The High Court has quashed a decision affirming the refusal of refugee protection to a Nigerian mother and her two sons, and ordered a fresh consideration of their appeal by a different tribunal member.
In a judgment delivered on 27 March 2015, Mr Justice Eagar said the tribunal’s conclusion that the family’s fears were not objectively well-founded could not be justified. The court ordered certiorari quashing the decision and remitted the appeal for de novo consideration. It did not decide whether the applicants qualified for refugee status.
The mother’s claim was based on her alleged connection to Wale Alausa, described in the judgment as her half-brother and a member of the People’s Democratic Party active in Ogun State. She said she feared harm because of his opposition to the state governor. She told the tribunal that men came to Alausa’s home on 5 July 2009, assaulted a cleaner and security guard, and sought Alausa or his relations. She said she left Nigeria later that month with her young son; her second son was born in Ireland.
The Refugee Appeals Tribunal had affirmed the Refugee Applications Commissioner’s recommendation. Its reasons included doubts about the alleged attack, the absence of media reports about harm to Alausa or his family, and the mother’s account of travelling through international airports while pregnant without knowing the details of the passport or destination. It also treated her failure to seek asylum in France as relevant to credibility.
The applicants’ counsel argued that the credibility findings lacked adequate reasons and relied on expectations of media coverage. The respondents’ counsel defended the tribunal’s assessment, including its concerns about the attack, travel and the absence of reports of harm to Alausa’s family.
Justice Eagar considered the travel route and failure to claim asylum in France peripheral matters that did not justify refusing protection. He also found that the tribunal had misunderstood the claim by treating Alausa’s continued presence and work in Ogun State as undermining the mother’s fear. The court referred to country-of-origin information describing killings and attacks on Nigerian political candidates and politicians.
The judge held that requiring newspaper reports of the alleged attack, without properly taking account of that information, was irrational and suggested the tribunal had failed to meet its obligation to consider country-of-origin information. The matter was therefore returned for a fresh appeal hearing.