Rt Hon Theresa May MP

Home Secretary

12 June 2014

Dear Mrs May

I am writing to you regarding the deportation of Afusat Saliu and her two daughters. I am aware of the length of this letter; however, there are a number of points that must be clarified and no one item takes precedence over another.

As you are no doubt aware, the family were deported last week, despite a Judicial Review application having been received by Treasury Solicitors. Removal also took place a day before the House returned, removing the opportunity for the issue to be tabled by Ministers. Indeed, Keith Vaz publicly asked “Why the drama, why so hasty?” He also questioned the use of taxpayers’ money to hurry the removal through. He was not alone in asking this question and I will come on to that point later.

I am writing on behalf of myself and also on behalf of a collective known as Team Afusat, comprising some 126,000 individuals who have signed my Change.org petition, and who have contributed to debate on Twitter and Facebook. #Afusat (followed by #FGM), trended on Twitter in both Liverpool and Manchester last week, thanks to awareness-raising by Team Afusat. Such has been the level of public feeling.

Firstly, about the family: Afusat is a dignified, gentle single mother of a two year old and four year old. She’s a good Christian woman, unfailingly polite and always willing to extend a hand to others through volunteering, even though she is in need of support herself. Bassy, aged four, is a sensitive little girl. She is inconsolable at being in a strange place, away from her teacher and friends, whom she was unable to say goodbye to; at having no fixed abode; and with having few of her belongings about her. Rashidat is a feisty two year old who mercifully doesn’t understand much of what has taken place, but is nevertheless very unsettled and cries frequently.

The public expressions of support have been overwhelming, as has the level of disgust at the manner in which the family has been treated. Many have questioned why you have not responded to the numerous letters that you have received about the family. Afusat’s case has been in the public eye for over six weeks now and the public has been kept abreast of the treatment she has experienced. It begs the question how other asylum seekers without a voice fare at the hands of the Home Office .

Team Afusat would like answers. I cannot answer them, as I can see no good reason why our Government cannot treat every person in the UK with dignity and respect, no matter what their immigration status. These are basic human rights.

The points I wish to cover are outlined below:

Data Breach

The first incident relates to a breach of Afusat’s data, including her date of birth and return status. In a letter to George Mudie MP, dated 9 May 2014, James Brokenshire wrote ‘I understand that between 15 and 28 October 2013, the personal data relating to 1598 migrants in the Family Returns Process was mistakenly published on the Home Office website. Regrettably Ms Saliu’s details were amongst the data released.’ There has been no apology.

We have requested an indication of what actions would be taken with regard to the breach of Afusat’s data following a review with the ICO – when will we hear more about this?

Public Interest

Afusat fled from Nigeria. Making her immigration status public put her and the girls in potential jeopardy. It may not have come to your attention that the extensive media coverage by UK national press has been picked up by the media in Africa. Nigerian newspapers have quickly reproduced many of the articles published by the Guardian on Afusat and her girls. The Home Office does not appear to have considered this fact. In fact, it has in writing said on a number of occasions that public interest in the family’s situation was not a barrier to removal and that it does not consider that the family needs protection.

A Home Office letter dated 2 June 2014 went on to say ‘As regards the publicity that your client’s case has attracted, we reiterate that, even if it were accepted that your client would face adverse attention on her return to Nigeria, it would be open to her to seek the protection of the authorities if required.’

Mrs May, the Nigerian police slogan ‘The Police are your Friend’ is mocked by Nigerian citizens. Reports from numerous credible sources show that the authorities in Nigeria are little to be trusted. More disturbingly, news reports carried by BBC, All Africa News and other publications speak of routine rape and torture by the police. The ineffectiveness of protecting girls from Boko Haram has been clear for the world to see, so the suggestion that the authorities would offer protection appears culturally misinformed to say the least.

A general view has formed that the Government’s stance on ending FGM and its own positioning as being exemplar in human rights is hypocritical. The timing of Home Office poster campaign a day before her deportation was particularly unfortunate. It was aimed at Somali, Kenyan and Nigerian communities, which have been identified by your department as having a higher than average prevalence of FGM than other communities.

Why, despite the Home Office’s recognition of prevalence of FGM in Nigeria and of the current situation relating to Boko Haram and gender-based violence more generally, does the Home Office deem that the family is not in need of protection?

