Life well lived ... Former NASA astronaut Rick Husband

HE HAD always wanted to be an astronaut since the age of four. As the planes flew overhead, he would crane his little neck and squint his eyes into the sun wondering what it would be like to soar above the clouds.

Young Rick set his sight on the stars. Rick Husband and his brother Keith had been brought up by parents who encouraged them to follow their dreams and always told them “you can be anything you want to be.”

Early in school when the teacher would ask the children in her class what they wanted to be when they grew up, Rick, the little studious perfectionist, was always first to speak: “I want to be an astronaut.”

The other children would laugh because that was so remote from everyone out in the town of Amarillo, Texas. Normally children would dream of being ranchers, or oil men or maybe doctors but not astronauts!

At 17, Rick got his flying licence. Oh boy was he happy!

After graduating from high school with honours, he headed off to Texas Tech for further study. Because he wanted to be an astronaut, Rick wrote to NASA and asked what qualifications the agency required in pilots or mission specialists. He received a letter stating the specifications and he was using that as a road map: First he had to get a degree in either engineering, maths, biological or physical sciences and become a fighter pilot (test pilot would be an advantage) in the military and get a minimum 1,000 flying hours to qualify for the space programme. Over and above that, he would need a master’s degree in mechanical engineering to be eligible to apply.

In 1980, he graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering and was already in the Air Force and flying the F-4, F-4E and F-15. He married Evelyn Neely who he had known since high school in 1982. They both were Christians but did not have a deep, personal relationship with God.

Rick’s focus for NASA was intense and his wife supported him. Soon, he had done his 1,000 flying hours. Rick made his first application to NASA but was rejected. The space shuttle Challenger had just exploded in January 1986 and NASA had frozen all positions.

To be at an advantage, he became a test pilot. Rick could fly over 40 different planes. He applied again to NASA and was rejected again. At the same time, he and Evelyn were trying to start a family but she has just had two miscarriages. That caused Evelyn to draw nearer to the Lord in a way she had never done before.

Rick on the other hand, remained a nominal Christian. In 1990, Rick finished his master’s degree programme in mechanical engineering and Evelyn also got pregnant with Laura.

In March 1991, Rick filled in another NASA application and there was one question that simply asked if he had worn hard eye contact lenses. He had worn these briefly to help correct his vision and he also knew the answer NASA wanted was “no”, so that is the answer he wrote. That was not entirely honest but it is what they want to hear. He was called for a week-long interview but in the end was not accepted.

Evelyn’s faith in God was increasing and she wanted the same for her husband. He had issues that he had no fully surrendered over to God. Eventually, Rick, with the help of his wife Evelyn, also turned his life over to God completely.

He wrote: “I have finally come to a point where I have put God’s will ahead of my desire to become an astronaut. Don’t get me wrong – I still want very badly to be an astronaut, but only if it is God’s will. I wish I had come to this point earlier, but better late than never.”

His mission now was to love Jesus, be a good husband and a good father. Becoming an astronaut was no longer Rick’s greatest desire.

In 1992, Rick was chosen as the only US Air Force test pilot to come to England on an officer exchange programme. The Husbands arrived in the UK in June and Rick soon learnt to fly the Hawk, Buccaneer, Tornado GR1, Tornado GR4 and several other aircrafts. They also met a Scottish couple, also in the Air Force, who strengthened them in their love for Jesus. Rick and Evelyn believed that was why God brought them to England.

Their home was a place for prayer meetings and marriage counselling sessions in the evenings at the Air Force base. He studied the Bible like he had never done before. He wanted to have a heart relationship with Jesus. He came to know that if he had been accepted at NASA before that moment, he would not have known the Lord as he did then and could have lost his family too because he might have prioritised his job over them.

Now his order of priorities was (1) God, (2) family, (3) work. He prayed that if being an astronaut was not God’s will, He would take the desire from him. He didn’t want to pursue it unless God’s hand was covering him. His motto was: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths (Proverbs 3:5-6).”

He determined that his fulltime job was to be a spiritual leader to his family. He wanted his children to know Jesus as their Lord. He understood that if at the end of life having been an astronaut but having sacrificed his family along the way would not be worth anything.

It was at this time in his Christian journey that he decided to make a fourth application to NASA. He sat completing the form and that question about whether he had ever worn contact lenses was still there. But this time he had a problem. Because of his new-found faith, he desired to do everything to the glory of God, so he emotionally answered “yes”. He knew he was removing any possibility of being selected by NASA, but he felt as if God was telling him to trust Him. He just surrendered all to God. He agonised with God for the two hours he drove to the nearest USAF base to post the forms.

On June 4, 1993, his journal entry read: “Today is the day the USAF astronaut nomination list should come out… I am anxious to see what God’s answer is for all this.” Sure enough, Rick was on the USAF nomination list to NASA, but he had to wait to see if NASA was interested. The FBI interviewed his bosses in England and before long he received a phone call from NASA: the agency wanted him to fly to Houston for an interview.

His biggest challenge in the interview was the eye test. He failed the first time but was to be tested again the next day to be sure. He called the prayer group in England to fast and pray as he was re-tested. They did and his sight tested perfect!

Rick had stepped out in faith and put his reputation on the line to tell the truth, and God blessed him in ways he had never fathomed. Out of 3,000 applications 120 interviews, Rich was selected as one of the 19 astronauts. The family were soon packing their bags going back to Texas.

In 1998, Rick was selected to be the pilot of Space Transportation System-96 (STS-96) on the space shuttle Discovery. He would train for the next nine months for his mission. It’s always an intense training and studying with very little time even to sleep. His would be the second shuttle crew to board the then uninhabited International Space Station. The crew would transfer supplies to the space station, and a couple of astronauts would do a spacewalk so they could do some installation and repair work.

Rick applied himself as he always did, for he knew that how he performed his job and how he conducted himself reflected God. The first mission came and went. By now they had a baby boy, Matthew. Rick was still digging deeper into the Bible. He strove every day to get closer to God; that was more important than any space flight assignment.

After the Discovery mission, many people, reporters especially, would question Rick concerning the argument of science versus religion. For him, there was no conflict of interest; science only deepened his appreciation for God’s handiwork. To him, God was the ultimate Scientist: He created cells and knew how each one of them operated; He put knowledge in men and women to find cures for diseases and invent something as complex as the space shuttle. The universe, the galaxies and all that happens in space symbolised the presence God. “This just didn’t happen by chance.” It would be similar to saying the space shuttle, the most complicated flying machine in the world, just happened by chance. Behold, a cell is more complicated than the shuttle.

