Crosey Koei Enninful v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

DETERMINATION AND REASONS

The appellant is a citizen of Ghana. He arrived in this country on 24 October 1982 when he was given leave to enter as a visitor for six months. In January 1983 he applied to the Home Office for political asylum in this country. He attended for interview but the account which he gave of his circumstances did not satisfy the Secretary of State that he had a well-founded fear of persecution should he be returned to Ghana and his application was refused. He appealed to an adjudicator against the refusal. His appeal was heard by Mr. J R Bright and dismissed on 9 April last. Against Mr. Bright's determination he now appeals to the Tribunal. He was represented before us by Mr. Drabu of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The Secretary of State was represented by Mr. A Gammons. We reserved our determination and the parties agreed to postal delivery of it.

At the hearing before the adjudicator the appellant gave evidence and three matters were advanced in support of the appellant's claim. They were as follows:

1.         The appellant had been a member of the Ghanaian Army from 1961 until 1980. In 1979 he served in the Middle East with the rank of major. Whilst in the Middle East he joined a political party (the PNP) for which he carried out security work.

2.         Between March and October 1982 he had held meetings at his home with four other officers at which they had plotted to overthrow the regime of Flt. Lieutenant Rawlings with the aid of groups loyal to the PNP. Three of the officers attending those meetings had been tried in absentia.

3.         Whilst in this country, on 6 August 1983, (three months before the decision now appealed against) he joined the Ghana Democratic Movement. He has attended meetings of this organisation and has advised them as an expert on security matters. These activities will be known to the Ghanaian authorities.

In considering the evidence before him as to (1) above, the adjudicator records that he does not consider that the appellant's connections with the PNP were of any significance. He considered that the appellant's own account of the parts that he played was "too vague to be convincing". As to (2) above, the adjudicator records "the appellant may have had some sort of discussions with fellow officers but I am far from persuaded that he played any part, even minimal, in planning the attempted coup in November 1982. If he had been one of the prime movers it is unlikely that he would have left Ghana in October 1982".

In coming to these decisions regarding (1) and (2) above the adjudicator was evidently influenced by the fact that the appellant had been able to leave Ghana in May and October 1982 "apparently without difficulty". He did not accept the appellant's explanation that he managed this because of his service in the security forces, which had resulted in him knowing personally many of the men on security duty at the airport.

As to (3) above the adjudicator records "I find it significant that he did not join the GDM until he had been there for over 9 months and over 5 months after his interview. Moreover, I doubted his genuineness as he seemed to know very little regarding the campaign for democracy in Ghana of which GDM is an offshoot. Nor did he, except in the broadest outline, appear to have much grasp of Ghanaian politics."

The adjudicator concludes his determination "I therefore find, both individually and cumulatively, the activities of the appellant are insufficient to induce a well-founded fear of persecution. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

In his submission to us Mr. Drabu stated that the appellant's application was sent as a result of a letter which he had received from his wife which is dated 8 January 1983 and reads as follows:

"Thank you for your letter through Mr. Bruce and the notice of your wish to return by the end of the months. I also thank you for the parcel.

Kofi it appears you have not received my letter 7 sent during the Xmas holidays and therefore you do not understand what is happening here now.

Look, I advise you strongly not to come now at all. Your old lady was here and she saw the danger herself. She has gone back to the village Sec during the month of Dec. our hose was under watch. Plain clothes people use to hang around from morning to night and sometimes they came to ask of you saying they are your friends. As for two people they always used to come.

Before Xmas I learnt they were after you. Your mother got so frightened and she asked me to write to you not come the country now is serious and I learn your friend Lt. Twim has left the country. The wife too is not in their house. So if Twim has run away, then you know your trouble. So think seriously yourself and stop this I want to come I want to come. I advice you stay on till things got clear. I am trying to change some money now. If I get it I shall send it per good bearer. We have not told the children yet about the problem so do not worry.

Mum is find and the children too. Do not send any parcels. We are all right the car is working and I am still doing some sewing for small monies. Ei the P.D.Cs are controlling everything now the bearer will tell you more.

Till then."

Mr. Drabu complains that although the adjudicator states that he has considered the three matters advanced on the appellant's behalf "individually and cumulatively," it is clear from his determination that this is not the case. Nowhere in his determination has he mentioned the standard of proof which he has applied, which should have been that indicated by the House of Lords in the case of Khera and Khawaja 1983 2 WLR 321. Had he applied this standard of proof he should have come to the conclusion that the appellant's fear of persecution was well-founded. He therefore asked us to allow the appeal.

In reply Mr. Gammons submitted that the grounds of appeal were merely on the basis that the adjudicator should have made different findings from those at which he had arrived. He asked us to interpret the facts in the facts in the same way as the adjudicator had interpreted them.

We have carefully considered the evidence and the submissions made to us. We bear in mind that, as a result of the House of Lords decision in the case to which we have referred, it is not necessary for a person applying for asylum to prove that on the balance of probabilities he would be persecuted, but suffices if he can show that his fear of persecution is well-founded. Thus a person facing a "less than evens" chance of persecution could still be properly found to have a well-founded fear of that eventuality. Applying these principles to the instant case we would have interpreted the evidence differently from the adjudicator and we would have come to a different conclusion. We consider that - albeit by a very narrow margin - the appellant has established that he has a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently this appeal is allowed and we direct that the appellant be granted an extension of his permitted stay for such a period as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, to enable him to see how the situation in Ghana may develop.