The Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) has denied allegations that it issued a fresh international passport to Rebecca Godwin-Isaac while she was facing trial before the Federal High Court in Abuja. In a statement released on Monday, the agency emphasized that the passport, numbered B51450551, was issued on February 15, 2025, four months prior to her arraignment on June 18, 2025. The statement, signed by Public Relations Officer Akinsola Akinlabi, described reports suggesting the passport was issued during her trial as 'false and misleading.'
Godwin-Isaac, whose full name is Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, had previously held a Nigerian passport numbered B00485650, issued on August 13, 2021, which was valid until August 12, 2026. The NIS explained that the renewal followed standard procedures, as the agency is authorized to issue a new passport before the expiration of an existing one under specific circumstances, such as loss, damage, or exhaustion of pages. 'The issuance of Passport No. B51450551 to Mrs. Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac on February 15, 2025, automatically voided Passport No. B00485650,' the statement said.
At the time of the new passport's issuance, the NIS confirmed it had not received any court order restricting Godwin-Isaac from obtaining a passport or traveling abroad. The agency highlighted that her arraignment occurred on June 18, 2025, approximately four months after the passport was issued. She was charged in Case Nos. FHC/ABJ/CR/76/2025 and FHC/ABJ/CR/77/2025 before Justice Joyce Obehi Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
The NIS clarified that the court later issued an order requiring Godwin-Isaac to deposit her passport, but this directive came after the February 2025 issuance. 'The responsibility to disclose and surrender the new passport to the court rested on Godwin-Isaac, as the defendant, in accordance with the terms of her bail or any subsequent court order,' the statement noted. The agency reiterated that the timeline of events did not support claims of misconduct.
Godwin-Isaac traveled to Rwanda, Dubai, and London after the new passport was issued and following her arraignment. However, the NIS stated it had not received any formal communication from the Federal High Court, the prosecution, or other authorities to restrict her passport or travel. 'Restrictions on international movement can only be effectively implemented when the relevant court order or directive is formally communicated to the agency responsible for enforcement,' the statement said.
The NIS emphasized its commitment to upholding the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of Nigeria’s passport issuance and border-management systems. It pledged to cooperate with any lawful investigation and to provide records to competent authorities upon request. The agency also reiterated that the absence of prior directives at the time of the passport application meant there was no basis to deny her application.
The clarification comes amid broader discussions on Nigeria’s border security and legal procedures, including efforts to address crude oil losses and other national priorities. The NIS’s statement underscores the importance of transparency in administrative processes and the need for clear communication between judicial and enforcement agencies.
The case has drawn public attention due to its implications for legal compliance and the integrity of government institutions. The NIS’s detailed timeline aims to dispel speculation and ensure accountability in its operations.
The agency’s response highlights the complexities of balancing individual rights with judicial mandates, particularly in cases involving high-profile defendants. It also raises questions about the coordination between courts and immigration authorities in enforcing travel restrictions.
Public interest in the matter remains high, with stakeholders calling for clarity on how such cases are handled to prevent perceived or actual conflicts between legal obligations and administrative actions.
The NIS’s statement serves as a precedent for future cases, reinforcing the need for precise documentation and adherence to procedural guidelines in passport issuance and judicial compliance.
The agency’s emphasis on procedural accuracy reflects its broader mission to safeguard national security and uphold the rule of law in all operations.