Pamela Enitan Izevbekhai

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is incorrect. Country of origin reports from US, UK etc plus Amnesty reports are all admissable in Court. Admitting the "entire report" does not seem to be possible.

US COO reports will tell you that relocation is not effective against someone who is determined. As there has been attempted kidnap on more than one occasion the relatives qualify as determined (she has moved 3 times already). They will also tell you that the informal networks in Nigeria are such that influential people can easily find someone regardless of the size of country. The UK report takes its reports from very limited sorces including Nigerian Oficial ones. The comments about cherrypicking from COO reports should be directed at the Irish asylum system. If they take from these reports that relocation is adequate why do they also take that "state protections" are adequate.

The original point was about the Nigerian Ambassadors claims regarding his governments ability to protect someone which are false. The reporters failure to communicate an agreement between Ireland and Nigeria points to either very poor reporting or reporting that lacks integrity and honesty. Ireland doesnt know or care what happens to returned returnees. Official Nigeria knows what happens Im sure . But all they have to do is "accept" returnees they do not have to refrain from punishing them as the agreement stated.

<snip>

Xiney

<mod hat>

let's keep the discussion focussed.

</mod hat>

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

Admitting the "entire report" does not seem to be possible.

do you know why not by any chance?

Based on what you have said above, would it be fair to say then, as donegalfella said, that only sections favourable to the applicant would be entered, and therefore be biased?

The original point was about the Nigerian Ambassadors claims regarding his governments ability to protect someone which are false.

How do you know this?

Ireland doesnt know or care what happens to returned returnees.

Are you speaking for the entire population of Ireland here?

HollyB

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Precisely - if the poll had shown that 70% or 80% or even 100% of respondents wanted to see her deported, does anybody think that the courts should refuse her permission to stay based on that?

ParkRunner

The Minister would have to have due regard to all the relevant country of origin information when deciding whether or not to sign a deportation order i.e. weigh up what is in the applicant's favour and what is not. Having considered the information in its totality, not just picking out the parts about the police force or the parts about internal relocation he has to make a decision if Nigeria is a safe country to return each applicant to.

On another note it wouldnt surprise me if the Nigerian government did not honour the agreement with Ireland to keep our government informed of the plight of returned failed asylum seekers. They are corrupt and so are the police. There are plently of non-governmental organisations though which the various authors of the independent COI information do consult with also to see what the situation is on the ground and I can see no evidence that returned asylum seekers are specifically targetted by the police.

Regardless of the levels of corruption in the police force and the government (again recent COI info states the government is making efforts to stamp this out), the only question really is can she and her children escape FGM? There is evidence there to support the fact that she can.

There are issues in Nigeria which need to be addressed and granting one lady and her two children will make no difference to the masses. If those in support of Pamela put as much effort into lobbying the Nigerian government through Amnesty or another group as they do in supporting Pamela here then a lot of good (proportionately to focusing on one lady in Ireland rather than the whole issue of FGM in Nigeria) could come out of it.

T runner

EF wrote: »

The Minister would have to have due regard to all the relevant country of origin information when deciding whether or not to sign a deportation order i.e. weigh up what is in the applicant's favour and what is not. Having considered the information in its totality, not just picking out the parts about the police force or the parts about internal relocation he has to make a decision if Nigeria is a safe country to return each applicant to.

On another note it wouldnt surprise me if the Nigerian government did not honour the agreement with Ireland to keep our government informed of the plight of returned failed asylum seekers. They are corrupt and so are the police. There are plently of non-governmental organisations though which the various authors of the independent COI information do consult with also to see what the situation is on the ground and I can see no evidence that returned asylum seekers are specifically targetted by the police.

Regardless of the levels of corruption in the police force and the government (again recent COI info states the government is making efforts to stamp this out), the only question really is can she and her children escape FGM? There is evidence there to support the fact that she can.

There are issues in Nigeria which need to be addressed and granting one lady and her two children will make no difference to the masses. If those in support of Pamela put as much effort into lobbying the Nigerian government through Amnesty or another group as they do in supporting Pamela here then a lot of good (proportionately to focusing on one lady in Ireland rather than the whole issue of FGM in Nigeria) could come out of it.

