When the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) received a delegation from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Lagos on September 10, the meeting raised a question that sits at the centre of U.S.-Nigeria law-enforcement cooperation: what can the FBI actually do in Nigeria? 

The immediate concern was the investigation of financial improprieties within organizations that have been funded through United States government-sponsored programs, especially those dealing with HIV and TB treatment.

The FBI delegation, led by Assistant Law Enforcement Attaché Marcus Maccain, sought closer cooperation with the EFCC to examine how the funds were handled following the shutdown of some programmes supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

But the FBI’s presence in Nigeria does not give its agents the same law-enforcement powers they have in the United States.

The bureau operates through a Legal Attaché, or Legat, office in Abuja and a sub-office in Lagos. Its international operations are designed to connect U.S. investigators with foreign law-enforcement and security agencies, facilitate information-sharing and coordinate investigations that cross national borders. The FBI itself states that its agents generally do not have traditional law-enforcement powers overseas and that investigations abroad are conducted with the cooperation of the host country.

That distinction explains much of the FBI-Nigeria relationship.

The FBI In Nigeria: What It Is and What It Is Not

FBI’s international network operates because criminal investigations tend to be transnational. Fraud investigation initiated in the US may result in locating a suspect in Nigeria.

A cybercrime case may involve a victim in one country, a bank account in another, and digital evidence stored somewhere else. A terrorism investigation may require information held by a foreign security service.

The Legat system is intended to help bridge those gaps.

In line with the guidelines provided by the FBI, its international employees establish contacts with foreign law enforcement, intelligence, and security organizations, share information, coordinate investigations, investigate in collaboration with the foreign governments, and organize training programs for foreign police departments and other agencies.

The restrictions are equally important.

As per the guidelines issued by the FBI, its operatives normally do not have jurisdiction to arrest criminals on foreign soil. Normally, the foreign agencies conduct the investigation and arrests in collaboration with the FBI.

The FBI also says its international personnel do not have traditional law-enforcement powers overseas.

That means an FBI agent in Abuja or Lagos can follow an investigative lead into Nigeria, exchange information with Nigerian investigators, coordinate investigative requests and, where authorised, participate in an investigation alongside Nigerian authorities. It does not mean the agent can independently exercise Nigerian police powers.

An arrest, search, seizure or other coercive enforcement action carried out in Nigeria must operate within Nigerian law and through the relevant Nigerian authorities. The distinction is more than a technicality. It determines how almost every cross-border FBI case involving Nigeria must proceed.

What the FBI Brings to the Partnership

The FBI’s contribution is often its access to U.S. investigative resources, information, expertise and the wider network through which American law-enforcement agencies can coordinate international cases.

The bureau’s relationship with Nigeria covers several areas.

During then-FBI Director Christopher Wray’s visit to Nigeria in June 2024, the bureau said it was working with the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) and the National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) on counterterrorism investigations. Wray also met the EFCC chairman and discussed cooperation against cyber-enabled crime and sextortion, including possible additional training and resources to expand the EFCC’s cyber-investigative capacity.

The FBI also said its International Violent Crimes Unit was engaging Nigerian law-enforcement agencies on kidnapping for ransom by providing investigative assistance and training.

These examples show that the Nigerian agency involved depends partly on the nature of the case.

The EFCC is central to investigations involving economic and financial crimes, including cyber-enabled financial crime.

ONSA and the NCTC, meanwhile, are involved in the counterterrorism side of the relationship. The FBI specifically identified its work with both institutions on counterterrorism investigations during Wray’s 2024 visit.

Other Nigerian law-enforcement agencies may become involved where their statutory responsibilities or investigative capabilities are relevant to a particular case.

The FBI therefore does not operate in Nigeria as a parallel police force. Its work is built around cooperation with the Nigerian institutions that have authority within the country.

When An Investigation Crosses A Border

This is best illustrated through the extradition of two Nigerians to the United States. In August 2026, the US Department of Justice revealed that two men from Nigeria, Adebola Festus Adekunle and Mudasiru Afeez Olawale, had been extradited to the United States on charges related to sextortion of minors for financial gain.

Both men had been arrested in Nigeria in 2023 as part of a wider operation involving the FBI.

The cases show the different roles played by the agencies.

The FBI investigated the U.S. side of the alleged offences and worked with Nigerian partners to locate and apprehend the suspects. The Nigerian authorities were responsible for the suspects while they were in Nigeria and were involved in the legal process that preceded their surrender.

