Judge slams Kenya's 'shameful' treatment of diplomat

2 July 2020 · Carmel Rickard

The High Court in Nairobi has strongly criticised the government’s action in deporting from Kenya a diplomat representing Niger. Ali Oumarou, who has been recognised by Kenya as honorary consul for Niger, was summarily deported in August 2019. Oumarou has since challenged his deportation in the Kenyan courts from outside the country. The High Court in Nairobi has now given its judgment on the matter, with a scathing assessment of the government’s failure to adhere to the constitution. Judge James Mukau said the court would not tire of reminding the government that the constitution was Kenya's supreme law. ‘It has life and it has teeth,’ he said. The way Oumarou had been treated was ‘unbearably shameful’ for a democracy, said the judge. He granted a slew of orders, including one that stopped the government preventing Oumarou from returning to Kenya without proper cause and without following due process.

Read judgment

Ali Oumarou has lived in Kenya for at least 10 years. He is married to a Kenyan and they have two children, both citizens of Kenya. He is also the honorary consul of Niger in Kenya, with a bar, restaurant and other businesses in Nairobi that employ more than 100 people.

Given the stable life he has created for himself in Kenya, he must have thought he was dreaming when, on 22 August 2019, five men – they did not identify themselves – approached him and said they were under orders to ‘escort’ him to Jomo Kenyatta Airport and make sure that he left the country.

Though he asked why, he received no answer. And though he explained that he was a diplomat, the five men were unimpressed. Unable to do anything other than cooperate, he went to the airport

Prohibited

Oumarou later discovered that he had been declared a prohibited immigrant a week before he was given his marching orders, but that declaration had not been served on him.

From outside Kenya Oumarou then brought an application for the Kenyan courts to declare that his constitutional rights had been infringed by the action taken against him. So were his rights under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. He also asked for his name to be taken off the list of prohibited immigrants and for his work permit to be renewed.

The four government respondents, including the cabinet secretary for the interior and coordination of national government, said Oumarou was a prohibited immigrant and that this gave the cabinet secretary the power to remove him as being ‘unlawfully present’ in Kenya.

Revoked

This declaration of Oumarou as a prohibited immigrant meant his entry and work permits were automatically revoked.

The respondents also hinted that Oumarou might have been involved in illegal activities: they said the state had an absolute right to remove those ‘suspected to be involved in criminal activities such as money laundering and other transitional organised crimes’. This was not a matter of a civil right, they claimed.

Even the UN Declaration of Human Rights and other similar charters ‘do not give a right of entry to aliens’, while under the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights states had the right to remove any alien for ‘compelling reasons’, ‘or for national security’.

Violate

They warned that the orders sought by Oumarou would, if granted, ‘violate the separation of powers’ and interfere with the role of the executive in foreign affairs.

Judge James Mukau said, however, that it would be ‘improper’ to prepare and issue a deportation order ‘without the affected party being made aware of the laws he was breaking and accorded a fair chance to defend himself.’

A deportation order against Oumarou was first issued in December 2018, the day after the Kenyan government officially recognised him as representing Niger. But nothing was done about that first order, and he was not told that such an order was pending. ‘This … was not only wrong but illegal, as it offends all constitutional and statutory imperatives for fair administrative action, that is, transparency, in the conduct of such serious matters,’ Judge Mukau held.

Immunity

Oumarou claimed he had never engaged in any criminal activities and he said he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as a result of his recognition by Kenya as honorary consul.

Against this background, the judge held that the procedure for dealing with diplomats was not followed. Oumarou’s diplomatic immunity had not been waived by Niger and the Kenyan authorities were bound by the constitution which included the rule of law, human rights, transparency and accountability.

‘It is not for them [the government] to urge that they should be accorded the autonomy vested in them by statute without unnecessary intervention of the court when it is clear such autonomy has been abused by issuing [a] deportation order,’ said the judge. Further, the government had failed to serve the deportation order or to observe Oumarou’s right to be heard.

Forceful

‘I find that due process was not followed,’ said Judge Mukau. It would be contrary to law for Oumarou to be deported without having been served with a deportation order and being given an opportunity to be heard. ‘This very act goes against the dictates of our constitution and international law, and should not be allowed at all.’

The right to fair administrative action was of great significance, and if a fundamental right or freedom was to be adversely affected by administrative action, it was ‘even more forceful’ that the person concerned had the right to written reasons for the action. Oumarou was, however given no hearing, nor was he informed of any charges against him.

‘I find that the deporting of [Oumarou] to Niger without any formal process or service on him … and failure to accord him a hearing and giving him time to appeal against the deportation order, violated [his] constitutional rights.’ The behaviour of the cabinet secretary was ‘unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unprocedural and illegal’ and the declaration ‘deserved to be quashed’.

Teeth

This should be a reminder that the constitution of Kenya was the country’s supreme law, said the judge. ‘It has life and it has teeth.’

He said the way that Oumarou had been treated was ‘unbearably shameful’ in a democracy and extremely callous. Oumarou had a legitimate expectation that his work permit would be renewed and this expectation, along with his right to fair and lawful administrative action, was violated.

There was ‘no bar’ preventing the court from intervening in what the judge characterised as ‘executive over-reach’ and he declared that Oumarou’s constitutional rights and his rights under the Vienna Convention had been infringed by the government.

Void

The government’s failure to make a decision on Oumarou’s January 2019 application for a work permit was unreasonable, irrational, contrary to the constitution and thus illegal and void.

He declared that Oumarou enjoyed diplomatic immunity and could not be unlawfully arrested and deported in blatant disregard of applicable international law. All declarations issued against him were declared illegal and set aside.

The court further issued an order compelling the government to remove Oumarou from the list of prohibited immigrants, and prohibiting the government from stopping his return to Kenya without proper cause and without following due process.

Due process

A permanent order was also issued restraining the government from arresting and deporting Oumarou without proper cause and without following due process.

All in all, it was a complete rout – the inevitable result of the government not following proper procedure and acting as though it was above the law. Once again, and in harsh terms, the government was reminded that it has to comply with the constitution, and that the judiciary in Kenya is not afraid of ensuring that it does so.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.