By IROYIN YORUBA TELEVISION
The Nigeria Immigration Service has clarified the circumstances surrounding the issuance of a Nigerian passport to Abuja-based realtor Rebecca Omokamo Godwin-Isaac, rejecting reports that the Service issued a new passport to her while she was already standing trial and in defiance of a court order restricting her movement.
The clarification follows renewed attention to the circumstances surrounding Passport No. B51450551, which the Immigration Service says was issued on February 15, 2025, approximately four months before Godwin-Isaac was arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The issue has become a subject of public discussion because Godwin-Isaac is currently facing criminal proceedings connected with allegations of land fraud, forgery and money laundering, while questions had been raised about how she was able to travel outside Nigeria after an earlier passport became associated with her court proceedings.
The Immigration Service has now presented its own chronology of events, maintaining that the passport at the centre of the controversy was not issued during the criminal trial.
According to the Service, Godwin-Isaac had previously been issued Nigerian Passport No. B00485650 on August 13, 2021. That document was due to expire on August 12, 2026.
The Immigration Service said Godwin-Isaac subsequently applied for the reissuance of her passport on February 5, 2025, before she was arraigned in court.
After processing the application and completing the required procedures, the Service said Passport No. B51450551 was issued on February 15, 2025.
The agency further stated that the issuance of the new passport automatically rendered the previous passport invalid for international travel.
This point forms the central part of the Immigration Service's response to the controversy. The agency's position is that the relevant passport was already in existence before the court proceedings against Godwin-Isaac began and that there was therefore no question of the Service issuing a replacement document after the court had ordered her to surrender her passport.
Godwin-Isaac was arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on June 18, 2025, in two criminal cases identified as FHC/ABJ/CR/76/2025 and FHC/ABJ/CR/77/2025.
The proceedings were brought in connection with allegations involving property transactions in Abuja. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission alleges that the defendants collected more than ₦500 million from complainants in connection with disputed properties in areas including Guzape and Katampe.
Godwin-Isaac, her husband Isaac Ishaku, Richard John and two companies are defendants in the proceedings. The allegations remain before the court and have not been finally determined.
Following the arraignment, a court order required Godwin-Isaac to deposit her international passport with the court as part of the conditions associated with her bail.
The Immigration Service says this order came approximately four months after it had already issued Passport No. B51450551.
The agency therefore argues that the relevant chronology is important when considering allegations that it knowingly issued a passport to a person who was already subject to a court restriction.
The Service stated that, at the time the new passport was issued on February 15, 2025, it had not received any court order, watchlist instruction or other formal notification restricting Godwin-Isaac from obtaining a passport or travelling outside Nigeria.
According to the agency, immigration authorities can only enforce such restrictions when they receive the relevant instruction through the appropriate channels.
This distinction between the issuance of a passport and the enforcement of a subsequent court order has become a major issue in the controversy.
The Immigration Service maintains that a court order made after a passport has already been issued is different from an instruction preventing the issuance of the document in the first place.
The Service also stated that once the Federal High Court ordered Godwin-Isaac to surrender her passport, the responsibility for complying with that order rested with her as the defendant.
It said she was required to disclose and surrender the valid passport in her possession where the terms of the bail order or another subsequent court directive required it.
The agency consequently rejected the suggestion that it deliberately issued a passport to Godwin-Isaac during the trial in order to enable her to circumvent the court.
The controversy, however, did not begin with the Immigration Service's latest statement.
Earlier in September, lawyers representing members of the family involved in the property dispute petitioned government authorities over questions surrounding the passport. They alleged that Godwin-Isaac obtained another passport even though an earlier passport was believed to be in official custody.
The lawyers questioned how the Immigration Service's records could have allowed another passport to be issued while the earlier document remained valid at the time of the relevant application.
They also alleged that the replacement passport may have been processed through a non-appearance procedure and raised questions concerning biometric records.
Those claims have not been established as findings of wrongdoing by a court. They form part of the complaints and allegations that prompted calls for the circumstances surrounding the passport to be examined.
The controversy became serious enough for the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, to direct that the matter be investigated.
Reports from earlier this month indicated that officials of the Interior Ministry met with representatives of the lawyers who raised the complaint. The ministry indicated that it would examine the relevant records and establish the circumstances surrounding the passports identified in the complaint.
The latest statement from the Immigration Service provides the agency's response to the allegations.
The Service said its records show that the new passport was issued on February 15, 2025, after an application made earlier that month. It also said that no court order had been served on the Service at the time preventing the issuance of the passport.
The agency further explained that Nigerian passport regulations permit the issuance of another passport before an existing document expires in circumstances recognised under applicable rules, including loss, damage, destruction or exhaustion of passport pages.
The Immigration Service said the February 2025 application was processed within that framework.
One of the questions now surrounding the matter is therefore not simply when the new passport was issued, but also what information was available to the Immigration Service when the application was processed and whether all applicable procedures were followed.
Those questions are particularly important because passport issuance involves identity verification, biometric records and document-security procedures.
