A Ghanaian convicted drug smuggler who has been deported from Britain three times and used multiple fake identities to re-enter the country has won his appeal to remain in the UK on human rights grounds.
Oduola Toye successfully argued that deportation would breach his Article 8 rights to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights, with an immigration tribunal ruling in his favour despite his extensive criminal history spanning four decades.
The 66-year-old father of three has operated under numerous aliases including Sunday Ogundare, Ogundare Badmus, and Adesoji Babatunde during his attempts to evade immigration controls since the 1980s.
Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Pinder ruled that Toye had “reformed his life” since 2011 and that the risk of him committing further offences was “at most, low”, despite his history of drug smuggling, fraud, and repeated violations of deportation orders.
The Home Office has announced it will appeal the decision, with a spokesman stating: “We strongly disagree with this judgment and have sought permission to appeal. This Government deported almost 5,200 foreign national offenders in its first year in office, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year.”
Toye’s criminal history in Britain began in 1987 when he was convicted of deception under the name Sunday Ogundare. Following a fine and deportation to Nigeria, he attempted to re-enter the UK in May 1993 using a visitor’s visa under the alias Ogundare Badmus and was arrested after being found with illegal drugs.
Just months later, he was sentenced to four years in prison for drug smuggling before being deported to Nigeria in July 1995. However, Toye broke his deportation order by returning to Britain in 1996.
In a remarkable turn of events, he was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2001 under the name Oduola Toye, despite his previous deportations and criminal convictions.
His criminal activities continued, with an arrest in April 2003 on suspicion of multiple counts of fraud. Police investigations revealed the connections between his various identities. Although criminal proceedings were dropped in favour of deportation, Toye was released in error.
He voluntarily left the UK in June 2003 but returned just one month later in July. After a failed attempt to avoid deportation, he was sent back to Nigeria for the third time in October 2003.
The court heard that Toye claimed he re-entered the UK via Ireland in May 2005, using a passport in the name of Adesoji Babatunde. He then managed to remain undetected by authorities for over six years.
In 2011, Toye applied to revoke his deportation order, beginning a legal process that would take over a decade due to what Judge Pinder described as “inexcusable” and “egregious” delays by the Home Office, partly attributed to his use of multiple identities.
During the tribunal hearing, Judge Pinder acknowledged the lengthy delays but ultimately ruled in Toye’s favour, stating: “There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that he continued to use multiple or false identities after he applied for revocation of the deportation order in 2011.”
The judge added: “On this basis, I am satisfied he has reformed his life since seeking revocation in 2011. He has continued to raise a family and provided much physical and emotional support to his children.”
Judge Pinder noted that Toye had maintained a family life with his former partner and their three adult children, concluding: “The period of non-offending is plainly lengthy, and I conclude that the risk of him committing further offences is, at most, low.”
The decision has sparked controversy given Judge Pinder’s history of contentious immigration rulings. She previously faced criticism for allowing a Zimbabwean paedophile to remain in Britain due to potential “hostility” in his home country and for ruling that a Jamaican drug dealer should be spared deportation after being told he had a transgender child.
Judge Pinder, who was appointed to the first-tier tribunal as a part-time immigration judge in 2019 and later to the upper tribunal in 2024, has also written extensively for Free Movement, a website described as advocating for open borders.
The case highlights ongoing debates about the balance between human rights protections and public safety concerns in immigration cases. Critics argue that the ECHR’s Article 8 provisions are being exploited by foreign criminals to avoid deportation.
Immigration law experts note that Article 8 protections can override deportation orders where family ties are established, particularly when children are involved or where significant time has passed since criminal convictions.
The Home Office’s appeal will likely focus on whether the public interest in deporting foreign criminals outweighs Toye’s family life claims, particularly given his extensive criminal history and repeated breaches of immigration law.
The government has indicated it is reviewing policies around deportation of foreign criminals, with recent statistics showing a 14 per cent increase in deportations during their first year in office.
However, cases like Toye’s continue to fuel debate about whether current human rights legislation provides adequate protection for public safety while respecting legitimate family connections.
The tribunal’s decision means Toye can remain in the UK pending any appeal, continuing a legal saga that has spanned nearly four decades and multiple identities.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
