Izevbekhai appeal may not be heard until next October

AN APPEAL by Nigerian woman Pamela Izevbekhai aimed at halting the deportation of herself and her two young daughters may not now be heard until the autumn, the Supreme Court has indicated.

Chief Justice Mr Justice John Murray said such were the pressures on the Supreme Court list it may not be possible to have the matter heard before the end of this law term, on July 31st, so the case would be put back until October.

The Chief Justice was also told yesterday Ms Izevbekhai’s new lawyer, Kevin Brophy, may travel to Nigeria shortly because he is dissatisfied with responses from Nigerian lawyers there.

Sunniva McDonagh SC, for Ms Izevbekhai, said she had no instructions to file replying affidavits at this stage on behalf of her client to a motion by the State seeking to dismiss the case on grounds it had proceeded on “a lie”.

Ms McDonagh said she had just yesterday morning been told by Mr Brophy of “certain developments, certain matters” which had taken place since the case was last before the court.

Mr Brophy was also involved in proceedings on behalf of Ms Izevbekhai before the European Court of Human Rights, she added.

She was aware time limits were set for replying affidavits. She added Mr Brophy might have to travel to Nigeria because he was dissatisfied with answers he had received from Nigerian lawyers whom he had instructed.

The Chief Justice said Ms Izevbekhai had been given generous time to file replies and most of the matters at issue were within her own knowledge.

He did not see what Nigeria could add.

He told Ms McDonagh that her instructions that a replying affidavit was not being filed “cannot change” and added it would be “very odd” if her client could not swear to facts until after some information was obtained from Nigeria. The facts were primarily within Ms Izevbekhai’s own knowledge, he added.

Ms McDonagh said she was not certain the matters were all within Ms Izevbekhai’s own knowledge.

The Chief Justice said the matter may not be heard this term given the pressures on the Supreme Court list and the State was “not entitled to any special privilege”. It might be heard this term but otherwise it would be next term, he said.

In her action, Ms Izevbekhai contends the family should not be returned to Nigeria on grounds there is a real risk her daughters would be subjected to forcible genital mutilation.

After it was revealed last April that some documents used to support Ms Izevbekhai’s claim to stay here had been forged, the lawyers who had fought her case were given leave to cease representing Ms Izevbekhai and she was given some time to instruct new lawyers.

Following the disclosures concerning the forged documents, the State argued the case should be dismissed on grounds it had proceeded “on a lie”.

Sligo-based Ms Izevbekhai has failed in a number of High Court bids to prevent the deportation of herself and her daughters, culminating in the intervention last November of the European Court of Human Rights which asked the Government to postpone any moves to deport them while it considered the case.