The decision to bar Mr. Uba, a former senior domestic aide to former
President Olusegun Obasanjo, was taken by the Secretary of State for the
Home Department (SSHD).
SaharaReporters has exclusively obtained
legal documents showing that British authorities in 2008 revoked
Senator Emmanuel Nnamdi (Andy) Uba's multiple entry visa into any of the
territories of the United Kingdom.
The decision to bar Mr. Uba,
a former senior domestic aide to former President Olusegun Obasanjo,
was taken by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).
Judicial
filings obtained by SaharaReporters reveal that the British High
Commission in Abuja had on November 11, 2004 issued a five-year multiple
entry visitor's visa to Senator Uba, who represents Anambra South in
the National Assembly.
However, in a letter dated December 2, 2008, the SSHD informed Mr. Uba of the revocation of his visa.
"The
purpose of this letter is to inform you that on 26 November 2008, after
the most careful consideration, the Home Secretary personally directed
that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom," the revocation
letter stated. It added, "On the basis of your character, conduct and
association with fraud and other criminal activities, your presence in
the UK would not be conducive to the public good and the Home Secretary
has decided that you should be excluded from all territories of the
United Kingdom."
The letter also informed Senator Uba that the
decision to prohibit his entry into any part of the U.K. would be
reviewed after three years.
Court documents in our possession
further show that an application by Mr. Uba to persuade British
authorities to lift their prohibition against him was denied in 2011. A
court filing by British lawyers representing Mr. Uba noted that the
Nigerian senator's "application for permission to seek judicial review
was refused at an oral hearing on 1st July 2011 by Mr. Ockelton, sitting
as a Deputy High Court Judge."
Mr. Uba's lawyers appealed the
decision, claiming that, in rejecting the senator's application, the
court had failed to take "into account the representations and evidence
presented by the Claimant during the course of his application."
In a
letter dated December 19, 2011, Mr. Uba's lawyers again "requested a
review of the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom."
They
urged the Home Department to note that Mr. Uba "has been a law abiding
citizen of Nigeria who has been contributing his best to the development
of his country."
They pointed out that the former presidential
aide "was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber in
2011." They also argued that Mr. Uba "would not have qualified for
election to the Nigerian Senate" if he had been implicated in criminal
activities.
The lawyers drew attention to sections of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 "which clearly sets
out at clauses 65-66 the stringent criteria that would enable an
individual to qualify for election as senator in Nigeria."
Mr.
Uba's lawyers stated that the senator felt that his woes were linked to
"unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against him," adding,
"there has been no proven conviction to date against him in any country
in the world, including Nigeria." The senator's legal team asserted that
"the internet, being a tool open to all individuals to post documents
on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and assassination of
character."
Despite the pleas by Senator Uba's attorneys, the
SSHD reaffirmed that the controversial politician would remain a persona
non grata from the U.K. That decision was contained in a letter dated
July 19, 2012.
“In response to your letter I can only reiterate
previous advice which states that the Home Secretary personally excluded
Mr. Uba from the UK because she did not consider his presence in the UK
to be conducive to the public good on the basis of his character,
conduct and association with fraud and other criminal activities," the
letter stated.
Court documents (see full text below) indicated
that Senator Uba's lawyers mounted a further legal challenge to the
decision barring their client from the U.K., but to no avail.
SaharaReporters
could not independently confirm if the U.K. Authorities have changed
their mind since 2012, however, sources knowledgeable about the case
said the senator's presentation of forged documents to the U.K.
authorities likely compounded his woes.
Read the full court documents below:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
On the application of
Mr. EMMANUEL NNAMDI UBA
Claimant
-and-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Defendant
GROUNDS FOR SEEKING JUDICIAL RELIEF
COURT/TRIBUNAL, PERSON OR BODY WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BE REVIEWED
1.
A review decision of the Defendant, confirming a previous decision that
the Claimant is to be excluded from the United Kingdom. The review
decision was dated 19th July 2012.
DETAILED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS
1. Judicial relief is sought upon the following grounds:
i)
The Defendant has failed to reasonably and lawfully consider the review
application of the Claimant by failing to/ failing to appropriately
establish that she took into account the representations and evidence
presented by the Claimant during the course of his application.
Facts
2. The Claimant was born on 14th December 1958 and is presently aged 53.
3. He is presently Senator for the Anambra South constituency of Anambra State.
4.
The Claimant previously served as Governor of Anambra State, being
elected in April 2007. He was removed from office by order of the
Nigerian Supreme Court as the election results were nullified upon the
previous Governor establishing that his term of office continued.
Immigration history
5.
On 11th November 2004, the Claimant was issued with a 5-year
multiple-entry visitor’s visa by the British High Commission, Abuja.
Exclusion Decision
6. By way of a letter dated 2nd December 2008, the Defendant detailed, inter alia;
“The
purpose of this letter is to inform you that on 26 November 2008, after
the most careful consideration, the Home Secretary personally directed
that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom.
