We’ll Never Send the Jamaican and Nigerian Prisoners Home

Alasdair Palmer, Telegraph (London), August 11, 2012

The revelation that the Government is giving millions of pounds to the Jamaican and Nigerian governments in order to improve those countries’ prisons has generated understandable outrage. What on earth is behind the policy?

The short answer is money. There are about 900 Jamaicans serving sentences in Britain. There are nearly 600 Nigerians. It costs around £38,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a British jail. If all the Jamaicans and Nigerians had been transferred immediately after being convicted to prisons in their home countries, it would have saved the Exchequer £57 million a year. And if all the 11,127 foreigners who are now serving sentences in UK prisons were to do their time in the jails of the countries where they were born, the annual savings would be more than £420 million.

Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to get foreign prisoners into jails in their own countries. There needs to be a “Prisoner Transfer Agreement” between Britain and the country we want to send convicted criminals to. We have such agreements with both Jamaica and Nigeria. The only problem is that it requires the criminal to agree to the transfer. If he does not, then the law says he can’t be moved from Britain. Most Nigerians and Jamaicans sentenced to jail terms here do not want to end up incarcerated in their native countries, whose prisons are usually stinking hell-holes. Their British equivalents are wonders of health and hygiene in comparison.

For years, British officials have been trying to persuade the Jamaican and Nigerian governments to agree to change the Prisoner Transfer Agreement so that the prisoner’s consent is not required. Both governments have promised that they will enact legislation to bring about the change. Neither has done so. That is hardly surprising: what’s in it for them? Nothing—unless Britain can make it worth their while. Which is why the Coalition is offering to spend several million pounds refitting jails in Nigeria and Jamaica. The deal is that if you take back your prisoners, we’ll give you our money.

Were those foreign governments to accept our cash, and use it as we intend, it would have the critical benefit of making at least some of their jails “human rights compliant”. An agreement to the compulsory transfer of Nigerian and Jamaican prisoners to their own countries would be useless if the prisoners could sue the Government under Article 3 of the Human Rights Act, claiming that they would be subjected to “inhuman and degrading treatment” were they to be placed in a jail in their own country. Officials are afraid that, unless prisoners transferred back to Nigeria or Jamaica are housed in upgraded prisons, such suits would succeed.

That’s why the Coalition proposes to hand £3 million a year to Nigeria and Jamaica to “upgrade prison facilities” and “instruct warders on human rights”. Ministers insist this policy will save money in the long run, but I don’t see how it can; they are deluded if they think there is any hope of turning Nigeria’s and Jamaica’s jails into institutions that will satisfy the European Court of Human Rights as decent and humane houses of correction.

Our Government can’t even ensure that the money will be spent in the way it wants. The record with other forms of foreign aid is frequently dismal—the Nigerians, in particular, have a reputation for managing to divert foreign donors’ money to uses other than the ones intended.

Our cash might work as a bribe to persuade the foreign governments to sign up to the involuntary transfer of their prisoners. It has no chance whatever of reforming their prison systems, however. If British ministers can persuade foreign countries to put their citizens, whom we’ve convicted, in their prisons, well and good. But leave human rights out of it—this policy is never going be “compliant”.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Global Minority

    Appeasement never works. Gee only 1500 total? How about shipping all illegal aliens home whether their countries like it or not? I mean really. If Britian or the USA was serious about it could be done regardless whether their countries want them or not.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      How expensive can parachutes be anyway?

      • The__Bobster

        It would be cheaper without them. After all, do you think they know how to operate them anyway?

        • Rocky Bass,

           Generally “cargo” would go out “static line”, no need to train anything to do anything.

        • The Worlds Scapegoat

           It would also be cheaper not to fly all the way to Nigeria or Jamaica before pushing them out of the plane.


          • loyalwhitebriton

            Indeed, it would be cheaper.
            The plane could take off from Heathrow and release the ‘cargo’ in the middle of the English channel. This would be a round trip taking about 40 minutes TOPS!
            Because considerably less fuel is used for the trip, this would be cheaper for UK taxpayers. There would also be considerably less CO2 emissions, so it would be good for the environment too.

