HIGH COURT JUDGMENT:O -v- Refugee Appeals Tribunal Anor.
Neutral Citation(2012) IEHC 46.
High Court
Judgment was delivered on February 2nd, 2012, by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan.
Judgment
A Nigerian Christian pastor who claimed he was at risk of persecution because of his opposition to Sharia law was granted leave to judicially review a decision to reject his application for asylum.
Background
The applicant built his own Christian church in the Nigerian capital, Lagos, where he spoke out against the operation of Sharia law in Nigeria. He claimed he was targeted by a militant Islamic group called Ahaddinjay as a result.
Matters came to a head in February 2007, he claimed, when his church was burned down and the following day his sister was murdered.
He said he was advised by police to leave Lagos and he travelled to the neighbouring state of Oyo and later to Benin, from where he travelled to Cork via Morocco. He arrived in Ireland in August 2007 and sought asylum, claiming his feared for his life if he returned to Nigeria and that there was no effective state protection in Nigeria.
His application was rejected and when he appealed the initial decision the Refugee Appeals Tribunal said his claim was wholly lacking in credibility and his evidence “quite unbelievable”, referring to his “demeanour and credibility”.
The tribunal member also said he “could easily have relocated” and that he had visited the UK 10 times in two years, returning to Nigeria each time.
Decision
Mr Justice Hogan said it was not possible to discern the reasons given for the decision reached. He remarked that the description of a witness’s demeanour as “lacking in credibility” was an uncertain expression.
“An assessment of demeanour in itself can rarely be a sure ground for dismissing the cogency of a witness’s evidence by reason of that fact alone,” he said.
This was particularly the case in asylum cases, in that allowance had to be made for translation difficulties and cultural norms.
He quoted guiding principles enunciated by Mr Justice John Cooke in relation to assessing credibility – it must not be based on perceived correct instinct or gut instinct, a finding of credibility must be based on correct facts, untainted by conjecture of speculation, and where an adverse finding involved discounting evidence supporting a claim, the reasons for that rejection must be stated.
He said the applicant could establish substantial grounds for contending that the tribunal member had violated these principles.
No explanation had been given for the member’s decision, leading to the court concluding that he had elected to disbelieve the applicant’s evidence for purely subjective reasons.
“One is left to presume that the Tribunal member discounted the applicant’s narrative regarding the burning of the church or the murder of his sister on the following day. Yet the reasons for this conclusion are simply not explained,” Mr Justice Hogan said.
It did not appear to be in dispute that the applicant was a Christian pastor or that he had given offence to Muslims by the stridency of his preaching. Indeed, the tribunal member had commented he was not surprised “that the Muslim community would take grave exception to the manner of his preaching”.
The applicant had submitted a photograph of the remains of his church and a newspaper article dealing with the Niger delta oil crisis at this time, but no reason was given for rejecting this documentary evidence.
In relation to internal relocation, the tribunal must ask whether it was reasonably possible for the applicant to travel to another part of Nigeria in safety or whether, given his preaching activities, he might be targeted by Islamic groups. In relation to his travel to the UK and return to Nigeria, Mr Justice Hogan pointed out that all these trips had taken place before the events of February 2007.
He granted leave to challenge the decision to refuse the asylum application.
The full judgment is on courts.ie.
The names of counsel in this case were not available.