A WOMAN who claims she was raped by her husband and a traditional healer in Nigeria during a ritual to banish infertility has secured leave from the High Court to challenge the refusal of her application for protection here.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan found the woman’s lawyers had identified substantial grounds for judicial review related to the precise meaning of the term “serious harm” in the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006.
There were a “number of rather peculiar drafting curiosities” in the regulations, he said. On that basis, he granted leave to the woman to challenge the decision of the minister for justice refusing subsidiary protection to the woman.
The woman claimed she was forced into an arranged marriage at the age of 16 and later found out that she had a blood disorder – sickle cell disease – which made her infertile. She said her husband had approached a traditional healer and ordered a special ritual in a forest lasting for several days, where a goat was sacrificed and herbal medicine made.
She alleged ritualistic cuts were made on her abdominal area with the claw marks of an animal. The herbal medicine was rubbed into the cuts and she was also given concoctions to drink mixed with the blood of the goat. The woman claimed she was raped by her husband, the healer and some other men taking part in the ceremony.
After her husband announced he was planning another ritual, she said she ran away to the home of her neighbour’s nephew in Benin. He arranged a false passport and identity for her and accompanied her to Dublin via London.
It was only after arriving in Ireland in November 2006 that she said she realised the man was a trafficker and that she was being brought here to work as a prostitute. She managed to escape from a car and ultimately sought asylum. Her application was rejected in 2008 by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and she was also later refused subsidiary protection.
In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Hogan noted a medical report found the permanent scars on the woman’s stomach matched her description of the ritual cuts.
While rejecting some of the grounds on which she sought review of the refusal of her application for subsidiary protection, the judge said the woman had established substantial grounds related to the meaning of “serious harm” in the 2006 regulations.
The term “serious harm” had been taken by the Minister as referring to instances where “serious harm” was carried out by those working on behalf of the State but that was not clear in the regulations, Mr Justice Hogan said.