Ahmed Zaoui - Refugee from Terror
Created | Updated Mar 16, 2006
Written with the help of, and some information from Richard Mayes, Amnesty member.
"Terror cannot be defeated by riding roughshod over the very human rights that are essential to protect people from it."
Ced Simpson, Director, Amnesty International, New Zealand.
In December 2002, Ahmed Zaoui arrived in New Zealand, and made an application for refugee status. He had travelled on a false passport, which he destroyed on his arrival.It must be noted that those who are refugees cannot obtain travel documents from the very place from which they have fled.
Zaoui is an Algerian, and had been in exile from his country since 1992, when the regime there had cancelled the elections which his party, the FIS looked certain to win. Moreover, he cannot return to Algeria, because he faces torture, or death, maybe both. So, rather than being a terrorist, he is a refugee from terror.
Previously, he had applied for asylum in Switzerland, but was illegally deported to Burkina Faso, the poorest country in Africa, before his application had been finalised.
In December 2002, the Immigration Service declined his application for refugee status, citing "security concerns".
In March 2003, the NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) issued what is known as a "security risk certificate" - as a result, Mr Zaoui remained in solitary confinement in prison. The exact contents of the Security Risk Certificate have long been kept secret.
In August 2003, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, granted Mr Zaoui refugee status, saying that there was no credible evidence that he had been involved in terrorism or serious crime. (Although there have been allegations that Mr Zaoui had in fact been a terrorist - these allegations are believed to have come from the Algerian regime, via the governments of France and Belgium. He has been tried in both countries, but has had no opportunity to defend himself. The trial in France was held in Mr Zaoui's absence, and as he had not known he was facing any charges, he had not been given the chance to defend himself against the allegations against him. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority therefore concluded that the French convictions must be regarded as "unsafe".
The Belgian trial was a farce. Neither Mr Zaoui nor his lawyer were provided with an interpreter, and he was therefore unable to understand the charges against him.
In December 2003, in the High Court, a judgement was made that the SIS should provide a summary of allegations against Mr Zaoui. The Court also ruled that the Inspector General of the Security Intelligence service must in dealing with the case, consider Mr Zaoui's human rights.
In February 2004, the Government announced that it would appeal the ruling that the Inspector General must consider Mr Zaoui's human rights in his decision. The SIS also provided the summary of allegations, which provided little new information.
March 2004. The Inspector General of the SIS, Laurie Greig was disqualified from the case, because of prejudicial remarks he made during an interview with a national magazine. In April 2004, Justice Paul Neazor was appointed to replace Mr Greig.
National immigration spokesperson Dr Wayne Mapp has been able to exploit popular prejudice by insisting that as Mr Zaoui apparently used false passports in Europe, his use of a false passport to enable him to get to New Zealand "shows a pattern of contempt for western law. If he were the genuine refugee he claims, "why had he continued to engage in this illegal behaviour?" This completely ignores the allowance for such, in the UN Refugee Convention. As to "contempt for western law" - being held without charge or trial for 17 months is a fundamental contravention of international law, but something which Dr Mapp and many others
seem to think is perfectly acceptable. Then Dr Mapp stated, "Zaoui is clearly not the innocent refugee he claims and should not be allowed into New Zealand. If he doesn't like our prison system all he needs to do is choose to leave."
However, by the time of Dr Mapp's statement, Mr Ahmed Zaoui has been held in prison for 18 months, since December 2002, and for 10 months of that time, had been in solitary confinement. "Just leaving" is not an option for Mr Zaoui or his family. Psychiatrists have found that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. His wife and sons are in hiding, and he has not seen or spoken to them for 18 months. In June his lawyers will return to court with a writ of habeas corpus, though it is not known how successful this will be.
His lawyers also intend to ask for his release from prison on bail, and an order of Dominican monks have agreed to provide accommodation for Mr Zaoui.
It is a disgrace that this sequence of events has happened in New Zealand, a country which has always prided itself on its commitment to human rights. New Zealand is a signatory to many international conventions on human rights, and yet Mr Zaoui appears to be the victim of the current climate of fear of terrorism. Amnesty International asks only that the New Zealand Government will provide a fair and impartial judicial hearing for Mr Zaoui, or release him. He has after all, been given refugee status - and contrary to what many people think, the destruction of travel documents by a would-be refugee is not to be held against them in their application.
Mr Zaoui's story needs to be more widely known in the world outside New Zealand - and amongst New Zealanders themselves. His story is a complicated one, and it is understandable that many New Zealanders do not know what has been going on. The media have not always made plain the simple facts of the case.
Phil Goff (NZ's present Minister of Justice) declared to the UN General Assembly September 2003:
"In combating terrorism ... we should avoid undermining the very values we are seeking to uphold.