          • Rocky Bass,

             From a sufficient altitude to weed out the “good swimmers” in their number I would hope.

  • Rocky Bass,

    Tape a $100 to each of their necks and ship them to the African country of their choice!

  • loyalwhitebriton

    I worked as a Prison Officer ’01-’05 (HMP Wormwood Scrubs), and I can attest to the cushy conditions.
    Part of our catchment area was Heathrow airport, so we would get all of the Jamaican criminals (“Yardies” in London parlance) who’d got caught trying to smugle drugs into the UK. 
    One of the things I noticed about the Yardies on my wing was the virtually perpetual gleaming white toothy smile. This I put down to three square meals a day, TV in every cell, games-consoles, internet access in the prison library (from ’05), gym workouts, and, it has to be said, readily available drugs (smuggled in on visits). No wonder they don’t want to go back home!

    As far as the current ‘Prisoner Transfer Agreement’ is concerned, the Jamaican and Nigerian governments should be given two options:

    1. Accept all of your co-national prisoners immediately, or alternatively
    2. Put all of said prisoners on a large boat, tow it out to the mid Atlantic (with enough food and water for a couple of weeks), then whatever happens, er, happens (and it won’t be our fault).

    • IstvanIN

       The SS United States isn’t being used, built to hold 15,000.  Good start.

      • Rocky Bass,

         Gather up a few of Kaiser’s Coffin’s, the old liberty ships still steaming about. If the trip back to the respective home countries took a couple years, no biggie while in route they wouldn’t be committing any more crimes against innocents. 

  • LaSantaHermandad

    They SHOULD send them home. In Boxes!!!!

    • Rocky Bass,

       With or without “air holes”?

  • Return them with a Royal Marine escort.

  • rightrightright

    It is so simple.   Remove their right to consent to the transfer, then just ship them out.   It isn’t rocket science.  But the government has no intention  of ever shipping out foreigners, criminal or merely so far, merely here illegally.  That isn’t the plan.

  • Howard W. Campbell

     This sounds like any given prison in California. Yea, it is time to ship these people back, the UK needs its prison space for anyone who violates the tenants of political correctness. Why couldn’t the US and most European countries get together and buy one big tract of land in Africa and just ship large chunks of their prisoners to this wilderness? It would not take a lot to bribe some government officials and make this happen. Recently, I watched “Papillion” again for the first time since I was in high school. Something equivalent to Devils Island would be a good start. Out in the middle of Siberia wouldn’t be a bad choice either.

  • jeffaral

    Lots of foreigners wont be sent back anyway because they have become citizens.

    • The Worlds Scapegoat

       This is why whites will be destroyed. Anyone who takes a dump in their country becomes a citizen. They pass laws allowing this sort of behavior, and never rescind it.

    • The__Bobster

      The people who made them citizens should be sent away, too.

  • .

    The UK should save the money they’re spending on building nice prisons overseas and put that money towards bribing foreign politicians to sign updated prisoner transfer agreements.

  • The__Bobster

    So what is Amnesty International doing for the White farmers of South Africa?

  • The__Bobster

    What surprises? Our prisons are full of “law-abiding” Asians whose home countries refuse to take them back.


    Since they won’t take back all of their own citizens that are convicted criminals after they serve their sentence, that nation tries to pawn off the remainder on the United States. These thugs get a get-out-of-jail-free card in the United States because we do not permanently detain them in jail after they have been ordered deported and their country of origin refuses to take them back. That mean they are released on the American streets. They are criminals without a country.
    So how many people are we talking about? Well, according to an ICE report earlier this year, we’re talking about 138,000 illegal aliens who are pending deportation – either in jail or out on the streets. Some of these are never taken back to their home countries.
    Now, who are these offending nations? Well, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and yes, China. Our good buddies the Chinese are the second worst offenders, with 35,000 convicted criminals pending deportation. Imagine that – Chinese criminals in the United States. Who would have thought?