Our last post addressed how the media often fuels the misconceptions regarding INTERPOL. Today, we look to the case of Biafran Dissident Simon Ekpa and how misinformation on INTERPOL presented in journalistic accounts of his situation. 

Simon Ekpa

Simon Ekpa, a Biafran dissident residing in Finland, was arrested by Finnish Police after threatening to disrupt the forthcoming elections in Nigeria. As reported by Ripples Nigeria here, Mr. Ekpa is a self-proclaimed disciple of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. IPOB is a separatist group seeking the renewed declaration of Nigeria’s South-East  region as the Republic of Biafra.  Mr. Ekpa has allegedly achieved a history of inciting destruction through social media, including declaring sit-at-home orders, meaning people must remain in their homes for whatever amount of time demanded, threatening disobedience with death.

Finnish investigation and arrest

As explained by Premium Times here, according to an official statement shared by the Finnish embassy in Nigeria, Mr. Ekpa was arrested as part of n investigation by Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation into a suspected money collection offense. 

Multiple early news reports such as those published here and here here inaccurately reported that Mr. Ekpa was arrested by INTERPOL when Finnish police were responsible for his apprehension. 

It is unclear why INTERPOL was reported to have arrested Mr. Ekpa, as INTERPOL does not make arrests; he resides in Finland; and the alleged crime was not committed internationally.

INTERPOL’s role in criminal cases

When INTERPOL is involved in a case, a member country’s NCB (National Central Bureau) will request a Red Notice in order to locate and return an individual to the requesting country when the wanted person is believed to be abroad.

When accepted, the Red Notice is circulated to all of INTERPOL’s member countries which gain access to an individual’s information. The Red Notice Subject, once located, is then provisionally arrested pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action.

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

Over the past several decades, popular media has contributed to a widespread misunderstanding of INTERPOL and how it operates. The media often portrays INTERPOL as a body that sends out detectives or agents to arrest and apprehend criminals. This is not the case. As explained in a previous blog post here, INTERPOL receives information from law enforcement agencies in INTERPOL member countries around the world. The organization then shares that information with other member countries to aid in the suspect’s apprehension.  

Fictional films on INTERPOL

For example, in the 2011 film version of The Adventures of Tintin:  The Secret of the Unicorn, the plot concerned two detectives who were “INTERPOL agents” investigating a crime.  This portrayal of detectives investigating crimes further feeds the misunderstanding of INTERPOL, and it continues today. More recently, the 2021 Netflix film Red Notice depicts Dwayne Johnson as an INTERPOL agent tracking down an international art thief. These portrayals are often the only times people hear about INTERPOL or Red Notices with any context, so they often lead to unrealistic ideas about the law enforcement support organization.

How INTERPOL member countries contribute to the media-driven misconceptions

The media-driven confusion is sometimes compounded by INTERPOL’s member countries themselves. Some member countries refer to their National Central Bureau offices – which are their liaisons between the countries and INTERPOL – by the name of “INTERPOL, ” although they are not actually operated by INTERPOL. For example, the United States refers to its NCB, which is the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., as “INTERPOL Washington.” This often leads individuals to reach out directly to the NCB for assistance on Interpol matters that have nothing to do with the United States, only to be directed to INTERPOL in Lyon, France.

Tthe confusion around INTERPOL’s purpose and functioning occasionally affects media reporting on real individuals. The post referenced above addresses multiple media outlets reporting in 2013 that INTERPOL’s agents in Mexico had gone missing while conducting an investigation. Reports stated that INTERPOL’s investigating officials had left the city of Chihuahua on Monday and had not reached their destination of Ciudad Juárez when INTERPOL had no such officials. 

All of this background information provides some context to RNLJ’s next post, in which we will address the false or erroneous reports regarding INTERPOL-related arrests that continue today. 

As always, thoughts and comments are welcomed.

A reader recently sent in the following question:

I wanted to know how long is a red alert in effect? I mean, when does it expires?

  • This question arises often, and with reason. 
  • INTERPOL’s member countries circulate Red Notices for people who are wanted either to stand trial or to serve a sentence.  People who are the subjects of Red Notices naturally want to know when it is safe to travel without risking detention or extradition due to an old Red Notice
  • Red Notices typically expire after five years.  However, they are subject to renewal if the INTERPOL member country that originally made the request advises INTERPOL that the notice should remain outstanding.  If a subject has not been apprehended after five years from the time the notice was originally issued, she should not assume that the notice no longer exists; it very may well be in effect.
  • In fact, some notices that should have been cancelled (due to the charges having been dropped, or the sentence having been served already, etc.) still remain in effect months or years later because the requesting member country fails to advise INTERPOL that the notice should be removed.

So the whole answer is: a Red Notice should be removed when its purpose has been served or no longer exists, or after five years, or longer if it’s renewed.