The fight against terrorism should not become an excuse to justify actions that do not conform to
international standards of humanity."
(Definition of habeas corpus, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
"Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.")
UPDATE: 9th December 2004.
Ahmed Zaoui is out! On the 9th of December 2004, the NZ Supreme Court ruled that Ahmed Zaoui must be released on bail, after the Crown admitted that Mr Zaoui, who spent his 44th birthday, December 7th, at the Auckland Remand Prison, did not constitute any danger of violence. A condition of his bail is that he must reside at the Dominican Friary in Central Auckland.
His problems are not yet over - his legal fight to stay in New Zealand remains. His lawyers, Deborah Manning and Rodney Harrison said "He still doesn't have the protection of New Zealand and as a refugee that's what he needs, and his family is still in hiding waiting to be reunited with their husband and father".
After Mr Zaoui's release on bail, the next step was the first of many returns to court.For the first time, Mr Zaoui was present himself; for so long, he had had to sit in prison, while his lawyers argued in his absence.
Presently, the Supreme Court is considering whether broader human rights issues must be considered by the inspector-general, who will review whether the security risk certificate has been properly issued. A court had already decided in October 2004, that Mr Zaoui's human rights must be taken into account, but the Government appealed that decision. In early 2005, Chief Justice Sian Elias ruled that the Supreme Court must review the Zaoui case yet again, and gave leave for the Crown to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that he could be deported only if there was evidence he was such a danger that his expulsion to Algeria was the only alternative. Justice Elias set dates for the hearing in early April. Under the Immigration Act, justice Neazor must decide whether to uphold the Security Risk certificate, which is the nub of the problem, because neither Mr Zaoui nor his lawyers have ever been allowed to see this certificate, or to answer its specific allegations.
Update 1st May 2005.
See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10123107
It has just been revealed that the Inspector-General of Intelligence has created a position called "special advocate", to examine and access the SIS evidence held against Ahmed Zaoui. The special advocate will be allowed to view the SIS material, which has previously been forbidden to Mr Zaoui or his legal advisers.
Auckland QC Stuart Grieve has been appointed to this position, in order to access the SIS material on Mr Zaoui's behalf. He will be able to make challenges against the classified allegations, but will be allowed to communicate with Mr Zaoui only with the permission of Justice Neazor, the current Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.
References:
Amnesty International Pamphlet, May 2004
www.amnesty.org.nz
www.humanrights.co.nz
"Terror cannot be defeated by riding roughshod over the very human rights that are essential to protect people from it."
Ced Simpson, Director, Amnesty International, New Zealand.
In December 2002, Ahmed Zaoui arrived in New Zealand, and made an application for refugee status. He had travelled on a false passport, which he destroyed on his arrival.It must be noted that those who are refugees cannot obtain travel documents from the very place from which they have fled.
Zaoui is an Algerian, and had been in exile from his country since 1992, when the regime there had cancelled the elections which his party, the FIS looked certain to win. Moreover, he cannot return to Algeria, because he faces torture, or death, maybe both. So, rather than being a terrorist, he is a refugee from terror.
Previously, he had applied for asylum in Switzerland, but was illegally deported to Burkina Faso, the poorest country in Africa, before his application had been finalised.
In December 2002, the Immigration Service declined his application for refugee status, citing "security concerns".
In March 2003, the NZ Security Intelligence Service (SIS) issued what is known as a "security risk certificate" - as a result, Mr Zaoui remained in solitary confinement in prison. The exact contents of the Security Risk Certificate have long been kept secret.
In August 2003, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, granted Mr Zaoui refugee status, saying that there was no credible evidence that he had been involved in terrorism or serious crime. (Although there have been allegations that Mr Zaoui had in fact been a terrorist - these allegations are believed to have come from the Algerian regime, via the governments of France and Belgium. He has been tried in both countries, but has had no opportunity to defend himself. The trial in France was held in Mr Zaoui's absence, and as he had not known he was facing any charges, he had not been given the chance to defend himself against the allegations against him. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority therefore concluded that the French convictions must be regarded as "unsafe".
The Belgian trial was a farce. Neither Mr Zaoui nor his lawyer were provided with an interpreter, and he was therefore unable to understand the charges against him.
In December 2003, in the High Court, a judgement was made that the SIS should provide a summary of allegations against Mr Zaoui. The Court also ruled that the Inspector General of the Security Intelligence service must in dealing with the case, consider Mr Zaoui's human rights.
In February 2004, the Government announced that it would appeal the ruling that the Inspector General must consider Mr Zaoui's human rights in his decision. The SIS also provided the summary of allegations, which provided little new information.
March 2004. The Inspector General of the SIS, Laurie Greig was disqualified from the case, because of prejudicial remarks he made during an interview with a national magazine. In April 2004, Justice Paul Neazor was appointed to replace Mr Greig.