Warrants

In the same letter, James Brokenshire MP referred to a warrant that was retrospectively posted through Afusat’s letterbox without an envelope, 48 hours after Home Office staff had gone into her home in the morning of 1 May 2014. “A copy of the warrant should have been left at the time of the visit, but due to an error this was not done. Officers visited subsequently on the evening of 2 May.. [and posted it]”.

This first warrant was authorised on 28 Apr 2014 and executed on 1 May 2014 before 7am. The purpose of the warrant was apparently to search for Afusat and the girls, but included rifling through a file of paperwork and drawers upstairs. It had followed a letter to Afusat’s solicitor claiming that she was no longer resident and therefore was in breach of her conditions, despite the fact that Afusat’s belongings were in situ.

I had taken Afusat to report the incident to the police, prior to knowing it was the Home Office that had entered her home. This was extremely frightening for a single mother with two small children to know her house had been entered without her knowledge, particularly as the family had been in the public eye for some time.

How has the failure to present a warrant at the time of entry to property been addressed? What measures are in place to prevent this happening again?

At this time, Afusat’s MP, George Mudie, had been in dialogue with James Brokenshire and was of the understanding that no action would be taken until their discussions had been concluded, yet a Home Office letter dated 9 May stated ‘I can confirm that a warrant was obtained…to facilitate the removal from the UK of the named occupants of the residence.’

A second warrant was authorised on 12 May 2014 and executed on 13 May in the morning. Time spent on the premises was not noted on the warrant. This entry was undertaken despite written confirmation from the Home Office that no action to detain would be taken until earliest 5pm on 13 May 2014.

In response to Afusat’s solicitor of the purpose of this warrant, the Home Office stated ‘The anticipated encounter with your client under the warrant in no way indicates that she or her family members would have been removed from the UK…Rather, the time difference would have allowed ample time for your client and her family to have been dealt with sensitively and with the best interests of the children treated as primary consideration.’

On what basis would a ‘sensitive discussion’ be feasible when Home Office staff (wearing full uniform, including stab proof vests) were to enter the property to confront a young woman and children at breakfast time?

Detention

Chapter 60 (Judicial Review) in UK Visas and Immigration ‘Visas and immigration operational guidance’ states that for normal enforcement cases, a minimum of 72 hours (including at least two working days) must be provided between detention and removal must be provided. For third country cases and cases where the decision certified the claim as clearly unfounded, a minimum of five working days is noted.

Afusal and the girls’ removal was scheduled without this 72 hours’ notice. Following a query from Afusat’s solicitor regarding the 72 hour notice period, removal did not take place on 29 May as anticipated. Instead, a letter from the Home Office dated 30 May 2014 stated that ‘the removal was cancelled for operational reasons.’

Additionally, her lawyer was not notified of the detention and had to place calls herself to discover where Afusat and the girls were being taken. The information provided by the Home Office staff, however, was misleading. She was told that the family would be taken from a holding centre in Sheffield, then on to Cedars. They were not taken straight to Cedars. On the first night they were taken to Cawley House, where they slept on floor.

For what reason were the journeys made at night and which child welfare measures were considered when undertaking these journeys? Why did the family need to sleep on the floor at Cawley House detention centre and why were they taken there first, rather than to Cedars as Home Office staff had stated?

The following evening, again, ferrying two little girls across London late at night, the family were taken to Cedars removal centre for six days. UK Visas and Immigration guide on Cedars states ‘families will only be referred to Cedars on the advice of the Family Returns Panel…and will stay for no more than 72 hours before their departure from the UK. In exceptional circumstances, with ministerial authority, this may be extended to 1 week.’

Again, Afusat’s solicitors queried why she had been held longer than 72 hours. There was no response to this question. Only later, after the family were deported, was I (not her solicitor) informed by Nick Clegg’s office that the extended stay had been authorised by James Brokenshire MP.

Why was Afusat’s solicitor not informed that James Brokenshire had sanctioned an extension to the family’s detention at Cedars?

Medical examination

Whilst at Cedars, a medical examination of Afusat was undertaken. As part of this, an intimate examination was requested. The fact that Afusat has been subjected to FGM is noted both in medical records and had been accepted by a judge. Such an examination would have served only to add further trauma to a woman whose mental wellbeing has been in decline as a result of the pressure put upon her.

A letter from Home Office dated 30 May 2014 stated ‘Dr _____ has filed a report in which he notes that you were subjected to FGM and that this has caused you a number of problems including depression.’

Knowing that Afusat has been subject to FGM has been accepted by a judge and medical records exist, would you tell us the purpose of requesting an intimate examination?