In September 2000, 15 months after his first mission, the science crew of the Columbia was announced: Michael Anderson, a Christian who worshipped in the same church with Rick was assigned as payload commander; Ilan Ramon, a decorated colonel in the Israel Air Force was payload specialist; David Brown, India-born Kalpana Chawla and Laurel Clark were mission specialists.

The flight crew were announced in December 2000: Rick was chosen to be commander – rare in NASA because pilots had to fly at least two missions before being commander – and Willie McCool as pilot. This was to be STS-107, a 16-day science mission and Columbia’s 28^th and final mission since its first journey in 1981. They would focus on research in life, space and physical sciences. The experiments ranged from how to reverse osteoporosis and fight prostate cancer to how to design cancer drugs with fewer side effects and reduce pollution-causing emissions.

The crew spent nearly two and a half years together preparing for the mission. Rick continued his mission of bringing up his children for Jesus and singing in the church choir as the mission was put off a couple of times. On Sunday, January 5, 2003, their church offered to pray for Rick and Mike and their families because finally NASA had announced the date of the mission: January 16 to February 1, 2003. The two astronauts had been praying for this mission and wanted God to somehow show their faith.

The day came and everything was ready for a 10:39am lift-off. At 7:30am, before the crew headed for the launch-pad, in a rare moment, Rick paused and stood with them in a circle and prayed for the mission. At 7:52am, they entered the 18-storey-tall Columbia. Rick sat at his place and spoke to Mission Control, with the whole world listening: “The Lord has blessed us with a beautiful day here…”

He wasn’t one to hide his faith in Jesus regardless of who was listening! Soon the shuttle engines roared to life, and the countdown began, the STS-107 crew were on their way to space.

One of the NASA officials approached his family and handed the children a video cassette each and a journal for his wife. Rick had taken time to record sixteen devotionals on video tapes for each of his two children, one for each day. He wanted to lead them to Christ even while in space. There was no day to waste for Jesus. That’s how seriously he took his role as husband and father.

Today we know that on February 1, 2003, Columbia came apart over Texas at about 200,000 feet, 16 minutes from landing. No-one survived. Rick left a legacy for his family, an unwavering trust in God, regardless.

As per requirement at NASA, prior to every launch, the astronauts fill out such documents as wills, financial and personal information including loans, bank accounts, and all other details in case of death. In Rick’s packet titled “Special Instructions for Funeral Services” there’s a section called “Other Special Instructions.” He wrote: “Tell them about Jesus! – That He is real to me (Proverbs 3:5-6, Colossians 3:23).”

(Source: High Calling by Evelyn Husband with Donna Vanliere)

Whilst it was significant to note that the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal against the current Country Guidance case known as EM and Others (Returnees) Zimbabwe, the case still stands as good law.

The UKBA are relying on this case law and appear to have increased removals to Zimbabwe. It appears from our experience that the notice period for flights has been reduced to five days in line with other nationalities.

The UKBA have categorically stated in correspondence that they will continue to apply EM as good law and will continue to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.

The UKBA have stated as follows in a recent letter to RBM Solicitors: “In October 2010, the UK government announced its intention to end the suspension of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe once the Immigration and Asylum Chamber delivered its determination in the country guidance case. This determination was received in March 2011. The IAC found that there was significantly less politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe compared with the situation as assessed by the Tribunal in the last country guidance case. The UK Border Agency has now resumed enforced returns to Zimbabwe.”

The evidence on the ground shows that removals are taking place on a regular basis. We have noted that those individuals who do not have the benefit of legal advice and support from organisations such as the Zim Vigil and the MDC have been removed without any media attention, creating an impression that removals are not happening at the pace we are seeing.

I have previously written an article giving failed asylum seekers advice on what to do if detained. I would also advise Zimbabweans who are in detention to contact the Zimbabwe Association to enable them to update their records and keep up to date statistics of returns to Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Association can be contacted on telephone: 020 7739 8226 and e-mail: info@zimbabweassociation.org.uk.

Asylum seekers facing removal can also follow this link which provides useful information. Further assistance can be obtained from the National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns.

It is important to note that leaving it to the end is very dangerous. Once in detention, the route to legal justice becomes so obviously blocked. Advice on legal aid is limited when in detention and it is worth noting that cases with very strong prospects for success will be taken by the firms who give free advice in detention.

Private solicitors tend to charge thousands of pounds when a person is in detention due to the nature of the work. It is very complex and has to be dealt with on an urgent basis.

It is also important to note that even with the best solicitors, a case can fail, so people need to be prepared for that. It is vital to be well-prepared and to prepare any further submissions before it is too late. It is also important to assess one’s own circumstances with regard to the risk on return.

At times, it is better to return to Zimbabwe with dignity before an enforced process is commenced. The removal process is an extremely stressful thing to go through. I recently spoke to a person who had been removed to Zimbabwe and they confirmed that they had left the UK with a small bag carrying 10kg of luggage and had been escorted by three security guards to Harare. On arrival, they had been given money for onward travel from the airport to their home area. They did not have friends or family in the UK to forward their belongings to Zimbabwe. It is a sad way to end ten or more years of toil in the UK.

It appears that many returnees may face destitution on return to Zimbabwe. I would, therefore, advise people to seek advice and make concrete plans before it is too late. A useful website giving advice and assistance on returning to one’s country of origin is http://www.iomuk.org/.

RBM Solicitors have successfully challenged some removals to Zimbabwe lodging Judicial Review Applications at the last minute. The latest case that we have successfully challenged is that of a Zimbabwean national who was due for removal on February 7, 2012.

I am aware that there are rumours that circulate the immigrant communities and one of these rumours is that if you have children, you cannot be removed from the United Kingdom. This is a rumour which is certainly not true. The UKBA have a process commenced in March 2011 dealing with family returns. Once a family has exhausted all their appeal rights, they would have been made aware that if they fail to attend for the self check in flights, the UK Border Agency may seek to “ensure” their return to their country of origin which could involve:

# Escorted check-in – without further notice

# Escorted check-in – with full further notice

# Escorted check-in – with limited notice

# Removal via open accommodation

# Removal via pre-departure accommodation

Further information on this is available HERE.

If you think you could be affected by the removals or know anyone who is in a vulnerable position, then please seek legal advice urgently. Forewarned is forearmed.

