Home Affairs Committee
My background is as follows: I am now retired but still work part time in a family business. The largest part of my time now is spent on the cases of Cameroonian asylum seekers, nearly all of them survivors of torture. I began this work more than six years ago and have built up a great deal of information about Cameroon. I have made many useful contacts there with human rights NGOs, journalists and broadcasters, police officers, lawyers, a judge, a clerk in the court of appeal, dissident politicians and religious figures. I have given evidence in court but do not claim to be an expert witness.
I do however have experience in the area of social research. After a combined honours degree that included sociology, psychology and politics, I went on to do a diploma in Social Administration at LSE. I spent one year working as the first ancillary worker in the Inner London Probation Service, spending part of each day in court. I co authored with my tutor at LSE a book on Advice and Information Services and then went on to work at the Dept of Community Medicine at Guy’s hospital. Eventually I took a post as Research Fellow at York University, working on one of the Home Office’s Community Development Projects, reporting on the work of the action team in an area chosen for its level of social deprivation.
Executive Summary Of Report On Removals To Cameroon
A study was made of 16 people who were returned to Cameroon after their asylum claims in the UK failed. Only two went back and lived openly: six escaped to other countries, two came back to the UK, (one being sent back to Cameroon for a second time) and six lived a life of near destitution in hiding, having to be very careful at all times. Two people who were wanted by the authorities were subjected to torture at the airport and were then imprisoned. There is a regular passage of prisoners from the airport to prison and two studies have identified failed asylum seekers in each of the two main prisons. There is anecdotal evidence of failed asylum seekers living in the forest near the Nigerian border. Note is made of the importance of bribery in the avoidance of incarceration post return.
The dangers and difficulties faced on arrival are described: in particular the method of handover by UKBA escorts, the use by UKBA of documents for identity purposes which can be incriminating (or which had in one case already been judged to be false during the asylum process) and the regularity of baggage searches for returning migrants or asylum seekers. The attitude of the Cameroon authorities to returning asylum seekers can be to view them as having tarnished the reputation of the country. They assert that their claims have been made up and they are viewed in the press as criminals.
Further difficulties are caused for returnees who do eventually manage to leave the airport by their lack of I D, which is required for any moving about in Cameroon and the fact they can be released on reporting conditions, which it is not safe for them to fulfil—resulting in the issuing of arrest summonses and notices.
There is a separate case study of the man who was twice sent back to Cameroon, handed over to Immigration Authorities in a way that identified his reason for fleeing, who was imprisoned and on the first return tortured at the airport and then in prison, and was charged with tarnishing the reputation of the country. This man has now escaped for a third time but to a different country.
The importance of good decision making is emphasized. At the root of the problem of the returning of people back to danger lies a resistance on the part of UKBA and some judges to understand the conditions prevailing in Cameroon.
Recommendations:
1. Note is made of a worrying case where one asylum seeker from Cameroon with a claim that should have had some merit, was sent back within two or three weeks of arrival in the UK into a situation of extreme danger, without having been allowed to make his application. What monitoring and safeguards are in place to prevent this kind of occurrence? More information is needed on procedures at this early stage. Better training needed for judges in Cameroon cases. Discouragement of culturally biased speculation and encouragement of objectivity and a balanced approach with regard to country information. Acknowledgment of lack of country experts. There should not be an illogical disregard of all documents from Cameroon. The recent Amnesty/Still Human still here Report makes many useful recommendations as to how the asylum process could be made more fit for purpose.
2. Attempts should be made to carry out more extensive risk assessments and damage limitation before sending people back who allege they will be refouled. People with Rule 35 reports alleging torture and medico legal reports from acknowledged experts on the analysis of torture wounds and in the assessing of ptsd should have their cases reviewed again at the end of the asylum process. This should also be done for those who have not had continuous expert legal representation throughout the process.
3. Measures that could reduce risks:
- — Delay until later in the asylum process of obtaining travel documents and then the soliciting of information from the Cameroon High Commission about whether the person is wanted by the police there
- — allowing detainees to see and agree the documentation that will be in the folder handed over to Cameroon Immigration Officers,
- — being clear in what way a returnee will be handed over that will convince the authorities that they are a visa overstayer or economic migrant, rather than an asylum seeker.
- — making sure escorts pass on correct information about the organisations that can or cannot help people in Cameroon,
- — Home Office should consider whether the only way in which many people can return safely is through the use of bribery and influence. Is this state of affairs acceptable?
4. Setting up a pilot scheme for monitoring returns and at the same time collecting information from as many sources as possible about the dangers facing returning asylum seekers could yield information that could result in better decision making though such a system could not necessarily lead to increased safety for the individuals being monitored. If a returnee disappears it may be very hard to trace them and ascertain whether they are in prison or hiding somewhere.
The dangers facing asylum seekers returned to Cameroon should not be under estimated and evidence of the situation should be sought by the Home Office from Cameroonians who have been granted refugee status here in the UK or in other countries and from those who have been helping them.
There is very little that can be done for someone who is sent back to danger as a life in hiding is also one of constant fear and lack of resources—ID being needed for housing, jobs, phones, receipt of money as well as moving around freely. The alternative of leaving the country again is very costly and open to only a few as it involves not only the price of travel, but having the right contacts and the money to bribe people to aid in the escape or to turn a blind eye to the exit from the country.
Further documents665
1. Returning of failed asylum seekers to Cameroon Report
2. Letter from British High Commission in Yaoundé, 3 March 2011, re information about entry and exit procedures, fraudulent documents, and the National Commission on Human Rights and Freedoms (NCHRF) in Cameroon.
3. Report on the situation of asylum-seekers who have been returned to Cameroon
4. Amnesty—Still Human Still Here Report April 2013 recommendations
5. Swiss Refugee Council—Extract from the French document: Informations sur les documents d’itentité africains—Cameroon
6. The case of Mr C: A story of failed asylum applications and the consequential refoulement
Jackie Fearnley
April 2013
665 Not printed