You are here: Home » Commentary » A Gay Girl's View » Anti-Asylum UK Sunday Telegraph Could Impede Ugandan Lesbian’s Asylum Case

Anti-Asylum UK Sunday Telegraph Could Impede Ugandan Lesbian’s Asylum Case

Melanie Nathan – Feb 05, 2011 -

Today an article appeared in the UK press.  Imagine if the Judge assigned to Brenda Namigadde’s case tomorrow were to read this old Judgment which should not form part of the record for her fresh new asylum case.

Mel’s Extra Note when you read this – note two things – I gave great detail just to keep a record and also the Telegraph is known Homophobic and anti-immigration. Most importantly when the Judge ruled in the first case that Brenda was not a lesbian – …that is very usual. Yet how dare he? There is not such thing unless you have been in her bed 24/7 to counter that – he could have said there “was not enough EVIDENCE” to prove she was a lesbian and that would then have indicated the truth – which is her legal reps were ill prepared and she was afraid and in trauma……… do let us keep the support going. My Lezdar is on high alert..

The information in Mr. Barrett’s article  asserts, ” However, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a court judgment which considers Miss Namigadde’s case and concludes that she is not, in fact, a lesbian,”    was well known to activists and those of us who took a chance and went all out AFTER this Court Judgment to fight for Brenda Namigadde.   Mr Barrett in his prejudicial article, fails to note that this information was well known; and he makes out as if it is some wild new revelation which should impede her case that is being heard again tomorrow.

David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent 9:00PM GMT 05 Feb 2011 Sunday Telegraph….

Heer story made headlines around the world.

Despite attempts by the Home Office to deport her, and a judge’s ruling that she should go, a Ugandan woman claiming she was a lesbian managed to stay in Britain.

Miss Namigadde’s solicitors could not be reached for comment.

“However, the fact remains that she is clearly in danger if she is deported. She has got herself into the situation, genuinely or otherwise, where she will be marked down as a lesbian in the eyes of many oppressors.”

Even as a plane prepared to take off from Heathrow with Brenda Namigadde on board, her lawyers secured a last-minute injunction to halt her removal from the UK nine days ago.

The failed asylum seeker has been backed by homosexual rights campaigners and MPs, who said she risked being beaten up or arrested if sent back to her African homeland.

However, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained a court judgement which considers Miss Namigadde’s case and concludes that she is not, in fact, a lesbian.

The ruling, released following a legal application to the Court of Appeal, discloses that she was unable to remember the surname, age, employer or other details of a woman called Janet with whom she claimed she had a six-year relationship in Uganda.

Nor could she describe a lesbian bar in London that she claimed she visited regularly.

Immigration Judge Toby Davey, who heard the appeal, criticised Miss Namigadde, 28, for a “lack of candour” over her sexuality, and concluded: “I find that the appellant was and is not, on the evidence before me, a lesbian.”

Judges in the UK regularly grant permission to stay in Britain to genuinely gay men and women who would be at risk of arrest or attack if they were returned to their homelands.

In Uganda, gay sex is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of up to 14 years.

A gay rights activist was murdered last month after a newspaper published his photograph and address, along with those of fellow activists, under the headline “Hang them”.

However, judges in English courts have also found in a series of cases that some heterosexual migrants have pretended to be gay in order to claim asylum.

The publication of the facts of Miss Namigadde’s case will put a question mark over a campaign by her supporters which gathered more than 60,000 signatures to protest against he deportation, attracting backing from Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, and comments from Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary.

A Commons motion calling on the Government to allow Miss Namigadde to remain in the country has been signed by 25 MPs.

Miss Namigadde told the hearing in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber that while in boarding school in Uganda she began a lesbian relationship with Janet, a Canadian woman who worked for a non-governmental organisation (NGO).

“The appellant says that she and Janet were clearly in love with each other,” said the court ruling.

“If that is so it is truly surprising that the appellant does not remember Janet’s surname, or any of her circumstances in Canada, or any detail of Janet’s employment other than by an NGO, does not know Janet’s age and has virtually no coherent explanation as to why she did not return with Janet to Canada.”

The court also heard from Miss Namigadde that between 2001 and 2002 she and “Janet” lived openly as lesbians in Uganda, attended gay bars and kissed in public but that it had not led to any persecution.

The judge also found a claim that Miss Namigadde was currently in a relationship with a woman called Susan Nantume to be false.

Of this second relationship, Judge Davey ruled: “The appellant says that she gave particulars of this lady to her solicitors but they have made no contact with her. This lady has not been in contact with the appellant while she has been detained.

“The appellant … does not know where this lady lives and has not visited her, which seems strange in an ongoing relationship, which she claims to be sincere, of about two years.

“The appellant does not know Susan’s date of birth nor where she lives and in the two years has never been to the latter’s house.

“I do not find that the appellant has a lesbian relationship with someone called Susan. There is, other than the appellant’s evidence, no proof she exists.”

Judge Davey stressed that he had made his determination on Miss Namigadde’s sexuality according to “simply the evidence” and not by any assessment of “demeanour or appearance”.

Miss Namigadde came to Britain in 2002 and overstayed her visa, later lodging an asylum claim. She claimed to have been beaten and victimised over her sexuality. The Home Office refused her claim and began deportation proceedings.

On Jan 28, she was just minutes from being removed from Britain. She had been placed on an aircraft at Heathrow and has said she was shaking with fear at the prospect of returning to Uganda.

But after securing sympathetic coverage in several newspapers, her lawyers won an 11th hour injunction which forced officials to halt the deportation.

The Sunday Telegraph has established that Miss Namigadde’s legal team made a series of appeals on that day until they finally secured the injunction at the third attempt.

They first sought permission for judicial review from a judge in the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Lindblom, who refused the application.