In our last segment, I discussed the way that the Dual Criminality requirement of most extradition treaties affects Red Notice subjects who are possibly facing extradition.

We left off with the idea that, even if extradition is prevented by a lack of dual criminality, a Red Notice can still lead to a person’s removal from a country. How can that happen?

  • A person can be removed, or deported from a country even if they can’t be extradited from it
  • For example: Italian citizen is in Canada on non-extraditable charges, Canadian authorities could remove/deport him back to Italy if they became aware of a Red Notice in his name.
  • They don’t have to, but they can if they wish because a foreign national’s presence in a country is at the discretion of the immigration authorities

Another means of transferring a person from one country to another is through diplomatic efforts, when the sending country feels its best interests would be served by providing the fugitive to the requesting country

The possibility of extradition or removal is the reason that many Red Notice subjects seek assistance with Red Notices even when they are in a safe country.

The main purpose of an INTERPOL Red Notice is for INTERPOL’s member countries to help each other find and extradite fugitives and bring them to justice.

So why do we sometimes see a wanted person living openly in another country, without being extradited to the country where she is wanted by the authorities?

  • A common requirement in extradition treaties is dual criminality requirement, meaning that the crime for which one country seeks the extradition of an individual must also be a crime in the country where the individual is currently located.
  • For example, in some countries, the crime of criminal association alone is enough for prosecution. In other countries, that crime must be prosecuted along with another crime in order to be valid.
  • Without dual criminality, extradition proceedings normally will not occur.
  • BUT, removal from another country can happen without extradition. In our next segment, I’ll talk about other methods of removal.

Why doesn’t INTERPOL list all Red Notice subjects on its website?

A Red Notice Law Journal reader  recently asked a common question arises when one’s life is touched by INTERPOL.  The question:

“How can you check whether you have a red notice in your name? I checked the Interpol site but I feel information is not accurate or updated. Please advise.”

  • The answer is, of course, it depends.  A small percentage of INTERPOL’s Red Notices are actually published on INTERPOL’s website.  The reason for this is that many of INTERPOL’s member countries choose not to publish the majority of their Red notices.  Bear in mind that the member countries own the information, and INTERPOL is the temporary keeper of the information for purpose of providing assistance to law enforcement officials who are looking for the subject.
  • While some Red Notice subjects will find themselves on the website, the majority do not.  They learn of to the Red Notice when they travel or attempt to travel, apply for immigration benefits, or receive a notice of account closure from their financial institutions.
  • The reason for the non-publication of most notices is that a wanted person is less likely to travel if he is aware of a Red Notice, so the person is more difficult to apprehend.  When a Red Notice subject travels, it’s more likely that identification checks at ports of entry to member countries will result in a “hit” in INTERPOL’s databases, thereby alerting authorities to his presence and providing the opportunity for detention.

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with fellow practitioners Yuriy Nemets of Nemets Law and Ben Keith of 5 Saint Andrew’s Hill in a segment of the Nemets Law-hosted webinar series, “Open Conversations about INTERPOL Abuse.” The recorded conversation includes examples of Red Notice abuse in multiple countries, such as Ecuador, India, Mozambique, Paraguay, Russia, and Venezuela; it can be accessed below.

When an individual is wanted by any member country of INTERPOL, international travel always poses a risk of detention. 

  • When a member country uses its access to INTERPOL’s databases, it should be alerted to an individual’s status as the subject of a notice. 
  • Member countries handle such “hits” differently, with some treating a Red Notice as an arrest warrant, and others requiring a domestic warrant to be issued prior to detention.

Red Notice subjects have experienced all kinds of responses to an INTERPOL hit arising during their travels:

  • some have been ordered back onto the plane and back to their departure countries;
  • some have been briefly questioned;
  • some have been detained and released on bond; and
  • some have been detained, arrested, and jailed pending further court proceedings.

The question of whether to travel while wanted internationally depends upon the level of risk that is acceptable to the wanted person.

The main purpose of an INTERPOL Red Notice is for INTERPOL’s member countries to help each other find and extradite fugitives and bring them to justice.

So why do we sometimes see a wanted person living openly in another country, without being extradited to the country where she is wanted by the authorities?

A common requirement in extradition treaties is dual criminality requirement, meaning that the crime for which one country seeks the extradition of an individual must also be a crime in the country where the individual is currently located.

For example, in some countries, the crime of criminal association alone is enough for prosecution. In other countries, that crime must be prosecuted along with another crime in order to be valid.

Without dual criminality, extradition proceedings normally will not occur.
BUT, removal from another country can happen without extradition.

For questions about INTERPOL or related matters, contact INTERPOL attorney Michelle Estlund at Estlund Law, P.A.: 305 448 0077 or mail@estlundlaw.com.