A lot more good could be done by the Irish asylum system by stating that state protections in Nigeria are inadequate and also by the government refusing to hand over any more money to Nigeria unless it can show that it is not harming returnees and that the money is going to help repatriate and protect returnees. The government of Nigeria may be saying it is stamping out corruption but that means nothing. Any cases brought against police officers are just delayed and forgotten about.

There is no evidence to show state protections or the police force can protect against FGM. There is conflicting evidence for relocation. It looks like its just a question of relocating them and then hoping they are not found. I dont think thats reasonable. I wonder are the Irish Courts counting the agreement with Nigeria as adding weight to the case for deportation?

I think its fair to say that the author of the weekend report in the Sunday Times erred seriously in not mentioning the agreement that Nigeria (and Ireland) are not honouring when quoting that ambassador. If this omission was deliberate then it may be an example of a style of reporting where the reporter twists and picks the evidence to suit his viewpoint rather than letting all the available evidence decide it for him.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

darealtulip

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and with links so we can read it too, without a search, please

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But I called the Nigerian ambassador a joker, hes no professor. He stated that Nigeria would protect Pamela and children while brought back deliberately ignoring an agreement Nigeria has with Ireland which actually proves the oposite. He also implied that FGM is not a problem in Nigeria and the State could take care of it which is blatantly untrue. Thus the joker Tag.
Why did that reporter not mention this very pertinent agreement?

I'm not going to go into this too much, but part of the argument for the country of origin reports that suggests relocation relies on the cooperation of Nigerian Police and the word of Nigerian officials. Some country of origin reports state that relocation is not an option for determined pursuers. It is not reasonable to conclude form Country of Origin Information that relocation will work. It is completely unreasonable to state that State protections in Nigeria are adequate or that the Nigerian police can protect them. Yet the Irish courts state all these 3 as fact.

How can the Irish courts conclude that their Human Rights wont be abused when the Nigerian government cant even prove it in one case of the hundreds already deported to that country under an agreement that is supposed to guarantee it.

This whole agreement with Nigeria smells dodgy and it looks like we are paying them off to say they will look after returnees and not to demonstrate it as required by the agreement.

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

This whole agreement with Nigeria smells dodgy and it looks like we are paying them off to say they will look after returnees and not to demonstrate it as required by the agreement.

Should therefore no Nigerian national be deported to Nigeria because the government there has failed to keep their side of an administrative agreement? Compared to the horrors that genuine refugees face I wouldn't consider this act of omission by the Nigerian government would amount to a threat of persecution.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

T runner

EF wrote: »

Should therefore no Nigerian national be deported to Nigeria because the government there has failed to keep their side of an administrative agreement? Compared to the horrors that genuine refugees face I wouldn't consider this act of omission by the Nigerian government would amount to a threat of persecution.

The "Omission" is to fail to secure the human rights of the deportees under the Geneva convention as agreed with the Irish Government. It is illegal for the Minister to deport someone if their Human Rights might reasonably be abused. The Nigerian government has agreed to guarantee this for every asylum seeker but failed to guarantee it for even one.

That agreement is in place to make it easier to deport refugees and not to guarantee their protection. I would fear for their safety if they return: at the hands of the Nigerian authorities as well as at the hands of their relatives when they finally get their hands on them.

donegalfella wrote: »

But the authorities relied upon for the country of origin statements above are:

• WACOL, or the Women's Aid Collective; see wacolnigeria.org
• UNIFEM, or the United Nations Development Fund for Women; see unifem.org
• COSUDOW, or the Committee for the Support of the Dignity of Women (not online)

None of these groups has anything to do with the Nigerian police or the Nigerian government. And yet all of them say that any woman who fears FGM for herself or her daughter can safely relocate within Nigeria.

Other admissable Country of Origin reports state otherwise.