On 30 May 2014, following the medical examination, personnel insisted on reading out a letter to Afusat, although she informed them that she is able to read and asked if they would allow her to read it herself. Having seen a copy of that letter, dated the same day, I can see no other reason to read the contents to her apart to add further pressure.

Please inform us why it was felt necessary to read out a letter to Afusat when your officers were aware that she is fully literate.

Mental Health

Afusat has suffered from enduring mental health problems and receives medication for these. Prior to deportation, she was awaiting a referral date from her GP with specialist mental health practitioner to assess her mental health. The Home Office has also had sight of medical records, as well as a letter from a credible Leeds-based charity which offers psychotherapy for asylum seekers and refugees, confirming that it was unable to offer Afusat counselling services until her high anxiety levels were reduced.

In a letter dated 2 June 2014, the Home Office states ‘Your letter makes mention of your client’s fragile mental state however, your client’s mental health is being constantly monitored by health care personnel in the detention centre and there is currently no suggestion that she is not fit to fly.’ We would like to know about the capability of the health care staff within the detention centre.

To what degree have Detention Centre staff been trained in order to make informed assessments on mental health? Your Actions in the plan to reduce Violence Against Women and Girls included three items relating to immigration and asylum, including the delivery of a training package (deadline of March 2014). Has the training been rolled out? If not, why not?

Bail

A bail application was made on 29th May 2014, but from that date until deportation, Afusat’s solicitor was informed that there was a backlog and so the application had was considered. It seems to be an extraordinarily long delay for an application of this nature.

What was the reason for the delay in the processing Afusat’s bail application?

Restraint and Removal

Afusat and her girls were deported on 3 June 2014. They entered the plane from the rear. Afusat was handcuffed, although she had not resisted. Home Office guidelines state that risk assessments should be completed beforehand and ‘will take proper account of security information, offending history, ability to abscond, clinical advice/concerns and the medical condition of the detainee.’

Bearing in mind that she had not tried to abscond, that her two daughters were with her and that a Home Office letter dated 2 June 2014 deemed that she was fit to fly, why was she handcuffed? This caused significant distress, not only to her but to her two little girls who were with her. When she questioned why she was being restrained, she was told that this was protocol.

Was a risk assessment undertaken prior to handcuffing Afusat? If not, why not? If so, why has her solicitor not received a copy of this?

I also understand that nine Home Office personnel escorted her on her flight. As taxpayers, Team Afusat has the right to know who their taxpayers’ money was spent in this disproportionate manner.

Why was it deemed necessary to send three female and six male officers to accompany a young mum and two children aged under four?

Resettlement

Upon arrival in Lagos, one of the Home Office male staff literally threw three cards, each with a value of £250 them at Afusat. This was witnessed by concerned Arik Air crew.

Why was Afusat subjected to insulting behaviour by Home Office personnel? How do you propose to investigate this?

An official from the High Commission met the family at Immigration and took then to a hostel. Afusat’s solicitor did not receive a response from the Home Office to her request to know where the family were being taken until 1pm the following day. Given that the hostel provided was only for two days, putting safeguarding measures and trying to secure accommodation was our team’s priority, yet the UK Government does not appear to be concerned with the fact that a young mum and two girls would be on the streets two days after they were forcibly removed.

Through our networks, we are seeking shelter for them, but essentially this young family has been made destitute and homeless. Two days and £250 each is simply not adequate to ensure proper safeguarding. Even with Team Afusat’s extensive contacts, we have not yet managed to find a place for them to stay for longer than a week.

How many other mothers and children have been made homeless by our Government? Why does the Family Unit not make connections with the relevant aid organisations on behalf of families prior to removal?

The incidents I have listed above are the main points I would like an answer to. There are many other instances within her paperwork where I have noted errors by Home Office staff, ranging from omissions of dating key documents, to referring to her son in one piece of documentation, although it is known that she only has two daughters (one of whom was born in the UK). I have personally received calls from her Family Liaison Officer, which made me very uncomfortable. It was upon me to remind her that I am a friend of Afusat’s, not her legal representative and that any queries should be directed to the solicitor.

This whole experience has shocked me to the core. I used to believe that the UK’s legal system was fair and just, that we were a country that embraces equality. Now I feel ashamed. Ashamed at the culture of disbelief in the asylum system and ashamed at how our Government treats vulnerable people. This knowledge has made me and many others think very carefully about our expectations of our political leaders and how we will place our votes next year.

Team Afusat awaits your response with interest.

Yours sincerely

Anj Handa