The Office of International Affairs of the U.S. Department of Justice was also crucial in the process of extradition. According to the Department of justice, the two men were extradited on August 27 with the help of the Office of International Affairs, the FBI Legal Attaché in Abuja, and FBI agents who went to Nigeria and brought them into the custody of the United States.

The department specifically acknowledged the essential assistance of Nigeria’s Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, the Federal Ministry of Justice’s International Criminal Justice Cooperation Department and the EFCC.

The distinction is important.

Investigation is not extradition. Arrest is not extradition. And extradition is not prosecution.

The FBI can investigate offences within its federal mandate and work with foreign partners to pursue suspects and evidence. The U.S. Department of Justice handles the U.S. side of formal extradition proceedings, while the process in the country where the suspect is located operates under that country’s law.

The Justice Department describes extradition as a process involving, among other steps, a determination of extraditability, possible provisional arrest and a formal request supported by the required documents.

That is why the 2026 sextortion cases provide a useful example of what FBI cooperation looks like in practice without suggesting that FBI agents possess independent authority to extradite people from Nigeria.

A similar example occurred in February 2026, when Afeez Olatunji Adewale was extradited from Nigeria to the United States in connection with a sexual-extortion case. The U.S. Justice Department said the extradition was carried out with the assistance of its Office of International Affairs, the FBI Legal Attaché in Abuja and the FBI. Adewale had been arrested in Nigeria in August 2023 as part of a wider operation involving the FBI.

Again, the case demonstrates cooperation across jurisdictions rather than the extension of U.S. police powers into Nigeria.

The Legal Machinery: Mutual Legal Assistance Is Not Extradition

Two separate legal mechanisms are particularly important to understanding cross-border criminal investigations: mutual legal assistance and extradition.

Nigeria and the United States have a Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed in Washington in 1989 and brought into force on January 14, 2003.

Mutual legal assistance is principally about obtaining evidence and other forms of assistance for criminal investigations and prosecutions.

The U.S. Department of Justice describes its Office of International Affairs as the U.S. central authority for Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. It assists prosecutors and law-enforcement agencies in obtaining information and evidence from foreign countries for use in criminal investigations and trials.

That can include situations where investigators need records, testimony, or other evidence located in another country.

Extradition serves a different purpose: the surrender of a person wanted for prosecution or to serve a sentence.

The historical U.S.-Nigeria extradition arrangement derives from the 1931 extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, which was extended to Nigeria in 1935. The treaty provides for surrender under specified circumstances and subject to the laws of the country from which the person is sought.

The two mechanisms can therefore work alongside one another in a wider investigation, but they are not interchangeable.

A case may require mutual legal assistance to obtain evidence in Nigeria while separately requiring extradition procedures if a suspect is to be transferred to the United States.

What the Records Show

There are documented cases in which cooperation between U.S. and Nigerian authorities has produced arrests, evidence recovery and prosecutions. The operation called “Wire Wire” was launched by the US Department of Justice in 2018 with the aim of disrupting business email compromise scams across the globe.

The results of this six-month operation showed that there were 74 arrests made in the US and elsewhere, including 29 arrests made in Nigeria. In addition, about $2.4 million was recovered along with $14 million in frauds. The Nigerian arrests were made by Nigerian law-enforcement authorities as part of the coordinated international operation.

The U.S. investigative and prosecutorial effort was complemented by enforcement actions in the countries where the suspects were located.

The next year, Operation reWired went after similar networks behind business email compromise schemes. The Justice Department said that there were 281 arrests around the world, including 167 arrests in Nigeria, along with seizures of $3.7 million.

These operations illustrate the practical value of cross-border cooperation. A business email compromise scheme may involve a victim in the United States, a perpetrator in Nigeria and financial transfers passing through several jurisdictions. No single agency necessarily controls every part of the evidence or enforcement process.

The FBI’s work against sextortion provides another example.

In 2024, the bureau publicly described its cooperation with Nigerian authorities against financially motivated sextortion and said it was considering additional training and resources for the EFCC.

The FBI has also documented cases involving Nigerian suspects who targeted victims in the United States. In one 2024 case, two brothers from Lagos were sentenced in the United States after a scheme that sexually exploited more than 100 victims, including minors.

More recently, the 2026 Operation Artemis cases showed how investigators from the FBI could deploy agents, analysts and forensic experts to Nigeria while relying on Nigerian security authorities for the local legal and enforcement process.

The Justice Department considered the cooperation from Nigeria as indispensable in ensuring the extradition of the suspects involved in the operation.

Has the Partnership Strengthened Nigerian Capacity?