All country of Origin reports state that protections are inadequate against FGM in Nigeria, forced or otherwise, yet the Irish courts seem to take the opposite view.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ParkRunner

Just to note tomorrow is International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM. The official Declaration on "Zero Tolerance to FGM" on the African Continent was made by the First Lady of Nigeria, Mrs. Stella Obasanjo

ParkRunner

T runner wrote: »

The "Omission" is to fail to secure the human rights of the deportees under the Geneva convention as agreed with the Irish Government. It is illegal for the Minister to deport someone if their Human Rights might reasonably be abused. The Nigerian government has agreed to guarantee this for every asylum seeker but failed to guarantee it for even one.

QUOTE]

Might reasonably? I think the threshold is a lot higher than that and the test is is there a real risk that this particular applicant will suffer persecution if returned to Nigeria? The COI info states that returned failed asylum seekers are not mistreated and that there are options for those fearing fgm to escape this threat. In Lagos alone there are over 18 million people. There would need to be an unbelievable level of social connections and networks to pick out one Nigerian lady and her 2 Nigerian national daughters from this crowd for her in-laws to locate her..in Lagos alone.

The agreement between the Irish government and the Nigerian government has not yet been ratified on the Nigerian side but it is being operated in spirit. Members of the GNIB do escort failed asylum seekers to Nigeria and ensure their safety as much as they can. Again..do you think that no Nigerian national should be deported to Nigeria?

opo

T runner wrote: »

That agreement is in place to make it easier to deport refugees and not to guarantee their protection. I would fear for their safety if they return: at the hands of the Nigerian authorities as well as at the hands of their relatives when they finally get their hands on them.

Are you aware of the the UNHCR procedure in place in Ireland that assesses claims for asylum?

It is in operation at great cost to ensure that Ireland does not deport refugees.

Are you actually stating as fact that Ireland deports refugees or wishes to instigate a program of deporting refugees?

T runner

EF wrote: »

Just to note tomorrow is International Day of Zero Tolerance to FGM. The official Declaration on "Zero Tolerance to FGM" on the African Continent was made by the First Lady of Nigeria, Mrs. Stella Obasanjo

Hardly a fitting figurehead in view of the fact that Nigeria has Never prosecuted anyone for FGM under its own Laws, and Nigerian Police treat FGM as "a domestic affair". More posturing and box-ticking by Official Nigeria.

EF wrote: »

Might reasonably? I think the threshold is a lot higher than that and the test is is there a real risk that this particular applicant will suffer persecution if returned to Nigeria? The COI info states that returned failed asylum seekers are not mistreated and that there are options for those fearing fgm to escape this threat. In Lagos alone there are over 18 million people. There would need to be an unbelievable level of social connections and networks to pick out one Nigerian lady and her 2 Nigerian national daughters from this crowd for her in-laws to locate her..in Lagos alone.

There are many ways to find someone in Nigeria. Bribing a police official being the easiest.

All COI info indicates that protections against FGM in Nigeria are inadequate and that the police are unable to protect against it. Yet the Irish courts continually state the opposite.
Some COI evidence indicates relocation as an alternative other COI evidence indicates this is completely dependent on the people doing the chasing.
E.G are they willing to bribe a Police Official?

The agreement between the Irish government and the Nigerian government has not yet been ratified on the Nigerian side but it is being operated in spirit. Members of the GNIB do escort failed asylum seekers to Nigeria and ensure their safety as much as they can. Again..do you think that no Nigerian national should be deported to Nigeria?

That is a comment from an Irish spokesperson. They went to Nigeria and dined it up with their hosts who assured them it was all good leading to that comment. None of the Irish money is going to returnees. The Nigerian government cant show what is happening to any returnee or it their Human rights are being abused by the security forces. How can this be possibly interpretated as the agreement working in spirit?

Big_Mac

T runner wrote: »

Nigerian Police treat FGM as "a domestic affair". More posturing and box-ticking by Official Nigeria.

Is there a reputable source for this information?

There are many ways to find someone in Nigeria. Bribing a police official being the easiest.,

Again, i assume you have proof of this?