Rumbidzai Bvunzawabaya is a Solicitor at RBM Solicitors based in Coventry. Visit website: http://www.rbmsolicitors.co.uk, e-mail info@rbmsolicitors.co.uk or call 07772790291

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information and guidance on immigration law. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information

That would be OK if it was just politics and if the accusations were mere suppositions. The reality of the matter, though, is that evidence of corruption and dishonesty within the MDC-T keeps on piling up. Daily, new standards are being set in dishonesty, fraudulence and moral decadence.

Whatever sphere of life you wish to mention; private personal behavior, public service, honesty, courtesy the MDC-T has set some very worrying standards with the consequent disastrous decline in the morality of our politics.

If it’s not Bindura Mayor Tinashe Madamombe under investigation for serious corruption charges, it’s Warship Dumba and Casper Takura answering to questions of mismanagement, dishonesty and fraud. Or it’s some rogue councilors in Chitungwiza or Victoria Falls taking advantage of public office to feather their own nests. In every instance, the modus operandi is the same.

Right now, Mutare Mayor Brian James (an MDC-T bureaucrat) has rightly been asked by Local Government, Rural and Urban Development Minister, Ignatius Chombo, to step aside while an investigation into claims of mismanagement of funds is conducted. James is alleged to have used huge sums of public money for private purposes.

But it would be naïve to lay the blame entirely on these councilors. The rot started not at the bottom but at the top of the MDC-T establishment. To a greater and lesser extent, they are merely following in the footsteps of their leaders who have not done much of a job to lead by example.

Councilors draw most of their inspiration from the behavior of those who lead them. Yet, regrettably, those at the helm of the MDC-T enterprise are just as corrupt and rotten, if not much, much worse. What happened to leading by example? What happened to the party of excellence?

There was a period, not so long ago, when our politicians were admired throughout the region for their outstanding ethical standards; their desire to serve and their general moral decency. But, with the coming of the MDC-T and the formation of the inclusive government in 2009, our politicians have become more disposed to lying, cheating and deceiving. This is not what we are and it’s certainly not who we are.

It is the duty of a Prime Minister and leader of any party to set the tone. In both these capacities, Tsvangirai has a great opportunity not just to set the record straight but to set some fine examples. It’s a now or never sort of thing. Yet, as the evidence clearly indicates, it’s more likely to be never because Tsvangirai himself is a man of dubious character.

If Morgan Tsvangirai can lie about his use of a $1, 5 million facility, a sum wholly funded by the tax-payer, and can proceed to use that colossal sum of money in less-than-clear circumstances, often enjoying it with relatives and friends as alleged and as plainly shown by a preliminary report in the ongoing investigation, why would a councilor feel the need to be transparent or to act responsibly when handling public funds?

Indeed, if Tsvangirai can effortlessly spend $36, 000 in one day on lobola; enough money to pay more than 10 teachers for a whole year, why on earth should a councilor feel restrained and compassionate about being extravagant in the use of municipal cash?

Meanwhile, Tendai Biti is under examination for the $500 million facility received from the IMF in 2009. Suspicions are that a huge chunk of that money was used in rather questionable circumstances. It raises all sorts of questions including whether the MDC-T is really what everyone thought it was and if Zimbabweans aren’t better off sticking with the devil they know.

For a party that has spent its entire life making a lot of noise about transparency and accountability, this is a very frightening, despicable and unforgivable situation. It underscores MDC-T’s hypocrisy and demonstrates quite amply that they are incapable of governing a society whose people are renowned for their outstanding principles.

Meanwhile, instead of thinking more about the welfare of the people, MDC-T Members of Parliament have been demanding ridiculous salary increases in stark contrast with their party’s purported position of putting responsibility ahead of greed, nation ahead of self. They have insisted on getting brand new cars and Biti has answered their lavish calls with great pleasure, pouring tens of millions of dollars towards the project and sidelining, in the process, more important matters like civil servants salaries.

At some point, somebody has got to put a stop to this. It would be wrong and amoral if we permitted selfish and corrupt public servants to get away with murder particularly in a country where millions struggle just to keep body and soul together.

An example needs to be set that abusers of public office, Zanu PF or MDC-T, have no place in our society and that morality in politics is not optional, it is mandatory. Indeed, if the possible charges against Tsvangirai and Biti are made official, both should instantly be made to resign. Under normal circumstances, they should already have done so of their own free will.

Conflict of interest ... Harare Mayor Muchadeyi Masunda

BULAWAYO-BORN Harare mayor Muchadeyi Masunda is the chairman of nine private sector boards and director in three others.

Masunda is the chairman of Old Mutual, a British-owned and controlled insurance firm which is the biggest resident in Harare. He is also the chairman of the Commercial Arbitration Centre housed at CABS Centre, a building owned by Old Mutual.

The mayor also chairs the John Sisk &Son board, a construction company that undertakes most of Old Mutual projects. He also chairs boards of directors of Siemens, Lafarge, Atlas Copco, Harare Innercity Partnership, Coates Bros and is a director for Meikles, Zimplats, Zimbabwe Alloys, HIB Holdings and Bindura Nickel Corporation. He also sits on the High Court and Supreme Court Rules Committee.

With all these appointments, one is persuaded to think that Masunda is the last born in this country.

What is most worrying is his continued presence in leadership in both private and public sectors concurrently. Such practice, in the main, yields a high fertile ground for corruption, nepotism and all other vices.

London mayor Boris Johnson, Washington DC mayor Vincent Gray and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa all resigned from private sector engagements when they took over their jobs. The reason is clear: to avoid overlaps and possible conflict of interest.

Here in Zimbabwe, Masunda is on absolute free reign. He continues to be chairman of Old Mutual and being Mayor of Harare. What happens when Old Mutual complains to the city of Harare over water rates? Will the City of Harare official apply their mind independently fully knowing that the boss has interests?

At the moment, Masunda is investigating businessman Phillip Chiyangwa’s acquisition of land owned by the City of Harare. Without trying to exonerate Chiyangwa on the matter, speculation is rife that the same land Chiyangwa took was also being eyed by Old Mutual, which is chaired by Masunda. Further, the appointed panel for the Tribunal is believed to be associated with the Commercial Arbitration Centre. The independence of the appointed judges becomes questionable.

It is this duplicity of roles, which compromise Masunda every time he makes a decision.

What is more painful to note is that if an Old Mutual tenant is in dispute with his/her landlord, the lease agreement (section 41) excludes the rent board to preside on such matters. The dispute has to go to compulsory arbitration at the Commercial Arbitration Centre, which Masunda is also chairs.

