Nigerian woman commences bid to prevent deportation

In a case before Mr Justice Brian McGovern, the family claim that the Minister had erred in law by refusing to grant them subsidiary protection and overturn the deportation orders by deeming that new material submitted as part of that application, that was not before the Minister when he was considering whether or not to make deportation orders against the family in 2005, was "similar in content" to information submitted on their behalf in 2005.

Mel Christle SC, for the family, said that the information put before the Minister amount to new material, and that the Minister ought to have entertained the family's application. Counsel added that the Minister had acted irrationally.

He said that the material included a statement from a Dr Fiona Hardy, an independent medical practioner who had worked and lived in Nigeria for several years and had extensive experience of the the practice of FGM that clearly showed that Ms Izevbekhai's two children are at risk of serious harm from FGM if they are returned.

This evidence counsel claimed was new in the sense that independently and fully cooberated what the family had claimed about the risk to their lives from FGM.

Her first daughter Elizabeth died at 17 months from blood loss, which the attending doctor described as being possibly the result of female circumcision performed on the baby.

Counsel also referred to a report by Amnesty International stating there were inadequate protections against FGM in Nigeria and there was a serious risk of harm. There was also e-mails from Irish journalists who had backed up the family's claims.

The Minister for Justice is opposing the application on grounds including that Ms Izevbekhai's latest court proceedings because they say that the material put before the Minister was no different than that submitted

Counsel said that there was no federal law in Nigeria outlawing FGM and, as it was up to individual States there whether they outlawed the practice.

While six states had outlawed the practise counsel said that there was "no evidence" of any person ever being prosecuted for carrying out the practise.

It was a practice Counsel said that it was their case that internal relocation was not an option.

In response to Mr Justice Brian McGovern who said that while he agreed that FGM, which he noted that there was evidence has been carried out on an estimated 30 million Nigerian females, was "barbaric" and "inhumane", he disagreed with his colleague Mr Justice Liam McKechnie that it was torture, Mr Christle said that in his view it was torture.

He argued that just because such a practice is not carried out by an organ of a state does not mean that it is not torture. He said that Ms Izevbekhai left Nigeria in January 2005 due to her husband's family's active practice of FGM.

Opposing the challenge Eoin McCullough SC, for the Minister, said Ms Izevbekhai had no substantial grounds for her judicial review.

It was their case that no new material had been advanced, and the Minister had not acted irrationally.

counsel said her claims had already been objectively examined and rejected by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and High Court.

Ms Izevbekhai went into hiding after the deportation orders were issued in November 2005 but was arrested in Sligo in December 2005 after she emerged to see her daughters, who had been put into care when their mother disappeared. She was detained in Mountjoy jail but freed by court order in January 2006.

A legal challenge to the deportations, grounded on fears about FGM, was dismissed in the High Court last January and Mr Justice Kevin Feeney later refused leave to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

The family had previously given a reprieve against their deportation last year following the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Last November Mr Justice John Hedigan found there was no reason to grant an injunction stopping the deportation, on the same day the ECHR requested the Irish government not to proceed with it because it said it wanted to consider the woman's arguments. The government agreed to the request.

The hearing continues.