Tribunal decisions

The decision

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER
Case No: UI-2024-005914

First-tier Tribunal No: PA/54593/2023

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:
On the 17 March 2025

Before

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LINDSLEY
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MALIK KC

Between

BH
(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)
Appellant
and

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent

Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr P Norris, Lawrence & Associates Solicitors
For the Respondent: Mr K Ojo, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer

Heard at Field House on 4 March 2025

Order Regarding Anonymity

Pursuant to rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, the appellant is granted anonymity.

No-one shall publish or reveal any information, including the name or address of the appellant, likely to lead members of the public to identify the appellant. Failure to comply with this order could amount to a contempt of court.

DECISION AND REASONS
Introduction
1. The appellant is a citizen of Sierra Leone born in 1986. He came to the UK and made a protection claim on 10th November 2018. This was refused in a decision of the respondent dated 13th July 2023. The appellant’s appeal against this decisions was dismissed by a First-tier Tribunal Judge after a hearing on the 9th October 2024.
2. Permission to appeal was granted by the First-tier Tribunal on 24th December 2024 on the basis that it was arguable that the First-tier judge had erred in law when failing to consider in the alternative whether the appellant would be at risk on return on the basis that the respondent accepted that he is a supporter of the APC.
3. The matter now comes before us to determine whether the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law, and is so whether any such error was material and whether the decision of the First-tier Tribunal should be set aside.
4. Lawrence & Associates Solicitors had not successfully uploaded a bundle to CE file. Mr Norris assured us that they had attempted to do so as he was present in their office when this was done, however Mr Ojo was also without a bundle so we asked Mr Norris to convey to Lawrence & Associates Solicitors that they needed to consult the directions issued by the Upper Tribunal and practice direction on bundles and ensure that this error does not repeat itself. We were able to use documents from the First-tier Tribunal Judicial Case Manager but this made the hearing slower than it would otherwise have been as not everyone before the Tribunal had the same bundle.
Submissions – Error of Law
5. In the grounds of appeal and in oral submissions from Mr Norris it was argued, in short summary, that the First-tier Tribunal erred in law as follows. It was not disputed by the respondent that the appellant was an active member of the APC in Sierra Leone. He also produced a membership card; gave answers in his asylum interview which indicated he was at risk simply as a result of his active membership of the APC as well as the altercation with the deputy minister. This argument was put to the First-tier Tribunal Judge at paragraph 5 of the skeleton argument for the appellant before First-tier Tribunal. So whilst the First-tier Tribunal gave reasons for finding that the appellant would not be at risk of serious harm as a result of his altercation with the Deputy Minister on 6th October 2018, it should have also determined whether or not his membership of the APC and connections with that party, which involved his father also being a member and activities such as leafleting and attending rallies, put him at risk of serious harm if he were returned. If what is said at paragraph 27 of the decision is taken to consider this basis of claim then the decision on this point is totally unreasoned. This error is material as amongst the country of origin materials in the bundle before the First-tier Tribunal there was evidence that APC supporters were being intimidated and had been detained
6. In the Rule 24 response from the respondent dated 17th January 2025 and in oral submissions from Mr Ojo it was argued, in short summary, as follows. It is said that the First-tier Tribunal did assess the potential risk arising from membership of the APC at paragraphs 26 and 27 of the decision, and although the decision might have been clearer this was dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal with a conclusion that whilst the appellant was a political person he was not at real risk of serious harm as a result. It is argued that there is no outlining of any issues in Sierra Leone arising from membership of the APC alone in the appellant’s witness statement, and it was found that the appellant’s wife had not been harassed.
7. At the end of the hearing we concluded that the First-tier Tribunal had erred in law by failing to consider whether a real risk of serious harm arose to the appellant if he were returned to Sierra Leone by reason of his membership of the APC and accepted political activities. We did not give an oral judgment but set out our reasons for this conclusion below. We explained that whilst we set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal we did not set aside any of the unchallenged findings of the First-tier Tribunal so our findings would be in addition to those already made.
