High Court orders fresh review of asylum claim over alleged risk of persecution in Nigeria

Man says he fears persecution from two influential figures after a fatal 2011 crash involving their sons, who died despite being rushed to hospital following the collision

One boy was the son of a prominent Nigerian politician and the other boy was the son of a powerful businessman, the High Court heard.

The High Court has ordered that a Nigerian man’s application for refugee status be reconsidered after he claimed he was at risk of persecution from two powerful individuals in his country following the deaths of their sons in a road traffic accident in which he was involved.

The two boys were on a power bike and, according to police, were intoxicated, when they collided with a truck being driven by the 38-year-old man in February 2011. Although he brought the boys straight to hospital, they subsequently died of their injuries.

One boy was the son of a prominent Nigerian politician and the other boy was the son of a powerful businessman.

The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which rejected his application for refugee/subsidiary protection status, accepted he was targeted as a result of the accident. He was attacked and stabbed, his truck was burned out, and his family home was burned down.

He moved to another town and eventually got to Ireland in 2021 after travelling through Libya, Italy, Germany, France, and the UK.

His international protection application was rejected in November 2023 and a year later his appeal was also rejected.

He then brought High Court judicial review proceedings seeking to quash that decision on grounds including that the tribunal failed to properly engage with and evaluate his case as to why there was no effective state protection in Nigeria in his particular circumstances.

He said there was a failure to address the risk of persecution from non-state actors who were politically well-connected and therefore above the law.

The tribunal and the justice minister, who were respondents, denied the claims.

In a judgment, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter quashed the tribunal decision and directed that his claim be assessed afresh by a new tribunal.

The judge emphasised he was not taking any view as to whether the man will be successful this time.

He said this was a case of the tribunal not assessing country of origin information in relation to state protection through the correct prism of the case actually made by the man about his particular circumstances and in particular why he believed he would not get State protection.

While it may have been the case that the tribunal could have found on a fair assessment of the country-of-origin information that state protection would be available, it did not conduct such an assessment by reference to the case actually made by him, he said.

Accordingly, the tribunal’s approach was in error, he said.