According to the report the report on the website of the
United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice which came at a time when many Britons, including those in government, are yet to recover from the decision of the European Human Rights Court, which allowed a 24-year-old Nigerian, Akindoyin Akinshipe, convicted of rape to remain in London.
The European Court said deporting Akinshipe would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’.
Tory MP Dominic Raab said of the court’s decision: “It is a warped notion of human rights that allows a convicted rapist to claim the right to family life to avoid deportation. Inflated human rights claims threaten our border controls. It is vital we reform the Strasbourg court as well as UK law to restore some common sense.”
Now, it has emerged that many other Nigerians are also leaning on similar grounds to remain in the UK. But, unlike Akinshipe, whose case, was not built on stories that an average Nigerian can tell are lies, many of those seeking asylum, with the assistance of their lawyers are cooking up tales. Unfortunately for some of them, the asylum court judges are seeing through some of these lies.
Imagine this story: A Nigerian woman, who came to Britain and overstayed her visa, was asked to leave. Apparently goaded by a lawyer, she appealed the decision. Her grounds: she would not be safe in her home country. Why? She said when still in Nigeria, she had killed a snake ‘by accident’. As a result, she was declared a persona non grata, because her fellow villagers worship snakes as sacred creatures. She said if she returned home, her safety could not be guaranteed.
The judges refused to let her stay, but it is suspected that she is likely still to be in UK, trying other means to beat the law.
Take the case of another Nigerian, Adeniyi Aderinola, who, on his own, had no problem staying in the UK, but chose to allow himself to be used to try and secure a resident permit for a 34-year-old Zimbabwean Rudo Ndemera, who arrived at Gatwick Airport in 2002 on a six-month visitor’s visa. She overstayed by several years. She was discovered in 2007 and asked to leave. She hid under what turned out a non-existing relationship with Adeniyi to ask for a right to stay. She said Adeniyi, a British citizen, was a long-term boyfriend— thus giving her a right to a ‘family life’ in Britain. Adeniyi played along and their lawyer even told the court they were like Romeo and Juliet. Then, it was time to provide proof, and she balked. The court dismissed Ndemera’s request to stay. But months after that hearing, the decision has not been enforced.
Another Nigerian, Albert Faluyi, a lawyer, chose to help a Ghanaian lady beat the
UK law. He appealed to the judge to reunite her client, Rabi Saaka, and her children, arguing: “If the appellants are not allowed to join their mother here, that is likely to lead to disproportionate consequences compared to the need for immigration control.”
Saaka wanted to bring her two daughters — whom she has not seen for nearly 10 years — to the UK from Ghana. In 2008, she married an Irishman, and as such has the right to stay as the dependent of an EU citizen. Now, she wants her children to reap from that with Faluyi’s assistance.
It is not only Nigerians that are ‘lying’ their way to remain in the UK or helping others to remain.
Take the case of a 36-year-old Somali man, who arrived in Britain and claimed asylum. He told Border Agency officials that he left his home in Mogadishu because he feared for his life. He said he was a member of the Ashraf clan, one of the smaller ethnic groups in Somalia, which was allegedly the object of attack by an arm of al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, which is locked in bloody battle with the government.
Not all who heard his story at the hearing for asylum in London last week believed him. Not a few feel that if safety was his reason, why leave his wife and flee? Besides, it was discovered that he is not of the Ashraf clan, but, a member of the dominant group in Mogadishu, Hawiye.
He was given away when experts employed by his legal team played the spoiler by insisting that his facts did not add up.
He said: “When I came to this country, most of the Somalis I saw advised me to say I was from a minority clan before I went to the Home Office — I thought that was the only way I could save myself.”
The case of 31-year-old Tanbir Morshed is also interesting. The Bangladeshi lied that his girlfriend was British and that their ties were so strong that it would be unfair to separate them by deporting him. But it turned out his girlfriend, Agneszka Litwin, is not British but Polish. But as a result of European Union law, she has similar rights to a British citizen. He submitted evidence to show how strong their ties were. But everything soon fell like a pack of cards.
Morshed and Litwin were quizzed separately about key dates during their relationship. And they messed up and when Lewin was later cross-examined, she chose to play smart. She answered every question with: ‘Sorry, I don’t remember.’ or ‘I am not sure.’
Another Ministry of Justice file recounts the case of 50-year-old Pakistani Raja Mohammed Khan, who also used Article 8 to thwart attempts to deport him after he killed a man in a car crash under the influence of drugs.
But because his second son has a British passport, Khan escaped his on the grounds of his right to family life.
The ministry’s files are replete with funny stories, including that of a man who was to be deported only for him to, within weeks of the notice of deportation appeal on the grounds that his new English girlfriend was expecting his baby and that he had rights to a ‘family life’ under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
These stranger-than-fiction stories have made the Judges’ Council — made up of representatives from all tiers of the judiciary, and headed by the Lord Chief Justice — to warn in a recent report that the appeal grounds were obvious lies cooked up by lawyers to help their clients remain in London and make money for themselves.
As a result of concerns such as this, Britain has revealed plans to tighten up rules on admitting relatives of migrants and cracking down on abuses used to enter the country, such as sham and forced marriages.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who wants to prevent newcomers from relying on Britain’s comprehensive welfare system, said that family migration accounted for almost a fifth of total non-EU immigration to Britain last year.
The Conservatives want to reduce migration to Britain from around 200,000 people per year to a figure of tens of thousands, which they argue, is more manageable.
Restricting migration is seen as a way of reducing pressure on public spending at a time when the Conservative-led coalition is cutting public spending.
The policy appeals to the right-wing of the Conservatives, but has caused friction with the Liberal Democrats, the junior coalition partner.
Cameron said: “We’re going to look at further measures to ensure financial independence: discounting promises of support from family and friends, and whether a financial bond would be appropriate in some cases.”
“We’re also consulting on how to tackle abuse of the system, to make sure that family migrants who come here are in a genuine relationship with their partners.”
Cameron gave an example of a Pakistani man granted a visa on the basis of his marriage to someone settled in Britain.
“He obtained indefinite leave to remain and then immediately divorced his UK-based spouse. He returned to Pakistan and re-married and then applied for entry clearance for his new spouse,” he added.(The Nation)
