the other’s jurisdiction. Nigeria is one of many countries that have an MLAT with the United States. The United States and Nigeria signed their MLAT on September 13, 1989. The Senate approved the treaty on October 18, 2000, the president signed it into law on January 5, 2001, and it took effect on January 14, 2003. The preamble to the United States-Nigeria MLAT states that its purposes are “to improve the effectiveness of the law enforcement authorities of both countries in the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crime through cooperation and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters,” “[c]onsidering in particular the need to fight against illicit production of and trafficking in narcotic drugs and other controlled substances,” and “to enhance assistance in the fight against crime.” 23 Article I lays out the treaty’s basic functions. The two sovereigns “shall, upon request and in accordance with the provisions of th[e] Treaty, provide mutual assistance in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of crimes, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.” United States-Nigeria MLAT, art. I, ¶ 1. The types of assistance available include: (a) taking the testimony or statements of persons; (b) providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; (c) serving documents; (d) locating and identifying persons; (e) transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; (f) executing requests for searches and seizures; (g) tracing, identifying, and immobilizing criminally obtained assets; (h) assisting in proceedings related to forfeiture, restitution, and collection of fines; and (i) any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State. Id. art. I, ¶ 2. The conduct being investigated in the Requesting State need not be a crime under the laws of the Requested State, and the treaty states that it “is intended solely for mutual legal assistance” between the two sovereigns, expressly disclaiming the creation of any “right on the part of any private party to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request.” Id. art. I, ¶¶ 3-4. 24 Articles II and IV-VII lay out the procedures by which the Requesting State requests, and the Requested State grants or denies, assistance. Under Article II, each country has a “Central Authority” that handles MLAT requests: “the Attorney General or a person designated by him” for the United States, and “the Attorney General of the Federation or a person designated by him” for Nigeria. Id. art. II, ¶¶ 1-2. Thus, in this country, the Department of Justice processes MLAT requests. Articles IV-VII concern various technical aspects of the procedures for requesting assistance and processing such requests. Articles III and VIII place substantive limitations on the content of requests and the use of materials obtained, respectively. “The Central Authority of the Requested State may deny assistance” if (a) a request is not in compliance with the provisions of th[e] Treaty; (b) the request relates to a political offense; (c) the request relates to an offense under military law which would not be an offense under ordinary criminal law; or (d) the execution of the request would be contrary to the Constitution of the Requested State or would prejudice the security or other essential national interests of that State. Id. art. III, ¶ 1. “The Requesting State shall not use any information or evidence obtained under th[e] Treaty in any investigation, prosecution, or proceeding 25 other than that described in the request without the prior consent of the Requested State,” unless the information or evidence has already become public. Id. art. VIII, ¶¶ 1-2. Article XIX provides a rule of construction that is directly relevant to the present case: Assistance and procedures provided by this Treaty shall not prevent or restrict either of the Contracting Parties from granting any assistance under other applicable international conventions, arrangements, agreements, practices, or under the laws of the Contracting Parties. Id. art. XIX. In its report recommending approval of the treaty, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee explained that Article XIX “provides that the Treaty shall not be deemed to prevent recourse to any assistance available under the internal laws of either country,” “leaves the provisions of United States and Nigerian law on letters rogatory completely undisturbed, and does not alter any pre-existing agreements concerning investigative assistance.” S. Exec. Rep. No. 106-24, at 102 (Oct. 4, 2000). Prior to 2009, the Department of Justice utilized the procedures made available by § 1782 when a foreign sovereign submitted an MLAT request that required court authorization in the United States. See, e.g., In re Erato, 2 F.3d 11 26 (2d Cir. 1993) (discussing various issues arising from a district court appointment of an Assistant U.S. Attorney as a commissioner under § 1782 to execute an MLAT request from the Netherlands). In 2009, Congress codified and streamlined that practice, which had developed through decades of case law, “mak[ing] it easier for the United States to respond to these requests by allowing them to be centralized and by putting the process for handling them within a clear statutory system.” 155 Cong. Rec. S6810 (daily ed. June 18, 2009) (statement of Sen. Whitehouse). The new statute made explicit what courts had long held was authorized under § 1782 – for example, that a federal judge may order “the appearance of a person for the purpose of providing testimony or a statement, or requiring the production of documents or other things,” 18 U.S.C. § 3512(a)(2)(D), or appoint a person to direct the taking of testimony or the production of documents, id. § 3512(b)(1). Notably, that statute does not “preclude any foreign authority or an interested person from obtaining assistance in a criminal investigation or prosecution pursuant to section 1782 of title 28, United States Code.” Id. § 3512(g).