Categories
All Countries Nigeria

2020 RLLR 146

Citation: 2020 RLLR 146
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: November 2, 2020
Panel: Zonia M. Tock
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Gabriel Ukueku
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: VC0-01443
Associated RPD Number(s):
ATIP Number: A-2021-01106
ATIP Pages: 000184-000189

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1]       This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concerning [XXX] (the “claimant”) who is a citizen of Nigeria and is making a claim for refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“).[1]

DETERMINATION

[2]       I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act, for the following reasons.

ALLEGATIONS

[3]       I will briefly summarize the claimants’ allegations, which are found in his Basis of Claim (BOC) form[2]. The claimant is a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), which is a group striving for the independence of Biafra. The claimant considers himself a freedom fighter as he has not only become a member of IPOB but has risen in its ranks to become a member of the [XXX] team. As such, he was responsible for [XXX] about the group and its activities, as well as mobilizing Biafrans to join peaceful rallies.

[4]       In 2018, the claimant’s father was killed by Nigerian military officers after they raided his home trying to arrest the claimant. The claimant’s father tried to prevent the claimant’s arrest, which resulted in his death. Soon thereafter, the claimant travelled to Canada for a conference. While in Canada, the claimant’s nephew was killed by the Nigerian authorities. As a result, the claimant remained in Canada for seven months. However, he did not make a claim for protection because his wife and children were still in Nigeria and he wanted to ensure they were safe. In [XXX] 2019, the claimant was advised that the situation was improving, thus he returned to Nigeria.

[5]       However, in [XXX] 2019, an IPOB member alerted the claimant that the Nigerian military were on their way to his house. This allowed the claimant and his family to flee the area. The claimant’s wife and children escaped to Cameroon while the claimant travelled to Canada and made a claim for protection. While in Canada, the claimant has become part of the IPOB Calgary League and continues to support the cause.

Identity

[6]       The claimant’s identity as a national of Nigeria is stablished by the sworn statement in his BOC form and the certified copy of his Nigerian passport[3] before me.

Nexus

[7]       The claimant alleges that he will be persecuted by the Nigerian government due to his membership in IPOB. I find there is a nexus between this allegation and the Convention ground of political opinion. As such, I have considered this claim under both sections 96 and 97(1) of the Act.

Credibility

[8]       There is a presumption that sworn testimony is true unless there is sufficient reason to doubt its truthfulness. In this case, I found the claimant to be a credible witness. His testimony was heartfelt and passionate. The claimant became emotional when asked to explain why he chose to join IPOB. He testified that his parents had taught him about the injustices committed against the Biafran population during the 50s and 60s, and he also observed the continued targeting of Biafrans by the Nigerian government. The claimant testified that the Biafran community did not want to be part of Nigeria because of the way the country is being managed and because of the injustices committed against the Biafran people.

[9]       The claimant was also able to credibly explain what appeared to be inconsistencies in the evidence before me. For example, the claimant was asked why he did not make a claim for protection during the [XXX] 2018 to [XXX] 2019 period that he was in Canada. The claimant’ s father had been murdered prior to his travels to Canada and his nephew had also been murdered while the claimant was in Canada, thus it would be reasonable to expect that the claimant would make a claim for protection at that time. However, the claimant explained that during that trip, his wife and children were still in Nigeria. His top priority is their safety, thus he had to ensure he could travel back to keep them safe. I find this explanation to be credible given that once the claimant was able to secure his family’s safety in Cameroon, he made a claim for protection.

[10]     I also questioned the claimant regarding a newspaper article in evidence which indicates that the claimant and his wife were missing after a raid by the military.[4] The article is dated November 2019; however, the military raid which led to the claimant leaving Nigeria took place in [XXX] 2019. The claimant explained that there was a second raid of his home, where his belongings were destroyed by the military. This second raid took place in [XXX] 2019, and that is the one being referenced in the article. I find this explanation to be credible as the claimant mentioned a second raid of his home in his BOC form.

[11]     I have also considered the documentary evidence before me, including evidence of the claimant’s membership in IPOB Calgary,[5] his membership in IPOB in Nigeria,[6] and the continued targeting of IPOB members in Nigeria.[7]

[12]     Based on the totality of the evidence before me, I accept the claimants’ allegations as credible.

Country Conditions

[13]     I have reviewed the National Documentation Package (NDP)[8] before me and I find that Country condition information before me establishes that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Nigeria.

[14]     The evidence before me is that IPOB is a separatist organization considered to be a secessionist group which argues that the people of Biafra have been politically, socio­economically and culturally marginalized in Nigeria.[9]

[15]     There are reports of extrajudicial executions, use of excessive force by military, arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and evidence of peaceful gatherings being dispersed by the firing of live ammunition with little or no warning.[10]

[16]     The President’s stance on Biafran independence is described as dismissive at best, and at times hostile.[11] However, in 2017, the Nigerian military designated the IPOB as a terrorist organization; a label which has been rejected by international observers.[12] A Response to Information Request (RIR) before me indicates that following that designation, IPOB members have been targeted:

The Abia State Police Commissioner stated, subsequent to the terrorist designation and the ban on IPOB activities, that anyone caught with “Biafran materials would be arrested and prosecuted.”

The Anambra Police Commissioner, quoted by the Punch, a Nigerian news publication, indicated the ban would be enforced and anyone involved in the activities of the IPOB would be charged with terrorism, which carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and a maximum sentence of the death penalty.

Since August 2015, the security forces have killed at least 150 members and supporters of the pro-Biafran organization IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra) and injured hundreds during non-violent meetings, marches and other gatherings. Hundreds were also arbitrarily arrested.[13]

[17]     Considering that the Nigerian government has labeled the IPOB as a terrorist organization and that they continue to target members of the IPOB, I find that there is more than a mere possibility that the claimant would be persecuted if he returns to Nigeria.

State Protection and Internal Flight Alternative

[18]     In this case, the agent of harm is the government. The authorities are targeting members of IPOB and have labeled them a terrorist organization. As such, it would not be reasonable to expect the claimant to turn to the state for protection.

[19]     In terms of an internal flight alternative (IFA), the government of Nigeria is in control of the entire state. Its persecutory declaration is in place in the entire territory; thus it would not be feasible for the claimant to move elsewhere in Nigeria and be safe. As such, I do not find that an IFA exists in this case.

CONCLUSION

[20]     For the reasons outlined above, I find the claimant is a Convention refugee. As such, his claim is accepted.


[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.

[2] Exhibit 2.

[3] Exhibit 1.

[4] Exhibit 4.

[5] Exhibit 4.

[6] Exhibit 7.

[7] Exhibits 4 and 5.

[8] Exhibit 3, National Documentation Package (NDP), Nigeria, July 31, 2020.

[9] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.2 Response to Information Request (RIR) NGA105658.E.

[10] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.2 RIR NGA105658.E.

[11] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.2 RIR NGA105658.E.

[12] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.5 RIR NGA106308.E.

[13] Exhibit 3, NDP, Item 13.5 RIR NGA106308.E.