That is a comment from an Irish spokesperson. They went to Nigeria and dined it up with their hosts who assured them it was all good leading to that comment. None of the Irish money is going to returnees. The Nigerian government cant show what is happening to any returnee or it their Human rights are being abused by the security forces. How can this be possibly interpretated as the agreement working in spirit?

I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that none of the Irish money is going to the returnees.

opo

T runner wrote: »

Hardly a fitting figurehead in view of the fact that Nigeria has Never prosecuted anyone for FGM under its own Laws, and Nigerian Police treat FGM as "a domestic affair". More posturing and box-ticking by Official Nigeria.

How would you eliminate and monitor the elimination of FGM if you were Nigerian PM and what penalties would you impose on those who request and perform such procedures?

T runner

Big_Mac wrote: »

Is there a reputable source for this information?
.........Again, i assume you have proof of this?......I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that none of the Irish money is going to the returnees.

COI reports and Irish refuge Council site.

opo wrote: »

How would you eliminate and monitor the elimination of FGM if you were Nigerian PM and what penalties would you impose on those who request and perform such procedures?

How would I eliminate the elimination of FGM? ehhhmmmm.....

The Nigerian authorities in most States there have the power to charge and prosecute anyone involved with a FGM. This has never happenned.
The Irish courts conclude that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate.

opo

T runner wrote: »

COI reports and Irish refuge Council site.



How would I eliminate the elimination of FGM? ehhhmmmm.....

The Nigerian authorities in most States there have the power to charge and prosecute anyone involved with a FGM. This has never happenned.
The Irish courts conclude that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate.

That is not what I asked you.

In the asbsence of an answer may I conclude that you believe that the solution to the cultural (as opposed to state) issue of FGM practice in Nigeria (and anywhere else for that matter) is removal of all those at risk to foreign jurisdictions?

darealtulip

T runner wrote: »

COI reports and Irish refuge Council site.



How would I eliminate the elimination of FGM? ehhhmmmm.....

The Nigerian authorities in most States there have the power to charge and prosecute anyone involved with a FGM. This has never happenned.
The Irish courts conclude that state protections against FGM in Nigeria are adequate.

I would find your argument a lot easier to take if you provided a link to where we can find your source. it's one thing to say somebody is wrong (and he/we might well be, but searching through a council site to find your point is a bit much). Can you not just put a link with your post (you know already where to find it and I dont)?

A request not an attack btw.

T runner

opo wrote: »

That is not what I asked you.

In the asbsence of an answer may I conclude that you believe that the solution to the cultural (as opposed to state) issue of FGM practice in Nigeria (and anywhere else for that matter) is removal of all those at risk to foreign jurisdictions?

How would you eliminate and monitor the elimination of FGM.....

This is what you asked me.. which doesnt make sense. <snip>

darealtulip

T runner wrote: »

This is what you asked me.. which doesnt make sense. Im not sure if you use poor grammar or speak your own private language but try repeating your question in understamdable English please.

I understood the question but never got your answer, I'm not a national so maybe that's why?

T runner

darealtulip wrote: »

I understood the question but never got your answer, I'm not a national so maybe that's why?

No daretulip, I was answering another poster who's question made no sense.

Ill put on links shortly. (I have linked many times on another thread but will do it for this one so you can read the source material).

darealtulip

T runner wrote: »

No daretulip, I was answering another poster who's question made no sense.

Ill put on links shortly. (I have linked many times on another thread but will do it for this one so you can read the source material).

thanks, look forward to read them.

T runner

darealtulip wrote: »

thanks, look forward to read them.

Link

Most of these are from the US COO report Linked. There may be more links which I will put up if I find them. The below quote is from a post I made on the politics forum some time ago.
The RAT referred to below is the Irish Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Another quote I left out about the Nigerian police was that "they rape with impunity".

WE are examining whether there are "adequate" protections against the specific threat of kidnapping with the objection of forced FGM, in Nigeria.
1. What choices does the person have when contacting the authorities?
2. What would the response of the state/police be?
3. Does the response constitute adequate state protection?

