The Nigerian woman who claimed asylum in November 2021 had her application refused by the Home Office in November 2023. She argued that because she coordinated and attended a demonstration aimed at shutting down the Nigerian government’s Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) , a federal police unit accused of widespread rights abuses, she would be at risk if returned home. She maintained that her life would be in danger in her home country.
The unnamed woman lodged a human rights claim to remain in the UK, stating that her political activism, combined with her high profile as a “well-known model and actress,” would put her at further risk.
She was initially denied asylum by the Home Office after providing false salary information on a previous visa application, but an immigration judge later ruled that her case needed to be reheard because the full facts of her situation had not been properly considered.
Her case comes as Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, has announced major reforms to the asylum system, making refugee status temporary and giving ministers powers to return migrants to their home countries once deemed safe. Ms Mahmood is also overhauling immigration appeals by replacing judges with adjudicators and limiting the ability of illegal migrants and foreign offenders to use human rights laws to resist deportation.
“The consequent risk to her safety is enhanced by the fact that she is a well-known model and actress in Nigeria and the daughter of a local politician,” the court was told.
She also claimed to have “celebrity status” in Nigeria, although court documents noted that her description of this status was “vague and limited.”
After being rejected by the Home Office for providing false information in her visa application, she appealed to the Upper Tribunal, where Judge David Kelly ordered the case to be reheard. He accepted that she had not been classified as a vulnerable witness and that the previous judge may have struggled to accept her testimony, but said neither issue alone was sufficient to overturn the decision.
Read Also:
Asylum crackdown: UK threatens visa ban for three African countries
Home secretary Mahmood defends UK asylum reforms amid cross-party debate
Why UK may seize non-sentimental jewellery from asylum seekers
Concerns were raised about the way the evidence had been assessed overall, which was determined to be an error of law. The claim has now been sent back to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard before a different judge.
Judge Kelly, sitting at the Upper Tribunal, said: “It seems to me to be axiomatic that a fact-finder must not reach his or her conclusion before surveying all the evidence relevant to it.
“It may have been, for example, that having considered the detail of the external evidence concerning the EndSARS protests, the judge would have concluded that material aspects of that evidence were inconsistent with the claimant’s account of them, thereby undermining the overall credibility of her claim.
“On the other hand, the judge may have concluded that the details contained within the external evidence supported the plausibility of her account of events, thereby enhancing its credibility.
“Given that the judge did not conduct this exercise, it is impossible now to say that the error of law I have identified was immaterial to the outcome of the appeal. I have accordingly concluded that the judge’s findings must be set aside in their entirety and the matter remitted for a complete rehearing.”