Belgium – Call for Alien Law Litigation, 18 February 2008, Nr. 7.398

The Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (CGRS) rejected the asylum application, on the basis that the applicant could internally relocate (according to its Constitution Nigeria is a lay country and only twelve out of thirty six of its states have adopted Sharia law) and that the applicant could request the protection of the authorities in the southern part of the country where no Islamic law is in force. The fear of persecution on the basis of the “Hisbah” enforcing Islamic law following the applicant’s conversion to Christianity could therefore not be accepted. The CGRS also found that several contradictions, imprecisions and omissions damaged the applicant’s credibility. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.

With respect to the possibility of internal protection, the CALL agreed with the applicant and the Belgian Refugee Council’s evidence. The CALL referred to earlier jurisprudence, in which it had been decided that reasons based on the fact that Nigeria is a federal and lay country in which only 12 States have adopted Islamic law and that the Nigerian (federal and Southern) authorities have declared Sharia law illegal, were seen to be inadequate, because Sharia law was still applied in 12 out of 36 states. Further, it is public knowledge that the central authorities of Nigeria are incapable of stopping the implementation of sentences to stoning handed down by Islamic Tribunals. Although, the applicant’s case did not involve one of stoning, the applicant’s story related to the application of Sharia law. The CALL further took into account the applicant’s mental health issues and relied in its decision on paragraph 26 of the UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection (“Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the context of Art. 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees): “the provision of psychological assessments attesting to the likelihood of further psychological trauma upon return would militate against finding that relocation to the area is a reasonable alternative”.

With regard to the question of the applicant’s credibility, the CALL examined the various reasons given by the CGRS and concluded that “if there is some doubt regarding certain elements of the applicant’s asylum account, such doubt should not obscure the primary question to be answered at the stage of the examination of the eligibility to refugee status, that is the question of whether or not the applicant experiences a fear of being persecuted for one of the reasons listed in the 1951 Refugee Convention. In the case at hand, it appears that the applicant brought forward sufficient indications that permit belief that he has a fear of persecution (…). Consequently, the CALL considers that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the applicant.” In this examination the CALL also relied on paragraph 197 of the UNHCR Handbook: “the requirement of evidence should not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself.”