8. Both parties agreed that we could continue with the hearing and remake the decision immediately. We had a brief adjournment to sort out the bundle for the remaking, and we informed the parties that we might rely upon the Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2024 report on Sierra Leone for background country of origin material. The parties were given time to read this report and did not object in any way. After hearing submissions on remaking we reserved our decision.
Conclusions – Error of Law
9. It is clear that it was accepted by the Secretary of State that the appellant is and was a member of the APC, as set out at paragraph 10(b) of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal. It is also clear that the only issue was risk on return as if risk was made out it was accepted by the respondent that there was no sufficiency of protection or safety by way of internal relocation, as set out at paragraph 28 of the decision. It was also accepted by the respondent that there was a confrontation between the appellant and the Deputy Minister on 6th October 2018, as set out at paragraph 21 of the decision, but not that this led to a risk to the appellant’s life.
10. The findings relating to risk of serious harm on return for the appellant are set out at paragraphs 21 to 27 of the decision and appear under a heading set out prior to paragraph 21 of the decision which reads “Issue (i) Whether it is credible that the Appellant would have problems arising from his challenge to the Deputy Minister on 6th October 2024 so as to amount to a real risk upon his return to Sierra Leone”. This same issue is also set out at paragraph 11(a) of the decision. We find that paragraphs 21 to 26 deal with whether the altercation with deputy minister in October 2018, which is accepted as having taken place, and the appellant’s accepted acquaintance with Mr Koita (an APC retired military officer who was supposed to have attempted to have led a coup, and who was arrested and beaten) means that the appellant is at real risk of serious harm, and for unchallenged and reasonable reasons conclude that they do not.
11. Whilst it is possible to read the last sentence of paragraph 27 of the decision as stating that it is also not credible that the appellant is at risk from the Sierra Leonean authorities as a result of his APC membership simplicita there is no reasoning relating to this conclusion or engagement with the country of origin evidence that the appellant identified as supporting this proposition in the skeleton argument. We therefore conclude that the First-tier Tribunal failed to address this issue when it had been identified as an issue in the appeal at paragraph 5 of the appellant’s skeleton argument, as it is noted that the appellant is a current member of the APC and argued that the ruling SLPP do not tolerate opposition and that APC members are “arrested and detained for voicing their political opinions” and that there are “credible reports” supporting this proposition in the appellant’s bundle. We find that there was also evidence in the appellant’s asylum interview record of the appellant advancing a claim based not only on his altercation with the deputy minister but also based more generally on his membership of the APC, as identified by Mr Norris before us, and that country of origin evidence was before the First-tier Tribunal which might have established such a fear. We therefore find that the error to address this basis of claim cannot be regarded as immaterial, and that the decision must be remade on this point.
Submissions - Remaking
12. Mr Ojo submitted that the appellant was not at real risk of serious harm as a result of his membership of the APC. He drew our attention to the membership cards of the appellant which record that his an ordinary member of the party, and had been a member since 2007. He argued that nothing had happened to the appellant as a result of his membership, and that although there was some evidence of political violence in Sierra Leone this was sporadic, and generally only during election periods. It is argued that the country of origin evidence does not support a contention that the appellant would be at risk due to his ordinary membership of the APC. From the Freedom House report on Sierra Leone for 2024 it is clear that the APC is the official opposition in parliament and have now taken up their seats as of October 2023. Whilst there were political upheavals in Sierra Leone in August 2023 in which some suffered from violence it was only those with a profile who were arrested, and many of those were released on bail. There is no evidence of a sustained period of interest in APC members, and the appellant should not be found to have a well founded fear of persecution on this basis.
13. Mr Norris submitted for the appellant that whilst there was some sort of agreement in October 2023 when APC members took their seats in parliament, after the period of unrest in which 200 APC supporters were detained in August 2023, things then became dangerous for APC members again as there was a failed coup attempt by Mr Koita of the APC in November 2023. The APC president, Dr Samura Kamara, then had to leave for Nigeria in January 2024 as it was not safe for him to remain in the country. Mr Norris argued that there is a history of people at all spectrum of APC politics being detained: in January 2022 10 APC women were detained in a high security prison merely for accompanying a woman who was being questioned by the police, and the US State Department Report for that year concluded that there were arbitrary arrests targeting APC members, so it cannot be argued that simply high profile figures such as Mr Koita are detained, and in any case the appellant is an accepted activist for the APC as well as a member of the party. It is not argued that everyone in the APC is at risk of detentions and beatings, however, it is argued that there is a real risk for those who are involved with activities such as leafleting, attending rallies and demonstrations such as the appellant. It is noted that the Freedom House report for 2024 gives Sierra Leone a low score for freedom of assembly, and that the appellant has shown a real risk of serious harm as he would be likely to continue with his active APC membership if he went back to Sierra Leone.
Conclusions – Remaking
14. The APC was the ruling party in Sierra Leone under Dr Koroma from 2007 until 2018. As found in the decision of the First-tier Tribunal at paragraph 26 it cannot be expected that the appellant would have suffered any political problems during this time given that his party was in power so lack of past persecution is not significant in showing the appellant is not at risk.
15. It is accepted by the First-tier Tribunal that the appellant is a member of the APC and had a confrontation with the Deputy SLLP minister, Philip Tetema Tondeneh in the course on 6th October 2018 [paragraph 21] and that he left Sierra Leone shortly afterwards on 10th October 2018 for a workshop to do with his work for a bank. It is also accepted by the First-tier Tribunal that the appellant is an acquaintance of Mr Koita, the ex-army APC member who, with others, attempted to stage a coup in November 2023, but not that this places him at risk. The appellant has given an account of his father, being an APC member, attending/ helping to organise local APC meetings and rallies during elections, and of printing t-shirts and leaflets for the rallies in his asylum interview. He also says in response to questions at his interview that he was subject to threats that he did not take seriously from political opponents prior to the incident with the deputy minister in October 2018. We accept that the appellant had this degree of political involvement with the APC, and may have had threats to beat him up from political opponents which he did not take seriously and did not come to anything after the SLLP came to power in June 2018.
16. We accept that during the period 2018 to 2023 there is some evidence that APC supporters were detained and held pending trial in 2021 in the Human Rights Watch report and of women who accompanied a APC figure head to the police station and APC leaders being detained in 2021; and of the deaths of APC protestors clashing with police in 2020 and 2022.
17. We find that during the run up to and after the June 2023 elections, in which the SLLP were re-elected, there was a period of political instability as recorded in the Freedom House report on Sierra Leone for 2024 and in news reports filed by the appellant regarding the suppression of demonstrations by the riot police and attempts on the life of APC leaders. The APC did not initially accept the election results, and their headquarters were subject to attack in which someone was wounded. However in October the APC and SLPP signed a national unity agreement which meant that 54 APC MPs took up their seats in parliament and became the official opposition, and there was a release of prisoners and a dropping of cases the APC contended were politically motivated. There was an attempted coup in November 2023, but this was thwarted, although 20 people died and 2000 inmates of Freetown’s main prison were released during the incident, and the APC President Mr Koroma was called in for questioning and charged with treason (although he then relocated to Nigeria in January 2024), along with 12 others including Mr Koita the retired military officer who is known to the appellant.
18. We find that the political situation in Sierra Leone is far from ideal however we find that we have no evidence that the current situation is such that there is a real risk of serious harm to APC members such as the appellant who carry out low level activism such as organising local rallies and distributing leaflets. There is no evidence before us that the national unity agreement agreed by the APC is not still in force and that the APC do not continue to be the Sierra Leonean official opposition. This arrangement has now been in place for 16 months, and there is no evidence that it is not to continue. The appellant has no links with the attempted coup of November 2023 and is not a prominent APC politician or someone assisting such a person when they are under attack. On the material before us we therefore conclude that has not shown to the lower civil standard of proof that he has a well founded fear of persecution, and that therefore he is not entitled to remain on protection grounds. We find that there is no reasonable degree of likelihood that the appellant would be persecuted in Sierra Leone. There are no substantial grounds for believing that he would face a real risk of suffering serious harm or treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. His removal from the United Kingdom would not be in breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention or in relation to persons eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection. It would not be incompatible with his Convention rights.

Decision:
1. The making of the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error on a point of law.
2. We set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal dismissing the appeal on protection grounds but preserved all of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal.
3. We re-make the decision in the appeal by dismissing it on asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights grounds.

Fiona Lindsley

Judge of the Upper Tribunal
Immigration and Asylum Chamber

11th March 2025