2023 RLLR 192
Citation: 2023 RLLR 192
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: December 13, 2023
Panel: Ted Bethune
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Ochiemuan Okojie
Country: Nigeria
RPD Number: TC2-37284
Associated RPD Number(s): N/A
ATIP Number: A-2024-01010
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision for XXXX XXXX XXXX, file number TC2-37284. I have considered your testimony and the other evidence in the case, and I am ready to render my decision orally. I have also considered the Chairperson’s guidelines relating to gender considerations in proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board. You claim to be a citizen of Nigeria and are claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I find that you are a Convention refugee for the following reasons.
[2] The allegations of your claim can be found in your Basis of Claim form. In short, you allege harm from supporters of the indigenous people of Biafra, hereafter IPOB, as a result of your refusal to join their political organization, and harm from the Nigerian authorities as a result of them perceiving you as supporting IPOB, as well as your membership in a particular social group due to your familial relationship with your husband, who has a political opinion critical of the Nigerian government, that he writes about in his newspaper articles.
[3] You allege that you and your husband are from the Igbo area of Nigeria, and that while your husband’s brother is a member of IPOB, and that while his brother — while this brother-in-law has attempted to recruit yourself and your husband, you are opposed to the actions of IPOB and to the actions of the Nigerian government in their ongoing conflict, and that your husband writes newspaper columns critical of the Nigerian government. You allege that this position critical of both IPOB and the Nigerian government has caused each to view you as supporting the other.
[4] You allege that you have personally experienced the conflict between IPOB and the Nigerian government when, on XXXX XXXX, 2022, you were on a commercial bus that was caught in a gun battle between the ESN of IPOB and the Nigerian government’s secret police, the Department of State Services. You allege that when visiting your husband’s brother in XXXX 2022, his house was attacked by the police, with your husband being arrested and his brother escaping. You allege that your husband was held for three (3) days under accusations that he was a member of IPOB, and that he was beaten in police custody before being released after payment of a bribe, and being told to report to the police station monthly.
[5] You allege that when your husband reported to the police station in XXXX 2022, he was again accused of supporting IPOB, information was requested from him on IPOB members, and they threatened him with arrest and detention next time if he does not cooperate with the police, before your husband paid a bribe and was released. This made your husband decide never — to decide never to return.
[6] You allege that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, the Nigerian police came to your house for your husband, and when they did not find him at home, they told you he needs to report back to the police station, and that next time they would arrest you if they did not find your husband. You allege that on XXXX XXXX, 2022, unknown gunmen broke into your house but did not steal anything of significant value. You believe this to be related to your Igbo ethnicity and your political views. This attack caused you to flee to Canada. You allege that there is no state protection for you or an internal flight alternate anywhere in Nigeria.
[7] Your personal identity as a citizen of Nigeria has been established by your testimony and the supporting documents filed in Exhibits 1 and 4, namely your Nigerian passports, Canadian visas, and the report on biometric information. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your national identity as a citizen of Nigeria has been established.
[8] I find that there is a link between what you fear and one (1) of the five (5) Convention grounds, because of your membership in a particular social group as the spouse of a person who makes public statements critical of the Nigerian government. As I have made my decision based upon your husband’s criticism of the Nigerian government, I find it is unnecessary to consider your claim as it relates to persecution from IPOB for your refusal to support them, and I make no finding in that regard.
[9] I find, based on your testimony and the supporting documents filed, that there is a serious possibility of persecution from the Nigerian government because of your membership in a particular social group as a spouse of a person who makes public statements critical of the Nigerian government. A claimant’s sworn testimony is presumed to be truthful unless there is a valid reason to doubt it. I am cognizant of the difficulties faced by individuals in establishing their claims, including differing levels of education, testifying through an interpreter, cultural factors, and the milieu of the hearing room.
[10] I am also mindful that Exhibit 8, the National Documentation Package for Nigeria, is replete with references to the persisting patriarchal attitudes in Nigeria, and that the gender guidelines explicitly refer to this sort of situation, reminding me that women from certain cultures where men do not share the details of their political, military or even social activities with their spouses, daughters or mothers may find themselves in a difficult situation when questioned about the experiences of their male relatives. Overall, I have found you to be credible.
[11] I did find your testimony was largely consistent between what was listed in your narrative and the other evidence in this case. However, you also testified at the majority of the events involved your husband’s interactions with the police, and which led you to jointly conclude as to the cause of these interactions, with you not having significant direct interactions with the police except in XXXX 2022. I also found you did not exaggerate your testimony, but were honest about what you did and did not know, which I found added to the credibility of your testimony about matters that you did not know. This is consistent with the gender guidelines, and so I find your lack of knowledge about events in which you did not personally participate to be reasonable, and I draw no negative credibility inference.
