Judge says evidence lacking on torture fears

A Nigerian woman arrested in Sligo more than two years ago for deportation after she came out of hiding to see her two children has lost her High Court challenge to orders for the deportation of herself and her children.

However, lawyers for Pamela Izevbekhai are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr Justice Kevin Feeney yesterday dismissed on all grounds the challenge by Ms Izevbekhai to deportation orders signed by the then Minister for Justice in November 2005 in relation to herself and her two young daughters, Naomi (7) and Jemima (5).

Ms Izevbekhai had said she had already lost a baby daughter as a result of the "torture" of female genital mutilation in Nigeria and feared for the lives of her other two daughters if the family was deported.

In January 2006, the court ordered the release from Mountjoy Prison of Ms Izevbekhai, who had been brought there after she was arrested in Sligo having spent five weeks in hiding.

Her two daughters were taken into care in December 2005 after their mother disappeared following the issuing of the deportation orders.

In the High Court in November 2006, Ms Izevbekhai and her two children were granted leave to challenge the deportation orders after Mr Justice Liam McKechnie found they had established substantial grounds.

Ms Izevbekhai had said she left Nigeria in January 2005 because she was in fear for her life and particularly for the lives of her infant daughter. Her husband's family actively practised the ritual circumcision of female children, a form of abuse known as female genital mutilation, she said.

Her fear was founded not only on direct threats received from her husband's family but also on the past experience of losing a daughter to the practice, she said in an affidavit.

Her first daughter Elizabeth died at 17 months from blood loss which the attending doctor had described as being possibly the result of the traditional female circumcision which he positively diagnosed as having been performed on the baby.

She had not left Nigeria, where her husband and son still lived, in order to better her economic circumstances and her life there was not a deprived one, she also said.

In his decision yesterday, Mr Justice Feeney ruled that Ms Izevbekhabi had established no basis for judicial review.

He stressed that the court must recognise the limited nature of its role in reviewing a decision on deportation orders and that it cannot be part of an appeal process. The Minister was not obliged to carry out an "inquisitorial" process when deciding on deportation, the judge said.

There was no obligation on the Minister to set out reasons for his decision, either in a general or detailed way, and the Minister was entitled to have regard to the fact the applicants were failed asylum seekers.

The judge noted the Refugee Appeals Tribunal had found there was no substantiation of the alleged risk to the applicant or her children.

In arriving at its decision, the tribunal was aware of the death of Ms Izevbekhai's first child, he noted. It was not that her account was disbelieved, rather the basis for rejecting the claim for refugee status was the lack of evidence she was genuinely at risk. It was not enough for her to truly believe she and her children were in jeopardy.