| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
'Decision will impact on all Zim asylum seekers'
By Staff
Reporter
THREE
British Appeal Court judges were set to deliver a judgment Wednesday
morning on an immigration test case brought by two Zimbabwean asylum
claimants.
The case, known as the AA and LK case, could seal the fate of thousands of failed Zimbabwean asylum seekers now staring the possibility of being deported to Zimbabwe.
Lord Justice Brooke, Lord Justice Laws and Sir Christopher Staughton will hand down judgment on a Home Office appeal against the decision of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which ruled Zimbabwe 'unsafe' for failed asylum seekers. Judgment is expected at 10.45am at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
Yvonne Mahlunge, a legal adviser for the Zimbabwe Association last night said she hoped the Court of Appeal would nudge the Home Office towards granting a blanket discretionary leave to remain for failed asylum seekers for a certain period with full benefits and a right to work.
She told New Zimbabwe.com: "The Home Office failed to advance an argument which demonstrated that after it had removed failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe it could guarantee their safety. That remains the crux of the matter and it is solely on this matter that the Court of Appeal should concentrate.
"As a court of record, the Court of Appeal is bound by the findings of fact made by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judges, Mr Ockelton sitting with Latter and Mr Mather, who ruled that it was not safe to return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.
"The court of appeal cannot go outside the boundaries of the facts accepted in the case of AA."
In a statement last night, the Zimbabwe Association said: "The decision will impact on the cases of all Zimbabwean asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
"The ZA believes that it is not safe to return asylum seekers to Zimbabwe at this time. Too many of those who have been forcibly returned in the past have suffered persecution, mistreatment and imprisonment. The Zimbabwe government’s attitude towards asylum seekers is well known. They are regarded as traitors."
Mahlunge said in the event that the Court of Appeal overturns the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal's ruling, that would be a major blow and yet it won't be the end of the road.
She added: "What we hope for is that because the court does not have sufficient evidence on what happens when asylum seekers are returned to Zimbabwe, the Appeal Court judges will remit the case to a hearing in the tribunal on that specific point and especially direct the Home Office to say what it intends to do to make it safer for returnees.
"That way, we will know what the Home Office system will be and if it can be challenged, then we will challenge it."
Mahlunge said should the judges find for the asylum seekers, she hoped they would reaffirm the possibility that failed asylum seekers can still come to adverse attention of Zimbabwean authorities even whilst in the United Kingdom, effectively opening up an avenue for fresh asylum claims.
"There is a large number of people who may not, for a variety of reasons, been able to demonstrate that they were MDC activists but who are able to demonstrate it now, post-determination of their cases, after joining other groups fighting for democracy," she said.
AA, who cannot be named for his protection, arrived in Britain on a Zimbabwean passport in November 2002. The passport was issued three months earlier.
He was granted temporary admission, then worked illegally for two years and seven months until he was arrested on June 20, 2005.
On being arrested, he claimed asylum. The basis of his claim was that he had been a member of MDC for the past 6 years, and that in June 2000, he had been detained after clashes between MDC and Zanu PF supporters. He claims that his home was stoned in August 2002, before he fled to the UK via South Africa.
During the hearing, AA's lawyers demonstrated that South Africa was not a safe destination.
Mahlunge said: "The critical issue that the courts should look at in any asylum claim is whether that person is at risk if returned at the particular time. The fact of the matter, in Zimbabwe's case, is that most of the asylum seekers are indeed at risk. Without guarantees by the Home Office of a monitoring mechanism for returned asylum seekers, we insist that Zimbabweans cannot be deported."
While preparing for the hearings, the British government dispatched a team of immigration wonks to Zimbabwe to gather evidence to bolster its claim that it was now safe to return asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.
The group interviewed several NGOs and human rights groups. But it was the intervention of a British Airways spokesman which could yet prove decisive on the matter.
The spokesman told the Home Office team: "Flights from London attract more attention from the CIO (Central Intelligence Organisation) than any other flights from any other destination."
The BA spokesman
described the Harare international airport as 'crawling with CIOs' whenever
there is flight from London. He further labeled Zimbabwe a 'police state'.
JOIN THE DEBATE
ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
newsdesk@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website