The Problem with Ahmed Zaoui
Ahmed Zaoui is not giving up the fight to live in New Zealand with his family. I won't welcome him here - not for personal reasons, I just won't welcome anyone with a serious criminal conviction made in a competent tribunal.
I know that the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority found his conviction in Belguim (hardly a tin pot country with a corrupt judiciary) for being "the instigator or head of a criminal organisation" was shaky, but claims that it was a result of post 9-11 hysteria are a bit hard given this was in 1994. And if it was so shaky, Zaoui could have appealed and won. (I would.)
He also will be arrested if he ever went back to Belgium as he broke the conditions of his sentence by running away to Switzerland. The Swiss (with a reputation of being fair with refugees) rejected his request for asylum and arranged permanent residence in Burkina Faso and a monthly allowance - it was to get rid of him without deporting him to Algeria.
It would take Zaoui lodging and winning an appeal in Belguim for me to believe that he is an actual refugee and be allowed to stay. And given that is the way to prove his innocence once and for all, you have to wonder why a man who claims to be innocent hasn't ever taken that course of action?
I know that the New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority found his conviction in Belguim (hardly a tin pot country with a corrupt judiciary) for being "the instigator or head of a criminal organisation" was shaky, but claims that it was a result of post 9-11 hysteria are a bit hard given this was in 1994. And if it was so shaky, Zaoui could have appealed and won. (I would.)
He also will be arrested if he ever went back to Belgium as he broke the conditions of his sentence by running away to Switzerland. The Swiss (with a reputation of being fair with refugees) rejected his request for asylum and arranged permanent residence in Burkina Faso and a monthly allowance - it was to get rid of him without deporting him to Algeria.
It would take Zaoui lodging and winning an appeal in Belguim for me to believe that he is an actual refugee and be allowed to stay. And given that is the way to prove his innocence once and for all, you have to wonder why a man who claims to be innocent hasn't ever taken that course of action?
posted by Michael at
9:19 AM
3 Comments:
Talking about serious criminal convictions, does anyone remember Arthur Allan Thomas? Found guilty, did the jail time, then found to be wrongly accused years later. We all know about the shonky evidence - some planted, some of it destroyed.
Ahmed Zaoui's serious criminal convictions in Belgium? Found guilty, got a suspended sentence. Much of the "evidence" in the case was based on speculation rather than hard proof.
It's interesting to note that Zaoui had two trials in Belgium. He was acquitted in the first one. Appeal against acquittal is allowable under Belgian law. Although receiving only a suspended sentence, Zaoui was not released from prison. He eventually succeeded after taking a case to the Court of Appeal, who held that there were no grounds for maintaining his loss of liberty.
Michael, your point about claims of post 9-11 hysteria were partly in relation to Zaoui's convictions in France in 2001. The decisions were delivered two days after 9-11. As in Belgium, a suspended sentence was handed down.
How do you explain suspended sentences for supposedly serious acts?
I don't think the Belgians were too upset that he left the country. Although they confirmed Zaoui would not be deported (an earlier deportation order was not acted upon), they said that if he found a country that would accept him they would help. In reality, Zaoui helped the Belgians by leaving.
As far as Switzerland is concerned, you are incorrect in stating the Swiss rejected Zaoui's claim for asylum. Although he was interviewed with regard to his claim, it was never actually officially determined.
If the Swiss had a reputation for being fair with refugees, why did they contravene the UN Refugee Convention by illegally deporting Zaoui without first determining his claim? My guess would be that it was a way of ensuring they never had to consider evidence in his favour, which might give him refugee status.
By
Richard Mayes, at 10:41 AM
Arthur Allan Thomas appealled his convictions. Ahmed Zaoui did not, instead he fled to Switzerland - just like every innocent man would.
By
Michael, at 2:52 PM
Michael, I don't know if Zaoui would have been able to appeal or not. Perhaps when you only get a suspended sentence it's an indication the charges weren't as serious as they might appear.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Arthur Allan Thomas lose his appeal? He was eventually released under a pardon.
But talking about the possibility of appeals, I can say for certain that the government had the right to appeal Zaoui's RSAA decision through a High Court review,,
which they did not. Could it be because they thought they might lose? Not forgetting they thought their trump card was the
Inspector-General's review. I know they wouldn't have expected his indiscretion in giving the Listener interview. Maybe there's a salutary lesson that when you introduce legislation which skirts around the legal system and use a retired judge to decide on a security risk, rather than a sitting judge, it could come back to bite you on the bum.
Can you imagine a sitting judge in the legal system blabbing to the media about a case? Of course not.
If parliament had not passed the dodgy security risk legislation in 1999, and allowed a case like Zaoui's to go through a court, it would have been settled long ago (one way or the other) and without the huge cost. Courts don't generally stuff around like the SIS has done.
Politicians made a rod for their own backs with that legislation. No wonder they're dropping it in the current immigration review.
By
Richard Mayes, at 5:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home