By virtue of being the chairman, Masunda has tremendous influence in appointing arbitrators. Surely, we do not need to learn rocket science to realise that the impartiality of the arbitrators is heavily compromised. By allowing Masunda to be chairman while also running Harare, Old Mutual is also proving that it is bankrupt in corporate governance.

Masunda is also the chairman of construction company, John Sisk & Son. Not even the worst fool would accept that the projects the company gets from Old Mutual are not a result of Masunda’s undue influence.

Does John Sisk & Son get cement from Lafarge at the same price with other construction companies given that the two companies have the same chairman?

Masunda is also a director of Meikles Limited where Old Mutual has a significant shareholding but this time represents the Moxon Meikles Family Trust which has more than 52% controlling interest. What happens if Old Mutual and this Trust clash? During the Nigel Chanakira debacle, Old Mutual saw things differently from the Moxon clan.

Masunda also sits on the boards of Zimplats, Anglo American plc, Zimbabwe Alloys and Bindura Nickel Corporation. These mining houses have in a way contesting interests and do not want the other to be privy to its own operations. How does Masunda handle this? It’s also obvious that Atlas Copco get the lion share of orders in these companies.

There is no place in the civilised world where you can find a public official deeply involved with private companies as much as Masunda. No society would tolerate an individual to have both private and public appointment at the same time.

The MDC is silent on the matter and is failing to realise that its appointee is a huge liability. The MDC can no longer speak against such practices in future should they be repeated by other political parties’ appointees. Where the hell is Transparency International? Why is Dr John Makumbe quiet? Is it because Masunda is one of their own?

The Minister of Local Government must confront Masunda to choose to be either in private or the public sector. Equally, all these companies he is part of their boards must, for once, have conscience and demand Masunda to resign either as mayor or as board member.

Old Mutual, a conglomerate listed in London and South Africa, must be upfront on this matter and declare if it allows politicians to chair their boards. We need to know so that we can give Old Mutual political treatment.

Masunda must also realise that the misconduct of some or all his private companies he represents compromise his mayorship. For example, Old Mutual fraudulently absolved itself from pension and policy payouts and this disadvantaged many pensioners who are now failing to pay for their council rates. The council, which he chairs, is now attaching the property of the same pensioners which Old Mutual pauperised.

This double dealing by Masunda must come to an end or it will end the little remnants of corporate governance in Zimbabwe.

As if the foregoing was not bad enough to stomach, Masunda is also a member of the High Court and Supreme Court Rules Committee where he sets the court rules. You couldn’t make it up!

There is no denying that the ‘Look East Policy’ is bearing fruits – at least in Kuwadzana; a local tabloid last week carried the story of a Kuwadzana woman who gave birth to a Chinese baby. Evidently, the Chinese have penetrated everything Zimbabwean, from flea markets to mining concessions in platinum, gold and diamonds. But I digress.

The obsession with China as the centre of global growth is not misplaced. Confidence in capitalism is probably at an all-time low. The Washington consensus, the organising idea behind the global advance of laisser-faire financial capitalism has suffered irreparable harm following the global economic crisis. The rise of the new ‘superpowers’ in the East has been helped in no small measure by a crisis of decisive leadership and political authority in the West.

Barack Obama is struggling for confidence and has lacked the temperament of a Franklin Roosevelt.  European leaders in countries such as Italy and Greece have been falling faster than Arab dictators.  Charles Kupchan, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University, says the political breakdown in the US and the fracturing of solidarity in Europe has added to the crisis of governability whilst emerging economies like China, Brazil and India are moving up as the new economic order.

Undoubtedly, China is on its way to becoming a formidable global power. The size of its economy has quadrupled and is estimated to double again in the next decade. Again the country has accumulated massive foreign reserves worth more than $1 trillion. China has become one of the world’s major manufacturing centres and consumes roughly a third of the global supply of iron, steel, and coal.

The assumption, however, that the rise of China will inevitably bring the US-led international order to a standstill is perhaps overstated. The United States did not simply establish itself as a leading world power; it led in the creation of universal institutions that invited global participation in an integrated financial architecture which will take years to dismantle. Even, as predicted, the US is overtaken by China as the world’s leading economy, the US dollar will most likely remain the dominant trading currency for the foreseeable future.

Gono’s argument

The governor’s argument in favour of introducing the Yuan is premised on the rise of China and the crisis of capitalism as a justification. Considering we are just creeping out of a ‘world record economic disaster’ a proposal to tinker with modest economic recovery by adopting a currency whose suitability and benefits are at best circumstantial, empirically unproven and largely speculative is seriously questionable. Now is hardly the time for another currency experiment of ‘quintillion dollar proportions’.

The Yuan idea can only be taken seriously when considering the suitability of adopting a ‘China-type market economy’ with the state as a pivotal actor in economic management. The sustained growth in the East suggests the success of such a judicious mix of market liberalism with an entrepreneurial role for the state.

The nationalisation of a slew of financial institutions in America has been described as “socialism with American characteristics”. In Britain, Labour leader Ed Miliband is calling for what he describes as “Responsible capitalism” based on controlling the excesses of market liberalism. In this regard, A ‘Look East Policy’ adopted by the government although born out of necessity is completely justifiable, but adopting the Yen is not.

To Yuan or not to Yuan

In terms of cost and benefit, Zimbabwe is better off adopting the Zambian Kwacha than a currency whose name no one can pronounce without the aid of a mandarin interpreter. Despite the Chinese invasion, South Africa remains the country’s largest trading partner. We should be more concerned with South Africa’s recent protectionist policies than China.

Nonetheless, the tradability of a Yuan currency is practically complex if not outright impossible. There is no evidence to suggest that the Yuan will lead to different liquidity challenges than those currently being faced with the US dollar.

If the governor’s Yuan idea makes no sense, it maybe because the sub-text is more about the introduction of the Zimbabwean dollar than the Yuan. Logically, if the Yuan was the focus, there is no reason why this cannot be added to the multi-currency basket alongside, the USD, Rand and Pula, allowing the market to determine its tradability.

The governor’s idea, which calls for the introduction of the Yuan alongside the Zimbabwe dollar, would in effect result in de-dollarisation. The net effect would be a crafty return of the Zim dollar with the Yuan as an anchor.

