A NIGERIAN woman, who attempted to gain asylum in the UK eight times, was finally granted leave to remain after becoming involved with the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist group designated as a terrorist organisation in Nigeria.
According to British daily, The Telegraph, the 49-year-old woman arrived in Britain in 2011 and was first refused asylum in 2013. Over the years, she made multiple appeals, citing various reasons including family ties, claims of being trafficked, and political persecution. However, her applications were repeatedly rejected.
Joining IPOB to strengthen claim
In 2016, the woman became involved with IPOB, a movement advocating for Biafran independence. While Nigeria considers the group a terrorist organisation, the UK does not.
During her tribunal hearing, Judge Gemma Loughran found that the woman’s involvement with IPOB was not based on genuine political beliefs but rather an attempt to strengthen her asylum claim. Despite this, the judge ruled that her participation in IPOB activities in the UK could put her at risk if she were to return to Nigeria.
Court recognises risk of persecution
Judge Loughran concluded that the woman had a ‘well-founded fear of persecution on account of her imputed political opinion arising from her involvement with IPOB in the UK.’ This ultimately led to her being granted the right to stay in Britain.
The case has sparked debate over asylum policies, with critics arguing that individuals are exploiting the system. The Telegraph reported that Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, criticised the ruling, calling it ‘patently absurd.’ He stated, ‘Judges are interpreting vague European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) laws in ways that allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country.’
Asylum system under scrutiny
This case is one of several recent controversial asylum decisions. Reports also surfaced about an Albanian man avoiding deportation because his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets, while a Palestinian family secured UK residence through a scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees.
As discussions around immigration policies continue, cases like this raise questions about how the UK assesses asylum claims and whether the system is being manipulated.