On the basis
of your character, conduct and association with fraud and other
criminal activities, your presence in the UK would not be conducive to
the public good and the Home Secretary has decided that you should be
excluded from all territories of the United Kingdom.
… The decision is reviewed after 3 years …”
7.
On 2nd December 2008, the British High Commission confirmed to the
Claimant that it had decided to revoke the multiple-entry visitor’s visa
on the grounds that the Defendant had personally directed that the
Claimant’s exclusion from the United Kingdom was conducive to the public
good.
8. The Claimant was refused entry as a result of the exclusion decision on 24th December 2008.
9. The UK Border Agency detailed by way of a letter dated 20th March 2009:
“…
I can confirm that on 26 November 2008, the Home Secretary personally
directed that Mr. Uba be excluded from the United Kingdom because she
considered, after taking into account all of the information available
to her, that Mr. Uba’s presence in the UK was not conducive to the
public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association with
fraud and other criminal activities.”
10. The Claimant
sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review, outside of
the 3 months period identified by the Civil Procedure Rules
(CO/6949/2010).
11. The application for permission to seek
judicial review was refused at an oral hearing on 1st July 2011 by Mr.
Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.
Request for a Review
12.
The Claimant requested a review of the decision to exclude him from the
United Kingdom by way of a letter dated 19th December 2011, detailing:
“…
our client is asking that the SSHD, in reviewing this extant exclusion
decision, should note that he has been a law abiding citizen of Nigeria
who has been contributing his best to the development of his country. He
was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s upper legislative chamber in 2011 …
He would not have qualified for election to the Nigerian Senate if this
was the case. We refer you to the attached extract from the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which clearly sets out at
clauses 65-66 the stringent criteria that would enable an individual to
qualify for election as senator in Nigeria.
Furthermore, we urge
the SSHD to take cognizance of our client’s strong assertion that,
despite the unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against
him, there has been no proven conviction to date against him in any
country in the world, including Nigeria. In addition, the SSDH should
also please note that the internet, being a tool open to all individuals
to post documents on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and
assassination of character.
In any event, our client has asked us
to inform the SSHD that should the exclusion order be lifted, he (our
client) would make sure that he does not do anything that would breach
the law or do anything that is inimical to the interests of the UK or
any other country.”
13. The Defendant conducted a review and
the decision to make an exclusion decision was maintained. A letter of
19th July 2012 detailed, inter alia;
“In response to your letter I
can only reiterate previous advice which states that the Home Secretary
personally excluded Mr. Uba from the UK because she did not consider
his presence in the UK to be conducive to the public good on the basis
of his character, conduct and association with fraud and other criminal
activities.”
GROUND 1 – The Defendant has failed to reasonably
and lawfully consider the review application of the Claimant by failing
to/ failing to appropriately establish that she took into account the
representations and evidence presented by the Claimant during the course
of his application.
14. The Defendant directed that the Claimant should be excluded from the United Kingdom.
15. It was decided that the Claimant’s presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good.
16.
The reasons given were short and detailed that the decision was based
upon the Claimant’s character, conduct and association with fraud and
other criminal activities.
Law
17. The position of persons seeking to enter this country
from abroad is governed by a complex patchwork of statutory rules and
regulations.
18. Section 1 Immigration Act 1971 empowers the
Defendant to lay down rules for regulating the entry into the United
Kingdom of persons not having a right of abode here, including visitors.
19.
Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides that a person who is not a British
citizen shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so
in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, the Act.
20. Immigration Rules (HC395) have been made pursuant to sections 1, 3(2) of the 1971 Act.
21. Rule 41 lays down requirements for leave to enter as a visitor with which the Claimant has previously complied.
22. Rule 320(6) provides that grounds for refusing leave to enter include:
“Where
the Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a
person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good.”
23.
Guidance issued to entry clearance officers relating to paragraph
320(6) suggests that, where a refusal is appropriate, high profile cases
should be referred to the Home Secretary: Entry Clearance Guidance, RFL
8.1.
36 In addition to this power of the Home Secretary
paragraph 320(19) provides that entry clearance, for leave to enter,
will normally be refused:
“…where, from information available …
it seems right to refuse leave to enter on the ground that exclusion
from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; if, for
example, in the light of the character, conduct or associations of the
person seeking leave to enter it is undesirable to give him or leave to
enter.”
24. Guidance to entry clearance officers relating to
paragraph 320(19) states that the non-conducive powers apply in a broad
range of circumstances and that each case must be considered on its
individual merits: Entry Clearance Guidance RFL9.1–4. Examples of such
refusals in the Guidance are where a person's admission might lead to an
infringement of United Kingdom law.
25. An excluded person can seek a review of the decision after 3 years.
Request for Review
26.