Zim-dollar debate

A popular misconception is that the Unity government dollarised the Zimbabwean economy. It didn’t; the reality is that the economy succumbed to market forces and dollarized itself well before authorities introduced the multi-currency basket. The fall of the Zimbabwe dollar was simply the evidence of a failure of economic policy. Adopting a multi-currency regime was surrender to market forces which legitimised economic realism.

Based on evidence from Peru, Egypt and Liberia, de-dollarisation can be costly and complex. When the minimum conditions for the return of the dollar have been met, possibly within a 5 year time-frame or even longer, the Zimbabwe dollar can be introduced in the current multi-currency basket. When managed prudently with market incentives such as the creation of local currency denominated bonds, gradual de-dollarisation can be achieved.

To achieve de-dollarisation, three basic approaches can then be adopted. First, macro-economic policies can be utilized to keep the exchange rate and prices stable through inflation targeting. Second, regulatory/legal reforms such as setting differential reserve requirements or remuneration rates or adjusting provisioning and liquidity requirements will have to be considered.

Other legal reforms could entail requiring all or certain payments or contracts to be conducted in the local currency. Other administrative enforcements such as taxes on dollar intermediation and a gradual conversion to local currency deposits would be useful.

Zimbabwe is coming out of a decade-long economic crisis which made us a worldwide laughing stock and a test case on ‘How not to manage an economy’. Presently, the Zim dollar is a ‘collector’s item’ on Amazon on account of the zeros we invented in a ‘Ripley Believe it or Not’ fashion. The serious question should be how to restore sufficient credibility in our own economic policy, consolidate recovery and improve productivity and not grandstanding economic experiments. For now, the Zim dollar should remain on Amazon.

Dr Lance Mambondiani is an Investment Executive at Coronation Financial. He is also a Teaching Assistant in International Finance for Development and Financial Markets and Corporate Governance at the University of Manchester. He can be contacted on lancem@coronationfinancial.com. The view expressed in this articles are personal and do not necessarily reflect the position of Coronation Financial.

The appellant, a citizen of Zimbabwe, entered the United Kingdom lawfully about 13 years ago. She overstayed. She sought asylum in 2009, based on the risk of persecution as a lesbian. The Home Office refused the claim, holding that even if the appellant did face ostracism from her family and social discrimination, that would not constitute persecution; that there is a homosexual scene in Zimbabwe, especially in urban areas, from which she could derive support; and that if necessary she could relocate within Harare, or elsewhere in Zimbabwe.

The key points made by Upper Tribunal Judge Macleman and Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Holmes are as follows:

# There has been much public expression of extreme homophobia at the highest levels in recent years.

# Male homosexual behaviour is criminalised, but prosecutions are very rare. Lesbianism is not criminalised.

# Some homosexuals suffer discrimination, harassment and blackmail from the general public and the police. Attempted extortion, false complaints and unjustified detentions are not so prevalent as to pose a general risk. There are no records of any murders with a homophobic element. “Corrective rape” is rare, and does not represent a general risk.

# There is a “gay scene” within limitations.

# Lesbians, living on their own or together, may face greater difficulties than gay men.

# GALZ (Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe) takes a realistic view: Zimbabwe is “not the worst place in the world to be gay or lesbian even though the President, government officials and church leaders have whipped up a climate of hysterical homophobia.

In Uganda, the death penalty could soon be introduced for being gay. A judge in Malawi last year imposed a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison with hard labour on a gay couple convicted of gross indecency and unnatural acts. In South Africa, Noxolo Nogwaza was killed in April last year after what appeared to be a so-called “corrective rape”, an increasingly common crime in which men rape lesbians to “turn” them straight or “cure” them of their sexual orientation.

# Applying HJ & HT [2010] UKSC 31, [2010] Imm AR 729, there is no general risk to gays or lesbians. Personal circumstances place some gays and lesbians at risk.  Although not decisive on its own, being openly gay may increase risk. A positive HIV/AIDS diagnosis may be a risk factor. Connections with the elite do not increase risk.

# The police and other state agents do not provide protection.

# A homosexual at risk in his or her community can move elsewhere, either in the same city or to another part of the country. He or she might choose to relocate to where there is greater tolerance, such as Bulawayo, but the choice of a new area is not restricted. The option is excluded only if personal circumstances present risk throughout the country.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in LZ means that it is possible for a homosexual or lesbian person to be granted refugee status on the particular facts of their case. The following factors are factors that enhance the risk for gays and lesbians:

# Personal circumstances place some gays and lesbians at risk. Although not decisive on its own, being openly gay may increase risk. A positive HIV/AIDS diagnosis may be a risk factor.

The appeal in this case was successful on the basis of the particular facts on the case.

There are many positive findings in this case that may assist gays and lesbians who are unable to return to Zimbabwe due to fear of persecution. Gays and Lesbians who have previously been refused protection can submit further submissions if their particular circumstances present risk throughout the country.

Rumbidzai Bvunzawabaya is a Solicitor at RBM Solicitors based in Coventry. Visit website: http://www.rbmsolicitors.co.uk, e-mail info@rbmsolicitors.co.uk or call 02476520999 or 07956949500 or 07772790291

Disclaimer: This article only provides general information and guidance on immigration law. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. The writer will not accept any liability for any claims or inconvenience as a result of the use of this information

Point man ... United States Ambassador Charles Ray

Dear Ambassador Charles Ray,

I read with interest your speech on the state of Zimbabwe-US relations and have decided to share my opinion on the matter, if only in brief.

You have achieved many wonderful things during your term in Harare as American Ambassador, including helping in the battle against HIV/AIDS and bolstering agricultural production. That’s very commendable work indeed and I can only wish you equal success in your future efforts.

But, for all your admirable accomplishments, Charles, one fundamental issue has remained woefully unresolved.

The willingness or otherwise of the American government to recognise Zimbabwe as a truly independent nation, capable of charting its own future without external interference, will determine whether Zimbabwe-US relations will succeed or, just as likely, fail.

No reasonable person can ever question the significance to any nation of cultivating good relations with the international community, especially with a country of such huge economic importance as the United States.

But here is the thing: The current tensions between Harare and Washington are neither unreasonable nor unexpected, they cannot be wished away. They are a direct result of America’s intention and desire, over a very long period, to topple the government of President Robert Mugabe and to replace it with a regime more amenable to its predatory economic interests.

The facts speak for themselves. In 2001, and acting purely on uncorroborated evidence, the United States government imposed financial sanctions on Harare on the bogus grounds that President Mugabe’s government was violating the civil liberties of its people. Of course that was nonsense.

