The Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected a ₦155 million bail bond offered by a Nigerian, Adeyanju Olaniran, as he seeks to appeal his pending extradition to the United States on fraud charges.
Olaniran, alongside another Nigerian, Timothy Balogun, and Rachel O’Connor, had earlier been ordered remanded in custody by Justice J. Mirza of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice under Section 29 of the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18.
The three are wanted by the State of Arkansas for allegedly conspiring to fraudulently acquire medical supplies from distributors and pharmacies in the US.
According to court documents, the accused persons allegedly intercepted and obtained shipped medical supplies through couriers, resold the goods for profit, and transferred proceeds into accounts under their control. Prosecutors said several American pharmacies and medical distributors suffered losses in the scheme.
In his ruling, Justice Mirza held: “I am satisfied that there is significant circumstantial and direct evidence from which a trier of fact could reasonably infer identity for each of the Respondents’ involvement in the fraud scheme… the evidence meets the test for committal by establishing sufficient evidence that Balogun, O’Connor and Olaniran are the persons who engaged in the alleged fraud.”
He subsequently ordered the trio committed into custody to await surrender to US authorities.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Olaniran appealed and sought interim release on bail. However, Appeal Court Justice P. Lauwers, in United States v. Olaniyan, 2025 ONCA 542 (CanLII), dismissed his application, siding with Canada’s Minister of Justice, who opposed the bail request.
Justice Lauwers ruled that Olaniran had previously violated bail conditions and remained a flight risk. The court also rejected the $140,000 (₦155 million) bail package proposed by three sureties, stating: “More is required for Mr. Olaniyan to establish that his grounds for appeal meet the ‘not frivolous’ test than a general attack of the sort he advances, which amounts to not much more than a general denial that any accused might make.”
The judge concluded that the accused had failed to prove he was not a flight risk, considering “the serious charges he faces, his prior conduct, and inadequate bail conditions.” [Newsmaker]
Stay ahead with the latest updates! Join The ConclaveNG on WhatsApp and Telegram for real-time news alerts, breaking stories, and exclusive content delivered straight to your phone. Don’t miss a headline — subscribe now!