[12] While your personal involvement was limited, to the extent you were personally involved in the events in Nigeria, I did not find there to be any material inconsistencies between your testimony and the other evidence in the case. You were able to testify in reasonable detail about your experiences when the police came searching for your husband in XXXX 2022, and when the unknown gunmen searched your house for unknown reasons in XXXX 2022. You also provided substantial documentary evidence in Exhibit 6, which includes a copy of your marriage certificate, a support letter from your husband, and numerous articles written by her husband critical of the government in general, and in particular related to IPOB. These documents are consistent with your narrative, and I find that they support the credibility of your allegations.
[13] While you were unable to provide substantial evidence about direct connections between the persecution by the police and your husband’s newspaper articles, given the allegations against your husband also related to IPOB involvement, which he writes about significantly in the articles you provided, including on dates close in proximity to yours and his interactions with the police, and given your testimony that he was previously approached by the government to write on their behalf about IPOB, I find on a balance of probabilities that at least part of the reason your family is being targeted is related to your husband’s newspaper articles.
[14] After reviewing all of the evidence, I therefore find that you have established on a balance of probabilities your profile as the spouse of a person who makes public statements critical of the Nigerian government, and the actions the Nigerian authorities have taken against you and your family. I find that you have established your subjective fear.
[15] I further find on a balance of probabilities that you have an objective basis for your fear because of the documented conditions for Nigeria as per the evidence in Exhibit 8, the National Documentation Package for Nigeria. Item 2.9 states, “Officials restrict press freedoms by publicly criticizing, harassing and arresting journalists, especially when they cover corruption, human rights violations, separatist and communal violence, or other politically sensitive topics.” It continues, “Expression of critical views on political leaders or sensitive subjects like the military, religion and ethnicity, occasionally leads to arrests or violent reprisals.”
[16] Item 4.8 states, “According to the DFAT report, the Cybercrimes (sic) Act, which was passed in 2015, has been used by local and state governments to arrest opponents and critics, including journalists.” It further states that “freedom of expression is not being protected by law enforcement agencies, with authorities using violence, threatening individuals and groups who express dissenting opinions, and endangering the lives of those who dare to criticize authorities, those in power, or institutions.” Additionally, it states at Item 1.22 that “arrests in lieu, arrests in/by proxy, or substitutional arrests take place in Nigeria. Sources explained that these may happen when the police cannot find a suspect. They may then arrest a family member or friend instead of the suspect. The purpose of this is to use the person as enticement to convince the subject to come forward.”
[17] In a telephone interview with the research directorate, the executive director of the Rule of Law And Accountability Advocacy Centre explained that it is commonly known as “hostage taking.” The police are trying to use the relative to draw out the person they are looking for. They may take a man’s wife or children and keep them hostage until the man appears, or take a man as bait to draw out his wife. According to the same source, it is a very common practice. I therefore find on a balance of probabilities that your subjective fear has an objective basis. Therefore, I find you to have a well-founded fear of persecution from the Nigerian government because of your membership in a particular social group as a spouse of a person who makes public statements critical of the Nigerian government.
[18] Except in situations when the state is in a state of complete breakdown, states must be presumed capable of protecting their citizens. However, this presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect. In your case, you have established on a balance of probabilities that the Nigerian government is one (1) of your main persecutors. Exhibit 8, the National Documentation Package for Nigeria, provides the following additional information on state protection. At Item 1.22, in general, sources suggest police officers and members of security forces responsible for misconduct and human rights violations are rarely held to account, and the findings of investigations that do take place are not always made public, fostering a culture of impunity.
[19] Furthermore, Item 2.1 reads, “Impunity, exacerbated by corruption and a weak judiciary, remained a significant problem in the security forces, especially in police, military and the Department of State Services.” Given the commonplace nature of arrest by proxy, and that impunity is a significant problem in the security forces of Nigeria, I find on a balance of probabilities there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be available to you.
[20] The court has held that a victim of politically-motivated persecution is not required to abandon his commitment to political activism in order to live safely in his country. It follows that your husband should also not be expected to abandon his commitment to political active activism in order to allow you to live safely in Nigeria. As your husband’s criticism has in part led to your prior prescription, I find on a balance of probabilities the Nigerian government would continue to be motivated to persecute you in order to locate your husband.
[21] As it is the Nigerian government that is persecuting, and the Nigerian government controls the entire country, I find that there is nowhere in Nigeria where you could relocate that the Nigerian government would not have the ability to locate you. As the Nigerian government would have the motivation and ability to locate you anywhere in Nigeria, the test for an internal flight alternative fails on the first prong.
[22] Therefore, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative for you. Based on the totality of the evidence, I find you to be at serious risk of persecution in Nigeria because of your membership in a particular social group as a spouse of a person who makes public statements critical of the Nigerian government, and therefore to be a Convention refugee. Your claim is therefore accepted.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———