The political situation in Zimbabwe at the time was anything but deplorable, it did not warrant the imposition of sanctions. The opposition MDC won the majority of the seats in the House of Assembly around the same period. Those on the bench interpreted the law impartially and judiciously, without fear or favour.

But let’s suppose for a minute, Charles, that America’s concerns about Harare are genuine. Washington’s own track record on human rights is very poor. President Obama, an otherwise great statesman who has my best wishes in his re-election bid, has since reneged on his undertaking to shut down Guantanamo Prison where some of the most sickening and barbaric acts of torture since World War II are taking place on a daily basis, and have been for the past ten years.

Furthermore, the Obama administration, of which you are an integral component, has broadened its definition of war powers ostensibly in order to silence critics around the world and, presumably, to take any such critics to secret locations like Guantanamo where they cannot see an attorney or invoke any of the constitutional rights ordinarily available to detained persons.

Charles, most people would regard a nation that acts in this repressive way, not as a champion of human rights or democracy or any of that self-serving rubbish but, ipso facto, a dictatorship.

Accordingly, your government is in no position, moral or otherwise, to talk of rights abuses anywhere in the world let alone in a peaceful and God-fearing country like Zimbabwe.

President Mugabe’s only crime, and I hope you know this in your heart of hearts, is that he has decided to stand for what is right: the economic independence of his people. In doing so, he has rattled many including the US government whose preference has long been to perpetuate white-skin privilege in Zimbabwe.

For this reason and this reason alone, they now want him gone and the imposition of sanctions is part of their means of achieving just that. Regrettably, ordinary Zimbabweans are the ones who have been caught up in the meat grinder. But does your country give a damn? I didn’t think so.

I’m sorry Charles, but if you cannot see what a rogue state America has become, then you are not thinking straight.

Instead of helping ameliorate the plight of our people by removing these sanctions, the US is looking to increase pressure on the government of President Mugabe by imposing even more.

I am personally aware that your government is secretly pressuring Russia and China, as members of the United Nations Security Council, to agree to further sanctions on Zimbabwe in addition to those already enforced by the European Union and the United States.

Fortunately, Russia and China will not be duped into committing heinous crimes against humanity. As far as they are concerned, there exists no reason to warrant the imposition of sanctions on Zimbabwe. God bless the people of Russia and China.

Yet the evil of your government knows no bounds. With or without Russia or China, Washington is intent on imposing increased sanctions on Zimbabwe in further attempts to send Harare’s economy to the gutter and to overthrow the regime of President Mugabe.

In that regard, and as you are well aware, they have since placed Mbada Diamonds and Marange Resources on their new sanctions list despite an earlier decision by the Kimberly Process to allow the sale of Zimbabwe’s diamonds without further encumbrance. Charles, this speaks of a very sinister agenda and demonstrates quite clearly that America is concerned merely about its own interests and not much else.

With these bolstered sanctions in place, and hopefully with the support of South Africa and other SADC countries with which your government has lately held numerous meetings on Zimbabwe, Washington hopes to extend Zimbabwe’s isolation.

It expects, too, that it will continue to render financial and tactical support to the Movement for Democratic Change project, MDC aligned civil society organizations and the so-called independent media, in the misguided hope that this time the government of President Mugabe will fall.

But you see Charles, Zimbabwe’s problems, no matter how outrageous, are for the people of Zimbabwe to fix. Certainly it is not for a western country with the blood of millions of innocent Iraqis and Libyans on its hands – and soon of Syrians and Iranians, to direct us as to how to go about solving our challenges especially if that help has not been solicited.

I am prepared to assume that, personally, you mean well and that part of your New Year’s Resolution is indeed to help improve Zimbabwe-US relations. That is very good, Charles, except for one small problem: the same could not be said of the United States of America.

In the circumstances, your call for our two countries to look more at areas of mutual agreement is great, but, I’m afraid, because it ignores some underlying truths, it will remain just an idea.

The only practical way by which to measure your country’s sincerity is if she stops all attempts, covert and overt, to impose a government on the people of Zimbabwe and to forthwith abort any relationship whatsoever with any Zimbabwean political party outside of accepted government protocol.

If America can commit to this civilized way of doing things, I have no doubt in my mind that that would go a long way in our efforts to mend a damaged relationship that now faces the ever increasing possibility of breaking down permanently and irretrievably.

You have my best wishes for the remainder of your tenure here.

Yours sincerely,

Psychology Maziwisa

Not making themselves heard ... Highlanders fans at Barbourfields

NDUMISO Ngcobo, a columnist for South Africa’s Sunday Times newspaper, has got me thinking. Ngcobo has some pretty strong views about membership of any entity, particularly that of a political party.

I will not repeat what he wrote in its entirety, lest a certain political party sent its hit squad of weirdoes masquerading as liberation heroes to come beat me up with their walking sticks.

Ngcobo, in his latest contribution to the Sunday Times, writes that his aversion to joining political parties is that he didn’t do uniforms.

“This is what has kept me out of the SANDF (army), the Shembe church, nursing school and the Star (ship) Enterprise. I can’t don the ANC’s colours because I find green distracting, and the DA’s blue reminds me too much of Surf washing powder.”

I will also not reveal what my good friend and cartoonist Tony Namate posted on his Facebook wall about political parties whose members spend most their energy fighting each other when the real enemy stood on the sidelines to celebrate such bouts of elementary stupidity. In a similar vein, it still beats the daylights out of me how a party expects to win support through the beating up of people!

Instead, my focus is on some of those who support a certain football team who believe that by paying US$5 to watch a game gives them the mandate to determine which direction the team should take, who should be put in or kicked out. The question is: does paying a prostitute make one claim lordship over her?

Sorry, that might be too strong an illustration, but the point is that close to 80 percent of the people who publicly peddle opinions about Highlanders Football Club, the oldest in the country, are not subscription-paying and card-carrying members. What then gives them the mandate to be taken seriously, particularly if the subject of their complaints is on club finances, the very amounts they are withholding from their favourite club? They can’t even vote for that matter!

Someone once remarked that if the team’s estimated one million sympathisers, empathisers and of course supporters, would donate just a dollar each, Highlanders’ problems would be well on their way to being solved. But why donate, when there is the constitutionally-mandated method of propping up the team, buying the club’s membership? With choice comes responsibility.