In that ruling, the judge referred to comments by Home Office lawyers which said: “The fact that your client has sought to publicise her claimed sexual orientation via the media is not accepted as evidence that she is a lesbian.”

Miss Namigadde’s lawyers then went to Mr Justice Cranston in the Queen’s Bench Division to appeal on different grounds, which was also refused, before applying to Lord Justice Maurice Kay in the Court of Appeal, who issued a “stay” delaying the deportation, and forcing immigration officers to take Miss Namigadde off the aircraft.

The application for permission to appeal is due to be heard in full by Lord Justice Kay tomorrow (***MON).

Despite gay sex being illegal in Uganda, British courts have previously ruled that lesbians were not at risk in the country.

A High Court judgment handed down in February last year concluded the claimant, known as SB, could return to Uganda and continue to live discreetly as a lesbian without fear of persecution.

In Miss Namigadde’s case, Judge Davey said of the claimed relationship with “Janet” in Uganda: “Despite the length of time together the appellant says that Janet had a difficult surname and the appellant has no recollection of Janet’s surname, the title of the NGO she worked for, where she came from in Canada, her date of birth and, notwithstanding being with Janet for a period of rising six years, did not know how old Janet was.

“I find the claims of attacks in Uganda and the details of them vague and unparticularised.”

He also found that the Ugandan asylum seeker was unable to give any detail about a lesbian bar called Candy, in central London, other than its name and admission price, despite claims that she went there once a month.

David Cairns, a Labour MP who signed the Commons motion, said after being told of the conclusions in Miss Namigadde’s case: “If she is deliberately lying in order to stay here that is a very serious issue and she should not be granted asylum on that basis.

If anything Barrett is endorsing that Brenda’s case was badly prepared; a terrified and traumatized  deportee should not be held to the same standards as a person properly prepared. Why does Barrett believe we fought so hard after the fact of the judgment which we knew about – because we were willing to give her a better chance to prove her case. That is all – and now Barrett has done little more than to prejudice  and victimize her further.

While of course this is all public information and we have reported it before the very context and timing of Barrett’s report – whether she is a lesbian or not – is suspect.   It is almost as if he is advocating against her having this second chance to prove herself. Shameful reporting is all I can say.

Shame on the telegraph.  Even if she is proved NOT to be a lesbian second time around- no one can then say she was not given a fair chance.

This is a comment I received today because of HOW this post of Barrett reads:

Comment:
well, as of today (THE READER IS WRONG NOT TODAY – but that is how Barrett article reads……. ) …. a judge determined that she lied about being a lesbian, and couldn’t remember any details about women she claims to have been in relationships with and lesbian bars she claims to have attended.

i followed her story, and i signed the petitions, and now i feel like i’ve been duped.

You can see all comments on this post here:
http://lezgetreal.com/2011/02/ugandan-lesbian-brenda-namigadde-remains-in-great-danger-of-deportation/#comments

That reader has been duped yes by Mr. Barret’s failure to contextualize through his sensationalizing of the old judgment which does not apply to her re-hearing.   I am willing to go out on a limb and say regardless of her sexuality she is in severe danger as Bahati has accused her of badmouthing Uganda.  Even if she is proved to NOT be a lesbian, activists did the right thing fighting for her through her assertions and I would never be deterred from fighting for anyone who deserved a fair hearing.

Is it not an irony that for Brenda to remain safe, she has to prove that she IS a lesbian to the UK and if returned to Uganda  to stay safe she will have to prove SHE IS NOT a lesbian.  Like one of my readers said – “what do they want her to do – go down on  the Queen?” (No disrespect of course.)

I will continue to fight for Brenda….. regardless…

After I wrote the above piece I received this update from Paul Canning an expert in the UK on the subject.  Mr. Canning endorsed my concerns and it is apparent that UK’ Sunday Telegraph is notoriously anti-asylum.    When speaking to another underground activist source I was told that the motive for such shoddy reporting may be homophobia – Now I would like to know more about Mr. Barrett.

Mr Canning’s Update:

Update, February 6: The Sunday Telegraph has published court documents from Brenda’s appeal to assert that she is not a lesbian. It quotes the judge but does not include the line published earlier about how if she’d read lesbian or gay magazines this might have helped her case. The article does not cover the threats made by David Bahati.

The article says:

Despite gay sex being illegal in Uganda, British courts have previously ruled that lesbians were not at risk in the country.

A High Court judgment handed down in February last year concluded the claimant, known as SB, could return to Uganda and continue to live discreetly as a lesbian without fear of persecution.

It does not go on to say that this legal precedent on ‘discretion’ was overturned five months later by the Supreme Court.

It quotes David Cairns MP, who has signed the Commons motion, after being presented with the Sunday Telegraph’s story as saying:

“If she is deliberately lying in order to stay here that is a very serious issue and she should not be granted asylum on that basis.

“However, the fact remains that she is clearly in danger if she is deported. She has got herself into the situation, genuinely or otherwise, where she will be marked down as a lesbian in the eyes of many oppressors.”

The Telegraph has an anti-immigration, anti-asylum agenda, which has been well documented by watchdog websites. See, for example, this story from two years ago where the Home Office’s failure to apply its own rules became the headline ‘cat saves immigrant from deportation’.

The Guardian has published a straightforward round up of her case in advance of tomorrow’s application for permission to appeal against the refusal of the high court to grant her permission to claim for judicial review.

Brenda’s supporters will be attending the court tomorrow and any news will be published here as soon as we get it

Related articles

• Ugandan Lesbian Brenda Namigadde Remains in Great Danger of Deportation (lezgetreal.com)
• UK Readers Urgent Appeal- The Push for Ugandan Lesbian’s New Asylum Hearing (lezgetreal.com)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda