If Ahmed Zaoui has nothing to hide, why did he come to NZ on a false passport?
Like many refugees, Ahmed Zaoui could not get a passport. New Zealand is a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention which specifically acknowledges that refugees may be forced to use false travel documents, and should not be prosecuted. Ahmed Zaoui destroyed his passport in-flight, which is common practice for refugees, and in Auckland Airport, before customs, he approached a police officer and indicated he wished to seek asylum. He was then interviewed by the Immigration Service and he told them his name, his background, and applied for refugee status.
What about other refugees waiting to come to NZ? By just arriving, isn’t he a queue jumper?
Refugees arriving in New Zealand fall into two groups: resettlement refugees and ‘spontaneous’ refugees.
Resettlement refugees are usually granted a residency visa before they arrive in New Zealand. They are selected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as “persons of concern” New Zealand did not even fill it's quota last year.
‘Spontaneous’ refugees are refugees that claim refugee status at an airport (or seaport) when they arrive in New Zealand. They are often people who have reason to believe they are in immediate danger. When they arrive they make an application for refugee status which is considered by the Refugee Status Branch. There is a de novo appeal right to the r Refugee Status Appeal Authority (RSAA).
But why did Ahmed Zaoui leave Malaysia? Isn’t Malaysia a Muslim country?
Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country, but although the Malaysian government knew Ahmed Zaoui was in the country, he had no legal status there. Malaysia is not a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, so his position there was not secure.
“The following year, during the appellant’s time in Malaysia, the head of National Security in Algeria, Ali Tounsi, visited the country ostensibly to observe Malaysian police practices. The appellant [Ahmed Zaoui] remains highly sceptical of such an explanation, pondering what the Algerian police might learn from the Malaysian police that they do not know already. He believes instead that this official visited Malaysia at least in part to liaise with the Malaysian authorities about his presence there. His fears were reinforced by information passed to him by a friend to the effect that the authorities were planning to detain him [and arrange for his deportation to Algeria.] This caused the appellant to make plans and ultimately to depart from Malaysia.”
-RSAA decision
Ahmed Zaoui is a religious and cultural moderate. This is clearly visible in his life, his actions, his words and the testimony of many people who have known him. He has worked for collective and individual liberties, regardless of race, sex or religion. Mr Zaoui also believes in the personal and religious freedoms of all women. He has presided over the wedding of a Christian friend and a Muslim and Jewish couple and worked with brothers from the Vatican in attempt to find a peaceful solution to Algeria’s problems. Ahmed Zaoui has also earned the respect and support of both Muslim and Christian communities within New Zealand. Regardless of all this, in New Zealand we all enjoy freedom of religious expression - including refugees (so long as we remain within the law).
What about the cost? Why are we spending so much on Ahmed Zaoui?
The delays and court action which are costing money were going to be inevitable the first time the ‘Security Risk Certificate’ (as issued against Ahmed Zaoui) was used in this way.
Ahmed Zaoui has only unintentionally triggered a legal review of the process that was almost unavoidable the first time the process was tested. The government has made things worse by appealing the decision by the courts that Mr Zaoui’s human rights must be taken into account and by insisting that Ahmed Zaoui can only be kept in prison, despite the Immigration Act (Section 114) allowing for Mr Zaoui to be held elsewhere.
As a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention, New Zealand has agreed to take our fair share of refugees. We cannot simply refuse that obligation because some of our new legislation has been found to be flawed and inefficient.
As a sovereign nation, New Zealand is able to make it’s own decision regarding the background of refugees. We have our own Refugee Status Appeal Authority to look carefully into the past of people like Ahmed Zaoui to determine if they are eligible for refugee status. The RSAA carefully considered the Belgian and French trials and in a clearly reasoned decision they found both to be ‘unsafe.’ (for detailed reasoning, see the RSAA decision). One key point to note, is that both trials returned suspended sentences – which are not in keeping with the seriousness of the charges, and strongly indicate the political nature of the trials. Mr Zaoui was first acquitted of the charges in Belgium and then a few weeks later, amidst political hysteria and a media frenzy, was convicted on the same evidence. A few months later the Foreigners' Consultative Committee found that he was not a threat to national security, there was no evidence that he was part of the GIA and that he was in fact a peaceful leader of the legitimate Algerian FIS political party.