For those who believe that certain individuals should be replaced with more competent ones, why not become fully paid up members and then use the open and fair route of replacing officials through constitutionally sanctioned elections or better still offer their latent yet brilliant skills to the electoral test?

Regrettably, such characters are conspicuous by their absence where they are most wanted. In every election to choose the Highlanders executive, no more than 300 paid up members elect the executive of the team. Whose fault is that? A similar malaise transcends national politics where the loudest of complaints usually comes from those who do not vote. Ever heard of the adage, a people get the government they deserve, may I add, through inaction?

Namate speaks of too much energy spent in fighting among people on the same side of the political debate. Is it because people have run out of ideas as to how to constitutionally unseat the former ruling party? I don’t think so. If ever there was any clearer illustration to scoring an own goal, this would surely be it. I have even heard colleagues blatantly declaring that they would rather vote for the devil incarnate than vote for this or the other party. They wouldn’t even mention it by name!

There is so much energy spent on negativity between comrades than directed at fixing things. A large number will complain until the cows are locked up and yet fail to come up with solutions. When the opportunity arrives for them to prove their worth, they are conveniently missing in action. I have just the right advice for such people SHUT UP and SHIP OUT! You are a burden to the struggle.

The alternative is to stand up and be counted. Whether it be in politics or in sport, the views that you hold are as important but particularly so when channelled through tried and tested institutions that are there for one to positively make an impact. Rather than whistling in the wind.

I am made to believe there are people that are pushing for certain changes to be made to the Highlanders’ constitution and could be pushing for the postponement of the elections. I will not comment on rumours, save to say that if there are such sentiments being bandied about, why now on the eve of elections? If they were not aware of the proper channels to follow then they are not members.

The constitution is there for all to consult, amend, throw out, to flush down the loo or whatever else, by paid up members that follow properly constituted channels. Using the rumour mill to circulate proposals not only denigrates the individuals involved but rubbishes the whole notion of a constitutional democracy. It’s like farting against the wind

I hope I am not being misunderstood. Highlanders should be open to scrutiny like any other organisation that is accountable to its members, I repeat, its members. But let us not allow underhand methods that serve to undermine the fortitude that has enabled ‘Ithimu Yezwe Lonke’ to survive for over a hundred years.

We found Highlanders in existence and will no doubt leave it for future generations. Like any institution, it cannot resist the winds of change lest it be blown away by the winds of history. Change must come and responsibly so. Not at the behest of destructive beer hall talk.

Let not the idle tongue of those who selfishly want to see the demise of a great institution poison the well of reason. Separate individuals from the idea. In much the same way as I would advise my colleagues on the political front to do the same. Unity in purpose and deed should transcend the focus on individuals.

It is folly to believe that Zimbabwe’s problems will disappear with the exit of Robert Mugabe, an individual, or that Morgan Tsvangirai, Welshman Ncube or even Dumiso Dabengwa, as individuals, will lead Zimbabweans to the Promised Land. Far from it! It is our collective willingness to act in unison and with purpose that will bring the results we desire buy getting involved and making ourselves heard. Shouting on the terraces and in bars will only serve to have us labelled empty vessels.

Simply, put your money where your mouth is.

By all accounts, the Zimbabwe’s economic recovery will require innovative, sustainable and inward looking projects. Ethanol production is one such, with the potential to provide economic development opportunities, stimulate job creation, tax base diversification and new capital investments.

Domestic ethanol production can aid economic recovery and provide a domestic, cost effective alternative to imported oil. Ethanol production can stimulate economic activity at the local and national level.

Figures submitted to government authorities suggest that Green Fuel’s Chisumbanje project recently featured on ‘Talking Business’ by Supa Mandiwanzira has a daily ethanol production of 700 000 litres and 18 Megawatts of electricity which can be pumped back into the national grid.

The project has created 4 500, largely local, jobs and is estimated to create 10 000 more jobs by 2014. With an unemployment rate above 75 percent, a significant handicap to Zimbabwe’s recovery is a briefcase economy with fewer tangible job creation opportunities at this scale.

Despite the political scepticism which may or may not surround such a gigantic project, capacitating the ethanol industry can potentially benefit every sector of the economy, from the technological sector which provides software for sophisticated plant operations, to the manufacturing sector which provides plant components.

Ethanol production can provide an excellent domestic market for sugar cane, providing opportunities for the farming communities around Chisumbanje to diversify and earn a decent living.

To its credit, the coalition government has accorded the ethanol project National Project Status and recently gazetted Statutory Instrument 144 of 2011 legally allowing the sale, and giving guidance on the product specification of E10 (90% petroleum and 10% ethanol).

Nonetheless, since fuel importation is ‘big business’ it follows that a blending strategy despite its obvious economic benefit will naturally be resisted by entrenched players.

Consumers and suppliers will also be justifiably apprehensive of the technical issues regarding the smooth integration of ethanol into the country’s fuel mix. It is therefore unlikely that progress in ethanol integration would be resolved without blending policy directives.
Still, there are a number of approaches which the government can adopt to support the emerging ethanol market.

Compulsory Blending

A mandatory blending policy is one such approach which can directly reduce the $6 million monthly fuel importation bill and create more top-end jobs.

The USA is the world’s biggest user of mandatory blending. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005, P.L. 110-58), established the first-ever Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in federal law, requiring increasing volumes of ethanol and biodiesel to be blended with the U.S. fuel supply between 2006 and 2012.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6) amended and increased the RFS, requiring 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel use in 2008, stepping up to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Besides the USA, in 2006 India introduced a 5 percent mandatory blending policy to reduce its reliance on imported oil. The Zimbabwean government can consider similar mandatory blending legislation.

For such a policy to be effective, the Energy Ministry may consider establishing a technical committee comprised leading experts in the ethanol industry to actively engage parliament and other regulatory bodies to develop specifications that allow for the maximum amount of ethanol use in the market.

Such a committee would also need to independently analyse whether there is adequate long term supply of ethanol to justify a mandatory approach. One of the biggest criticism of blending internationally is its effect on food prices due to increased demand for raw materials. The impact of this on the local economy though unlikely to be significant would need to be assessed.

Tax Incentives

A second option would be for the Finance Minister to consider tax incentives for the ethanol industry. Stakeholders would need to lobby for the extension of key tax policies that help ensure developing technologies like ethanol can compete with entrenched interests for Zimbabwe’s energy future.

An example of this could be 20 to 40 cents per litre exemption for ethanol from excise taxes on motor fuel similar to the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) in the USA. This would award blenders an exemption or a refund per litre on each litre of ethanol blended. The tax incentive would eventually be offset by an increase in local ethanol uptake and export possibilities, creating a new tax revenue stream.

Without a tax incentive, ethanol blenders would have little or no economic incentive other than the octane value especially when there is price parity between ethanol and imported fuel.

Justifiably, the price of E10 on the market is still high considering the billion dollar investment in the Chisumbanje plant. A mandatory blending policy or tax relief would assist in adjusting the price of a litre of E10 down, making it more competitive.

There are fewer projects in the country with the same ability to create new jobs especially in the rural areas and generate electricity as Green Fuel. Despite the legislative and political minefield, the country can derive far greater economic advantages from the success of such a project.

Dr Lance Mambondiani is an Investment Executive at Coronation Financial. He is also a Teaching Assistant in International Finance for Development and Financial Markets and Corporate Governance at the University of Manchester. The views expressed in this articles are personal and do not necessarily reflect the position of Coronation Financial.

“Fairness requires the Secretary of State to give an applicant an opportunity to address grounds for refusal, of which he did not know and could not have known, failing which the resulting decision may be set aside on appeal as contrary to law (without contravening the provisions of s. 85A of the Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002).”

The case is Naved (Student – fairness – notice of points) [2012] UKUT 14(IAC) and it was heard by the Upper Tribunal on December 9, 2011, at Field House. For a copy of the determination, please CLICK HERE.

Naved is a student from Pakistan who was admitted to the UK with a valid entry clearance. He attended his course and wished to obtain further leave to remain in the UK to do another course. He submitted his application before the expiry of his leave and completed the prescribed form for T4 (General) student. His application was valid and duly considered by the Home Office.

The only issue in the case was whether he has an established presence in the UK or not. Under the policy guidance for T4 (General) student, in order to be awarded the 10 points for maintenance, a student who has an established presence in the UK is required to show that he maintained £800.00 (inner London) and £600.00 (out of London) to a maximum of two calendar months as opposed to up to nine months for those who have no established presence in the UK.

Upon further investigation, the UKBA refused Naved’s application for further leave to remain on the basis that he had no established presence in the UK and hence did not maintain the requisite amount of money for maintenance. The UKBA relied on an email that they received from the college attended by Naved confirming that he enrolled at the college but did not finish his course. The UKBA did not contact Naved following their investigation to put to him their finding that he did not complete his course and afford him the opportunity to respond to it.

Naved lodged his appeal with the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision to refuse his application for further leave to remain. Naved applied for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and his application was granted. The case came before the Upper Tribunal and was heard by Mr Justice Blake (President of the Tribunal) and UT Judge Freeman.

The Upper Tribunal concluded that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully and unfairly in Naved’s case and that he should have been afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegation that he did not complete his course. Naved had evidence to prove that he had completed his course. He, however, had not submitted the necessary document with his visa application and hence he was prevented from relying on the document at the appeal stage by virtue of the new Section 85A of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 which prohibits the introduction of evidence at appeal which was not submitted at the application stage.

Nevertheless, the UT concluded that the document could be relied on in relation to other grounds of appeal under section 84 of the 2002 Act to prove that the decision of the Secretary of State was wrong and unlawful. The Secretary of State should have allowed Naved to respond to the allegation. By failing to do that, the Secretary of State had failed to act fairly in contravention of her public law duty.

The Upper Tribunal referred to some of its recent decisions which emphasised that the Secretary of State has a duty in public law to act fairly in certain circumstances, where applicant would be disadvantaged through no fault of theirs.

The UT allowed Naved’s appeal on the basis that the decision of the Secretary of State was otherwise not in accordance with the law and sent the case back to the Secretary of State for further consideration. The UT observed that in light of their findings, Naved met the requirements for extension of leave as a T4 (General) student and that he should be given such leave although it refrained from giving a direction to the Home Office.

This decision is remarkable as very often Immigration Judges refrain from entertaining and determining appeals on public law points, especially following the introduction of Section 85A of the 2002 Act in relation to Points Based System (PBS) appeals. The Secretary of State’s action was conspicuously unfair and common sense dictated that she should have contacted Naved before proceeding to refuse his application on a basis that he was unaware of and could never have been aware of before the decision to refuse his application.

In a nutshell, the important points to take from this case are:

# The Secretary of State has a public law duty to act fairly and failing that her decision would be unlawful regardless of the substantive reasons for refusal and any technical bars e.g. section 85A of the 2002 Act.

Further, applicants and/or their legal representatives must not only rely on one ground of appeal under section 84 of the 2002 Act if there is/are other ground(s) to be put to the Tribunal e.g. public law duty of fairness (otherwise not in accordance with the law) or discretion or paragraph 395c of the immigration rules.

#Despite the introduction of section 85A of the 2002 Act, if an application remains pending consideration and no decision has been made, applicants or their legal representatives may always rectify omissions before a decision is made on the application; hence, avoiding the draconian consequences of section 85A of the 2002 Act.

For instance, if the applicant forgot to submit a specific document for whatever reason and realised before a decision has been made that such a document has not been submitted with the application, action must be taken immediately to submit the document before a decision has been made by the Secretary of State.

# The Upper Tribunal emphasised that the scheme of s.85A remains undisturbed by this determination. Applicants for extension of leave in a points-based system will need to read carefully the application form, and any lawful guidance associated with it, to ensure that they supply all relevant information in the application they are making. Omissions will no longer be able to be corrected on appeal. An application is outstanding (and therefore information can be supplied to support it) until it is lawfully determined. Parliament enacted the exclusionary rule in s.85A against the background of the Secretary of State’s duty to act fairly, and in the expectation that the duty would be complied with.

# The UT also emphasised that where that duty has not been complied with, the Tribunal judge can so decide and allow the appeal on that ground. In such cases it remains for the respondent to make a lawful decision in the light of the Tribunal’s determination and the information then available to her.

Clement Kulang is a senior legal advisor at Genesis Law Associates and can be reach by email clement.kulang@genesislaw.co.uk or mobile +44 (0) 7928 204791. Genesis Law Associates Ltd is a specialist immigration firm based in Birmingham. For more information about Genesis Law and its services please visit www.genesislaw.co.uk

This article or commentary is written for information purposes only. It does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person. Views expressed in this article are those of the author only, not Genesis Law Associates as a whole. I strongly encourage those in need of legal advice in relation to their cases to seek legal advised from qualified lawyers as such advice would be tailored to their particular circumstances