The following article was first published in the Trinidad And Tobago Newsday on Tuesday 29th May, 2018.
You can read the entire article on their website HERE.
A HIGH Court judge has ordered the State to compensate a Nigerian woman whose rights to legal counsel were contravened during her detention by immigration.
Isioma Loveth Eze was also denied an opportunity to contact her family during her three month detention at the Women’s Prison in Arouca.
In her ruling, Justice Carol Gobin acknowledged that “these are challenging times for the authorities and all who seek to protect and control our borders, but the law is clear.”
“The Constitution protects the fundamental rights of human beings even when they run afoul of our immigration laws.”
Eze, 27, arrived in Trinidad on October 9, 2014, on a COPA airlines flight. She was granted permission to remain until October 29, on the condition that she does not seek employment.
A week after she arrived, Eze married a Trinidadian and did not leave the country as she was supposed to.
Weeks after the marriage, she separated from her husband and began living with a family, working for them.
When she was arrested, another judge had in a habeas corpus application that there was sufficient basis for Eze’s detention. A special inquiry was opened by the Immigration Department and a deportation order for her voluntary departure was made.
Eze was able to get a ticket to return home on December 13, 2016, but filed a constitutional motion which Gobin ruled on.
According to her case, it was not until October 2016, some 11 months after she had been arrested and the special inquiry concluded, was she informed that she could seek legal advice. She got the information from another detainee.
The State claimed she told of her right to a lawyer at the inquiry, but the judge said she was left with the impression after hearing the evidence, that compliance with the regulations on how special inquiries ought to be conducted has not been rigorously maintained.”
“The fact that removal of the claimant was agreed to be effected by way of voluntary
departure did not permit the respondent to detain Ms. Loveth Eze for an unspecified length of time until she could manage to produce a ticket.”
“The CIO has put forward no facts to justify the protracted period of detention save that
the authority was accommodating the claimant in accordance with policy. In the circumstances of this case I do not think a period of detention was reasonable.”
The State was also ordered to pay the costs of Eze’s claim. The Registrar of the Supreme Court was also ordered to release Eze’s attorney’s security for costs which was deposited.
Attorney Matthew Gayle represented Eze while Roshan Ramcharitar appeared for the State.