The Claimant sought a review of his exclusion. By way of a letter from
his legal representatives, dated 19th December 2011, the Claimant
detailed:
“More especially, our client is asking that the SSHD,
in reviewing this extant exclusion decision, should not that he has been
a law abiding citizen of Nigeria who has been contributing his best to
the development of his country. He was elected a Senator of Nigeria’s
upper legislative chamber in 2011 – a printout from the Nigerian
national assembly website is enclosed for your reference. He would not
have qualified for election to the Nigerian Senate if this was the case.
We refer you to the attached extract from the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 which clearly sets out at clauses 65-66
the stringent criteria that would enable an individual to qualify for
election as senator in Nigeria.
Furthermore, we urge the SSHD to
take cognizance of our client’s strong assertion that, despite the
unsubstantiated allegations made on the internet against him, there has
been no proven conviction to date against him in any country in the
world, including Nigeria. In addition, the SSHD should also please note
that the internet, being a tool open to all individuals to post
documents on, can be used as a weapon of destruction and assassination
of character.”
Decision
27. The Claimant put forward
strong grounds for asserting that he is a suitable person to enjoy a
visitor’s visa and enter this country as a visitor, presenting evidence
as to his election as a Senator in Nigeria and as to the stringent
criteria required to be met before he could both stand for election and
take up his seat. Such evidence strongly suggests that he is a man of
suitable character to enjoy leave to enter the United Kingdom.
28. The Defendant’s decision of 19th July 2012 is limited in nature. In its entirety it details:
“Thank
you for your correspondence dated 17 July concerning your client, Mr.
Emmanuel Nnamdi Uba, who has been excluded from the United Kingdom.
In
response to your letter I can only reiterate previous advice which
states that the Home Secretary personally excluded Mr. Uba from the UK
because she did not consider his presence in the UK to be conducive to
the public good on the basis of his character, conduct and association
with fraud and other criminal activities.
Following the recent
review of Mr. Uba’s case the exclusion decision has been maintained for
the reasons stated above. It is not possible to disclose any further
details relating to this case.
Please note that contrary to your
assertion, Mr. Uba is the subject of an exclusion decision taken
personally by the Home Secretary, and not an exclusion order.
29.
The decision letters fails to note the representations and evidence
relied upon by the Claimant, fails to detail that it has been
appropriately considered and fails to detail as to what weight, if any,
the decision maker gave to the representations and evidence presented.
30. The decision can be considered to be a simple rubber-stamping of the decision made in 2008. Such an approach is unlawful.
31.
A person seeking a permitted review of a decision should be placed in a
position whereby they understand why their application has been
refused.
32. This is particularly so when they are denied knowledge of the details of the allegations made against them.
33.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips MR) observed in English v Emery
Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2409 justice will not be done if
it is not apparent as to why a party has been unsuccessful.
34.
The same principle was enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Union of
Construction and Allied Trades Technicians v Brain [1981] I.R.L.R. 225
where Lawton L.J. held that the giving of appropriate reasons is to:
“… tell the parties in broad terms why they lost or, as the case may be, won.”
35. Lord Bridge confirmed in Save Britain’s Heritage v Number 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 W.L.R. 153 that:
“[Reasons]
should enable a person who is entitled to contest the decision to make a
proper assessment as to whether the decision should be challenged”
“…
a salutary safeguard to enable interested parties to know that the
decision has been taken on relevant and rational grounds and that any
applicable statutory criteria have been observed.”
36. In R v
Westminster City Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All E.R. 302
Hutchinson L.J. held that the reasons obligation was imposed “so that
the persons affected by the decision may know why they have won or lost
and, in particular, may be able to judge whether the decision is valid
and therefore unchallengeable, or invalid and therefore open to
challenge.”
37. The courts have regularly confirmed that the
provision of adequate reasons also helps focus the decision-maker’s
mind. In Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
[2003] 1 W.L.R. 1763 Lord Steyn observed:
“First, they impose a
discipline … which may contribute to such [decisions] being considered
with care. Secondly, reasons encourage transparency … Thirdly, they
assist the courts in performing their supervisory function if judicial
review proceedings are launched.”
38. In the same matter, Lord Millet held
“…
The importance of the right to be given reasons for an adverse decision
should not be underestimated, since in their absence the person
affected may be unable to judge whether to challenge it.”
39.
A further benefit of adequate reasons is that they give an applicant an
effective means of detecting the kind of error which would entitle the
court to intervene: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex
parte Doody [1994] 1 A.C. 531
40. The lack of reasoning identifying why the Claimant’s representations and evidence were rejected was unlawful.
Big Brother Naija evicted housemate ThinTallTony returned to Lagos few hours ago today after he was evicted on Sunday during the live show.
It was exactly two days Kemi Olunloyo reveal she was picked up by the Nigeria Police Force in regard to a post she published alleging that pst David Ibiyeome was having an affair with an actress Iyabo Oko and that he gave her the Range Rover she is using. News Jst trending now is that she is been sent to prison on order of pst David Ibiyeome for name defamation.
