[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> AB (Persecution, CIO) Zimbabwe [2002] UKIAT 03598 (09 August 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2002/03598.html Cite as: [2002] UKIAT 03598, [2002] UKIAT 3598

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

AB (Persecution-CIO) Zimbabwe [2002] UKIAT 03598

IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Date of hearing: 26 July 2002

Date Determination notified: 09 August 2002

Before
Mr M W Rapinet (Chairman) Mr D R Bremmer Mrs E Hurst, JP
Between

 

AB	APPELLANT
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department	RESPONDENT

For the appellant: Mr P. Haywood, Hackney Community Law Centre For the respondent: Mr D. Buckley, Home Office Presenting Officer
DETERMINATION AND REASONS
1. The appellant in this case is a citizen of Zimbabwe. He appeals by leave of the Tribunal against the determination of an Adjudicator (Mr M. Renton) dismissing his appeal against the respondent's decision to refuse leave to enter and asylum. Leave to appeal to the Tribunal was originally refused in May last year and following an application to the Administration Court it was granted on 14 June this year. The grounds of appeal are in the bundle before us and are also emphasised in a helpful skeleton argument put forward by Mr Haywood which we have clearly considered.

2. The basis of the appellant's claim is that he was an active and indeed prominent member of the Liberty Party in Zimbabwe. He claims to have been the head of the youth wing in the Bulawayo branch of that party.

3. The Adjudicator in his determination has accepted the whole basis of the appellant's clam save with regard to one material aspect. That is that the appellant had been arrested in June 2000 and taken to the ZANU-PF headquarters where he was maltreated and detained for two nights. He was the following November informed by the CIO by telephone that they wished him to attend at their offices in order to be questioned about a robbery. It was at this point that the appellant decided to leave the country and he obtained a passport in December of that year, leaving the country in March the following year.

4. The Adjudicator has rejected the appellant's claim that the interest in him shown by the CIO in November 2000 was not the ostensible reason given by the CIO, namely a robbery, but in fact was for political reasons linked to his position in the Liberty Party and possibly to his earlier detention.

5. Mr Haywood has argued that the Adjudicator's findings with regard to that aspect of the appellant's claim are flawed because they ignore the relative objective evidence which was that the ZANU-PF and CIO, the security wing of the party, had a record of exacting revenge upon those who were perceived to be opposed to them, and in particular those who had opposed them during the 2000 election. He referred us to a certain amount of the background evidence in support of his claim, and he also, in paragraph 26 of his skeleton argument, brought our attention helpfully to a very recent letter from the UNHCR (dated 13 June this year) in which it is stated that:

   'The situation on the ground in Zimbabwe has not substantially changed and that real or perceived members and supporters of the MDC or any other opposition party or movement continue to be the target of human rights violations, including ill-treatment, torture arbitrary arrest and detention.'

6. Mr Haywood then moved on to submit that, notwithstanding the Adjudicator's findings in respect of the interest in the appellant by the CIO, given that report of the UNHCR and given the other objective evidence contained in his not insubstantial bundle of documents, there was in any event a substantial risk of a reasonable likelihood of persecution were the appellant to be returned.

7. Mr Buckley in his submissions points out that the appellant, notwithstanding the CIO interest in him, was able to obtain a passport after that interest had been manifested, and was able to leave the country subsequently without any problem, nor it would appear, with the assistance of any agents. This, in Mr Buckley's submission, indicated quite clearly that the authorities had no real interest in this particular appellant. Mr Buckley also points out that there is no explanation for the fact that the CIO appeared to take an interest in the appellant for a considerable period after his original detention by the ZANU-FP. Mr Buckley emphasised the fact that the Liberty Party is a very minor party with no significant influence in Zimbabwe, and that although he had extensively considered Mr Haywood's bundle of documents, he had not been able to find any evidence that members of the Liberty Party per se were being persecuted.

8. In his final submission Mr Haywood drew our attention to the Tribunal determination in the case of MM (01/TH/00994), in particular paragraph 4 of that determination in which the President, dealing with the question of persons being able to leave the country on their own passports and without any problem states:

   'With respect to the author, that surely is nothing to the point. The authorities would no doubt be quite happy to see the back of someone such as this appellant, and it does not need arrest or detention to show that the persecution which he recounted occurred.'

9. We are inclined to agree with Mr Haywood that the Adjudicator has not given adequate consideration to the objective evidence when considering the interest of the CIO in this appellant. At paragraph 23 of his determination the Adjudicator states:

   'I therefore find it implausible that the CIPU would go to the lengths claimed to silence a political opponent such as the appellant. I therefore find that if the CIO did contact the appellant, it had nothing to do with any of his political activities.'

10. The two sentences are to some extent slightly at variance. Be that as it may, the second sentence causes us some concern because it ignores the fact that (a) the appellant was or had been a fairly prominent member of the Liberty Party in Bulawayo, (b) that he was on record as having been detained by the ZANU-PF at their headquarters for questioning and severely maltreated in June 2000, and (c) the general objective material which shows a policy of pursuit by the present government of all those who are perceived to be opposed to its objectives. It is common ground, and it has been accepted by the Adjudicator, that the appellant was not just an ordinary member of the Liberty Party. He had been the head of the youth wing in Bulawayo and was known for his work for that party in that area. It may well be that the Liberty Party is one of virtual insignificance within the political spectrum in Zimbabwe. With respect to Mr Buckley, that is not the point in relation to this particular appellant when taken against the objective evidence in relation to perceived opponents of the government. This appellant was clearly perceived to be an opponent and we take the view that the Adjudicator has not given sufficient cognisance to this perception, nor has he given sufficient attention to the objective material relevant to the policies of the present regime in Zimbabwe towards those who are perceived to be its opponents.

11. For this reason, therefore we would take the view that the appellant is perfectly entitled to assume that when he was contacted by the CIO the purpose in contacting him was basically political and the reason was no more than an excuse. This being so, it must follow that there was a reasonable likelihood that the appellant had a fear of further persecution were he to have answered the call of the CIO and attended their offices. We therefore find that the appellant left the country for a Convention reason.

12. We now consider whether there would be a reasonable likelihood of persecution were he to return. The objective evidence which is before us quite clearly show that there has been a considerable deterioration in the position in Zimbabwe since the appellant left and we are persuaded in particular by the letter of the UNHCR dated 12 June this year that this appellant being, a perceived member of an opposition party, would be at risk of further persecution were he to return. It must therefore follow that he has established a Convention ground. It is not necessary therefore to consider the Article 3 claim. The appeal is allowed.
    M W RAPINET VICE PRESIDENT