3. To answer the third question first. The Cyprian case in the UK defines adequate state protection as "a practical standard which takes proper account of the duty which the State owes to all its own nationals”. This means thats something like a gang overpowering a childs guardians and leaving before the police had time to arrive would not necessarily constitute inadequate protections, which is reasonable I think.

1. The legislation against FGM in Nigeria does not provide for safety, protection and barring orders. As the option of ringing the police and quoting one of these orders is not there,the only option available, would be to ring the police and claim there is an attempted kidnapping taking place on the particular female with the objective of a forced FGM.
For example, in domestic violence cases in Ireland, a person could get a protection order against someone and ring the Guards in expectance of an immediate response should that person turn up.

2. I believe that there is evidence that the police would not respond on different levels.

a. Firstly because of general ineffectiveness and corruption.
b. Complete lack of confidence by the citizenry in the force as a result of its impotency.
c. Cultural attitude in Nigeria means that police are less interested in violence against women.
d. Police attitudes and state protections towards FGM are not adequate.
e. Stats bear out that 1% of kidnappings make it to police records. This is not consistant with a liklihood of the police responding to a reasonable number of callouts.

(Note: Where country of origin information indicates that human rights and basic freedoms are provided for in the legislation or Constitution of the country or origin, the Tribunal does not query whether these rights are protected in practice.

The RAT believes it is not obliged to address these questions to prove adequate state protections.)

I have evidence for these premises below all from the Country of Origin Reports (can be used by RAT):



The Nigerian police are corrupt:
Any prosecutions which are brought as a result of police action will invariably be in favour of the wealthier party to the complaint.......Corruption was rampant, most often taking the form of bribes at highway checkpoints........Nigerian journalists yet again lived through an appalling year in 2006. They have had to face police brutality, arrests in certain cases for the least article that annoyed local authorities and corruption in the military, among politicians and businessmen........The attitude that torture is an accepted tool of interrogation appears to pervade all levels of the police force.”

The police are ineffectual in all aspects of policing:
“According to Nigerian police reform experts, the police force has insufficient well-trained manpower to adequately address policing needs.....The police have often been unable to meet the safety and security needs of local communities.....The police are poorly paid, poorly resourced, and are ill-equipped to deal with violent crime......
This raises serious doubts as to the ability or willingness of the police to respond to the proposed request.

The Nigerian Citizenry has no confidence in the ability of the police to protect them:
The CLEEN foundation reports show extremely low rates of crime being reported to the police and little confidence and fear of the police at all levels.

There is little public confidence in the police. Indeed, they are criticized by virtually all sectors of civil society.......The loss of public confidence in the effectiveness of the police has resulted in the emergence of private security outfits and local vigilante groups........government actors including the police, military, and elected officials continued to commit serious and persistent abuses against Nigerian citizens.


The pervading cultural attitude to women and crime against women Nigeria makes it less likely for police to respond to alleged crimes against females.
women and men who go to the police to report cases of violence in the family, including rape and physical assault, are often met with a patronizing and discouraging attitude, ‘unless it is a case of the rape of a child or the husband kills his wife’.... Rape of women and girls by both the police and security forces, and within their homes and community, is acknowledged to be endemic in Nigeria.....The Nigerian authorities at both federal and state levels have failed to address adequately gender-based violence.

Police attitudes and general state protections towards FGM are not adequate:

No prosecutions for FGM in an entire year against FGM under state laws in Osun.

that there is a law banning FGM, but the NPF (Police) does not become involved in FGM matters, as ‘it is a family thing’.........social tolerance of gender-based violence in the family is replicated among Nigeria’s law enforcement officials.....…there is little state provision to support women facing domestic violence, female genital mutilation or trafficking. Where it exists it is inadequate....

The police force are not competent enough to publish official stats:
CLEEN has extrapolated statistics which show 128 cases of kidnapping recognised by the Nigerian Police.
In one of their surveys they found that .22% of people had been kidnapped.
This means that 1% of kidnaps make the police records.


Is it reasonable for someone to assume that the police will protect their daughter from kidnap for FGM?
I dont think so.

darealtulip

thanks will start reading tommorow. reaction will follow!