National immigration spokesperson Dr Wayne Mapp has been able to exploit popular prejudice by insisting that as Mr Zaoui apparently used false passports in Europe, his use of a false passport to enable him to get to New Zealand "shows a pattern of contempt for western law. If he were the genuine refugee he claims, "why had he continued to engage in this illegal behaviour?" This completely ignores the allowance for such, in the UN Refugee Convention. As to "contempt for western law" - being held without charge or trial for 17 months is a fundamental contravention of international law, but something which Dr Mapp and many others
seem to think is perfectly acceptable. Then Dr Mapp stated, "Zaoui is clearly not the innocent refugee he claims and should not be allowed into New Zealand. If he doesn't like our prison system all he needs to do is choose to leave."
However, by the time of Dr Mapp's statement, Mr Ahmed Zaoui has been held in prison for 18 months, since December 2002, and for 10 months of that time, had been in solitary confinement. "Just leaving" is not an option for Mr Zaoui or his family. Psychiatrists have found that he suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. His wife and sons are in hiding, and he has not seen or spoken to them for 18 months. In June his lawyers will return to court with a writ of habeas corpus, though it is not known how successful this will be.
His lawyers also intend to ask for his release from prison on bail, and an order of Dominican monks have agreed to provide accommodation for Mr Zaoui.
It is a disgrace that this sequence of events has happened in New Zealand, a country which has always prided itself on its commitment to human rights. New Zealand is a signatory to many international conventions on human rights, and yet Mr Zaoui appears to be the victim of the current climate of fear of terrorism. Amnesty International asks only that the New Zealand Government will provide a fair and impartial judicial hearing for Mr Zaoui, or release him. He has after all, been given refugee status - and contrary to what many people think, the destruction of travel documents by a would-be refugee is not to be held against them in their application.
Mr Zaoui's story needs to be more widely known in the world outside New Zealand - and amongst New Zealanders themselves. His story is a complicated one, and it is understandable that many New Zealanders do not know what has been going on. The media have not always made plain the simple facts of the case.
Phil Goff (NZ's present Minister of Justice) declared to the UN General Assembly September 2003:
"In combating terrorism ... we should avoid undermining the very values we are seeking to uphold.
The fight against terrorism should not become an excuse to justify actions that do not conform to
international standards of humanity."
(Definition of habeas corpus, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
"Lat. "you have the body" Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.")
UPDATE: 9th December 2004.
Ahmed Zaoui is out! On the 9th of December 2004, the NZ Supreme Court ruled that Ahmed Zaoui must be released on bail, after the Crown admitted that Mr Zaoui, who spent his 44th birthday, December 7th, at the Auckland Remand Prison, did not constitute any danger of violence. A condition of his bail is that he must reside at the Dominican Friary in Central Auckland.
His problems are not yet over - his legal fight to stay in New Zealand remains. His lawyers, Deborah Manning and Rodney Harrison said "He still doesn't have the protection of New Zealand and as a refugee that's what he needs, and his family is still in hiding waiting to be reunited with their husband and father".
After Mr Zaoui's release on bail, the next step was the first of many returns to court.For the first time, Mr Zaoui was present himself; for so long, he had had to sit in prison, while his lawyers argued in his absence.
Presently, the Supreme Court is considering whether broader human rights issues must be considered by the inspector-general, who will review whether the security risk certificate has been properly issued. A court had already decided in October 2004, that Mr Zaoui's human rights must be taken into account, but the Government appealed that decision. In early 2005, Chief Justice Sian Elias ruled that the Supreme Court must review the Zaoui case yet again, and gave leave for the Crown to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that he could be deported only if there was evidence he was such a danger that his expulsion to Algeria was the only alternative. Justice Elias set dates for the hearing in early April. Under the Immigration Act, justice Neazor must decide whether to uphold the Security Risk certificate, which is the nub of the problem, because neither Mr Zaoui nor his lawyers have ever been allowed to see this certificate, or to answer its specific allegations.
Update 1st May 2005.
See http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?ObjectID=10123107
It has just been revealed that the Inspector-General of Intelligence has created a position called "special advocate", to examine and access the SIS evidence held against Ahmed Zaoui. The special advocate will be allowed to view the SIS material, which has previously been forbidden to Mr Zaoui or his legal advisers.
Auckland QC Stuart Grieve has been appointed to this position, in order to access the SIS material on Mr Zaoui's behalf. He will be able to make challenges against the classified allegations, but will be allowed to communicate with Mr Zaoui only with the permission of Justice Neazor, the current Inspector General of Intelligence and Security.
References:
Amnesty International Pamphlet, May 2004
www.amnesty.org.nz
www.humanrights.co.nz