A passport is both a travel document and an important identity document. Errors or weaknesses in its issuance can therefore have consequences beyond an individual applicant because passports are used by governments and border authorities around the world to establish the identity and nationality of travellers.
The Immigration Service has repeatedly emphasised the importance of strengthening Nigeria's passport and border-management systems.
In recent months, the agency has been expanding the use of digital systems, improving document verification and promoting greater cooperation with international immigration authorities.
These measures are intended to make identity and travel-document systems more secure while allowing legitimate travellers to access services efficiently.
The current dispute therefore comes against a broader background of efforts to modernise Nigeria's immigration system.
The agency has introduced and expanded digital passport services, including its Contactless Passport Application System for eligible Nigerians living outside the country. It has also conducted special passport intervention exercises in countries with large Nigerian communities.
Those programmes have been designed to reduce delays and make passport services more accessible to Nigerians abroad.
At the same time, the government faces the challenge of ensuring that improved accessibility does not compromise document security.
The Godwin-Isaac case has consequently raised questions about how passport records interact with court orders, law-enforcement restrictions and watchlists.
Under normal circumstances, a person may be entitled to apply for and receive a passport if the statutory requirements are satisfied. But where a competent court has imposed a restriction on a person's movement or ordered the surrender of a travel document, relevant government agencies need timely notification so that the restriction can be implemented.
The Immigration Service has specifically pointed to the importance of formal communication in such circumstances.
It stated that when a court or other competent authority intends to restrict a person's international movement, the order or directive needs to be formally communicated to the agency responsible for implementing the restriction.
This issue is particularly relevant in criminal cases because bail conditions can change after a passport has already been issued.
A passport may have been legally issued before a defendant is arraigned, while a later court order may require the document to be surrendered. In such circumstances, the legal obligations created by the court order arise independently of the earlier issuance of the passport.
The Immigration Service has therefore separated its own role in issuing the document from the defendant's obligation to comply with the later court order.
The unresolved questions surrounding the case are now connected to the ongoing legal proceedings and any administrative investigation that may follow.
The Federal High Court proceedings against Godwin-Isaac and the other defendants remain separate from the Immigration Service's clarification about the passport.
The defendants have not been convicted of the allegations against them, and the criminal proceedings will continue according to the evidence and decisions of the court.
The passport dispute also does not, by itself, establish that any Immigration Service official committed misconduct.
Similarly, the Immigration Service's explanation represents the agency's account of the circumstances and does not prevent competent authorities from examining the records independently if questions remain.
An effective investigation would be expected to establish the complete chronology, including the original passport, the application for the subsequent passport, the status of the earlier document at the time of the application, the biometric and identity-verification records, any relevant communications between government agencies and the timing of the court order.
Such documentation could help distinguish between an ordinary passport reissuance process and any alleged breach of immigration or judicial procedures.
The issue also highlights the need for effective information-sharing between courts, law-enforcement agencies and immigration authorities.
Where a court orders that a defendant surrender a passport or restricts international travel, the relevant government institutions need accurate and timely information to ensure that the order can be implemented.
Likewise, immigration authorities processing passport applications need reliable records that allow them to identify restrictions that were formally communicated to them.
The latest clarification from the Immigration Service is therefore likely to form part of the continuing public discussion over the case.
The agency has maintained that Passport No. B51450551 was issued on February 15, 2025, before Godwin-Isaac's June 18, 2025 arraignment, and that no court order restricting the issuance of the passport had been served on the Service at the time.
The agency has also said the earlier passport was automatically invalidated when the new document was issued and that the subsequent court order requiring surrender of the passport occurred after the new document had already been issued.
The remaining questions concern the wider circumstances of the passport application, the records available to the authorities and the circumstances surrounding any international travel after the court order.
Those issues can be established through official records, court proceedings and any administrative or judicial investigation.
For now, the Immigration Service has rejected the allegation that it deliberately issued a passport to Godwin-Isaac during her trial or in defiance of a court order.
The agency says the document existed before the trial began and that the relevant court restriction came later.
The clarification provides a detailed timeline, but the wider dispute is still connected to ongoing legal proceedings and questions raised by the complainants.
As the case continues, the central issues will include the legal status of the passports at different points in time, the communications between the relevant institutions and the obligations imposed by the court after the defendant's arraignment.
The matter has also placed renewed attention on the importance of accurate immigration records and effective coordination between Nigeria's courts, law-enforcement agencies and the Nigeria Immigration Service.
For the Immigration Service, maintaining confidence in the passport system will require not only explaining individual cases but also ensuring that its procedures, biometric systems and communication channels remain capable of identifying and implementing lawful restrictions when they arise.
The latest clarification has therefore shifted the focus from the simple allegation that a passport was issued “during trial” to a more precise examination of the dates, records and legal obligations surrounding the document.
The final determination of any disputed criminal or administrative issue will depend on the appropriate authorities and the courts.
Until then, the Immigration Service's position remains that Passport No. B51450551 was lawfully issued on February 15, 2025, several months before Godwin-Isaac was arraigned and before the Federal High Court subsequently ordered the surrender of her international passport.