The FBI has publicly documented training and resource support for Nigerian law-enforcement agencies. In 2024, for example, the bureau said it was discussing additional training and resources with the EFCC to expand its capacity to investigate cyber threats. It also described investigative assistance and training for Nigerian agencies dealing with kidnapping for ransom.

Those activities establish that capacity-building is part of the relationship. They themselves do not constitute proof of how Nigerian institutions have grown in their capacity over time.

In order to prove this, one would need better evidence, such as improvement in investigative skills, forensic skills, evidence management, case completion, prosecution or the capacity of Nigerian agencies to handle complex cases involving the borders.

The public record reviewed for this article provides evidence of training, technical support and joint operations. It provides less evidence with which to measure the longer-term institutional effect of those interventions.

That distinction matters. An agency may get training and equipment without necessarily being able to show instantly that its investigative capabilities have been enhanced. The measurable evidence currently available is stronger on cooperation and operational outcomes than on long-term institutional transformation.

The New USAID Investigation

The September 2026 EFCC-FBI engagement provides a different test of the partnership.

Unlike the cybercrime and sextortion cases, this investigation concerns funds connected to U.S.-supported health programmes.

In accordance with the EFCC and the statement made during the meeting on September 10, FBI requested that there be more collaboration in conducting investigations into financial misconduct of organizations that have benefited from USAID-supported projects, especially those of HIV and TB interventions. This was prompted by the closure of some of the programs in 2025.

The investigation is intended to establish what happened to the funds and whether they were properly used.

At this stage, however, the existence of an investigation is not evidence that diversion or criminal misconduct has been established.

The appropriate distinction is between an allegation, an investigation and a finding of wrongdoing.

The FBI is seeking cooperation from the EFCC because relevant financial activity and organisations are in Nigeria. The EFCC, as the Nigerian agency responsible for investigating economic and financial crimes within its mandate, can undertake investigative activity within Nigeria and trace relevant financial transactions and beneficiaries.

The FBI, meanwhile, can provide information, investigative leads and assistance connected to the U.S. side of the matter.

The outcome of the investigation will determine whether the concerns raised about the funds are substantiated.

For now, the case demonstrates another feature of the FBI-Nigeria relationship: a U.S.-linked investigation may require Nigerian investigators to examine activity taking place inside Nigeria.

So, What Can the FBI Actually Do Here?

The answer lies somewhere between “everything” and “nothing.”

The FBI may investigate federal offenses involving U.S. interests, as well as pursue leads to Nigeria in accordance with its legal obligations. The agency may share information with Nigeria’s law enforcement agencies, coordinate investigations, conduct investigations in conjunction with Nigerian investigators, and offer assistance with investigations and training. The FBI may also send staff members to Nigeria as permitted by the host nation.

It can work with Nigerian institutions on counterterrorism, cybercrime, kidnapping, and other transnational investigations, depending on the case. It can also contribute to cases that ultimately result in suspects being extradited to the United States.

But an FBI Legal Attaché office does not give American agents independent Nigerian police powers.

Arrests, searches, and seizures carried out in Nigeria must be undertaken under Nigerian authority and law. However, extradition is a distinct legal process that requires the assistance of relevant authorities from both nations, including the Office of International Affairs in the Department of Justice in the United States.

While the FBI can help in investigating the case, it does not extradite suspects from Nigerian jurisdiction on its own.

The documented cases provide a clearer picture than any description of the relationship in abstract terms.

Operation reWire recorded 29 arrests in Nigeria. Operation reWired recorded 167 arrests in Nigeria. The sextortion cases resulted in suspects being arrested in Nigeria and later extradited to the United States with the involvement of both U.S. and Nigerian authorities. The FBI has also documented training and investigative assistance involving Nigerian agencies. These are measurable outputs of cooperation.

What is less certain is the longer-term effect on Nigerian institutional capacity.

The available evidence shows repeated cooperation, training, investigative support, arrests, seizures, and extraditions. It does not provide enough evidence on its own to quantify how much Nigerian law-enforcement capacity has improved as a result of the partnership.

That distinction is important because international law-enforcement cooperation is not simply about whether one country can send investigators into another. It is about whether agencies with different jurisdictions can share information, obtain evidence, pursue suspects, and build cases while respecting the laws of the countries involved.

In Nigeria, the FBI’s role is therefore best understood not as an American police force operating on Nigerian soil, but as a channel through which U.S. investigations can work with Nigerian institutions when criminals, money, victims or evidence cross borders.