1714358 (Refugee)

1714358 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3536 (9 August 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1714358
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Nigeria
MEMBER:David McCulloch
DATE:9 August 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 August 2021 at 10:20am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Nigeria – novelist and scholar – publication of novels based on African society and politics – confraternities/cults – fear of harm from the Ogboni cult – supporting statements by Australian academics – credibility concerns – inconsistent evidence – power or influence of the Ogboni – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 23 June 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Nigeria, applied for the visa on 26 February 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 May 2021 at 10am. The applicant communicated in English.
The Tribunal held a second hearing on 16 July 2021 at 9.30am that was scheduled substantially to hear, at the Tribunal’s request, from two witnesses in Nigeria, the applicant’s wife, [Ms A] and the applicant’s publisher, [Mr B]. The applicant attended throughout the hearing by video through the use of Microsoft Teams. The hearing was held in this manner because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant and the witnesses communicated in English. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and the witnesses were able to communicate effectively with the Tribunal by the use of video and telephone, respectively.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)–(6) and ss.5K–LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has before it the DFAT Country Information Report – Nigeria, 2020.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and the applicant’s wife and whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for protection are fulfilled. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on [a] Student visa [in] February 2011. The applicant remained on various student and bridging visas until 26 February 2015 when he lodged a protection visa application. This protection visa application was refused by the Department on 23 June 2017. An application for review of this decision was lodged on 5 July 2017.
The applicant was born in Osun State, Nigeria on [date], and is married with children. The applicant’s wife and children currently reside in Nigeria. The applicant lists one address in [location], Lagos State, Nigeria where he lived from April 2000 until 2011. Since arriving in Australia, the applicant has resided in [City 1], NSW. The applicant speaks, reads and writes English and Yoruba, and belongs to the ethnic group Yoruba. The applicant is a Christian. The applicant has a [Qualification 1] from [University 1], Nigeria, where he attended from [year] until [year], a [Qualification 2] from [education provider], achieved in 1979, an [Qualification 3] from [education provider], achieved in 1975, and a PHD in [subject matter] from [University 2], [City 1] where he attended from February 2012 until June 2014. The applicant lists his current occupation as an [Occupation 1], and is currently employed as a casual [specified role] at [University 2], [City 1]. Previously, the applicant worked from June 1997 until May 1999 at [Company 1] as an [Occupation 1]. The applicant then worked from May 1999 at [Organisation 1] as an [Occupation 1], the applicant does not list an end date for this position. The applicant then worked at [Organisation 2] from February 2011 as an [Occupation 1]; the applicant does not list an end date for this position. The applicant has no convictions recorded.
The applicant provided a written statement to the Department setting out his claims for protection, as follows (not corrected for spelling or grammar):
Introduction:
I am [the applicant], a Nigerian Novelist and an scholar. I write as [specified pen name]
[origin of pen name explained] - (See annexures 1 - 10a and the
blurbs of the enclosed books).
I completed my PhD programme in June, 2014 at [University 2], [City 1],
under the expert supervision of [Professor C] and [Dr D]. The
research results are presented in two components, [specified].
My research enquiry establishes that most of the shortcomings in the contemporary Nigerian
society such as corruption, nepotism, assassinations, ritual killing and other institutionalized
societal malaise have their roots in pre-colonial society. I focus particularly on the Ogboni
cult. This is the reason my life is now at risk in Nigeria; and it is why I am applying for a
Complementary Protection (Class XA) Visa.
Brief information on the Ogboni Secret Society:
The Ogboni cult is an institution found in all parts of Yorubaland. There are variants of the
cult in Yorubaland, including Ogboni Ibile (Ogboni Aborigine), the Reformed Ogboni
Fraternity (ROF), Ogboni Out Ife, Ogboni Ara Ife, Iwule Ogboni and several others.
However, the most prominent among them are the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity (ROF) and
Ogboni Ibile (Ogboni Aborigine). A non-Yoruba person may not be able to draw a line of
distinction between the two variants of the Ogboni because of the all-inclusive name:
“Ogboni.”
The Reformed Ogboni Fraternity (ROF) was founded on the 18th December 1918 in Lagos
Nigeria by Venerable Rev T.A.J Ogunbiyi, an Anglican Church clergyman. This variant of
the Ogboni fuses Christian doctrines with indigenous tradition. It is comprised of the social
elites: professionals, politicians, academics, lawyers, judges, technocrats and religious
leaders. Its membership spread cuts across all tribal boundaries in Nigeria (see Annexure
11). It is a contemporary phenomenon, but still an offshoot of the original Ogboni Ibile.
Among the variants, the Ogboni Ibile remains at the head waters of the cult and powerful
throughout the land. Its membership comprises lower classes - farmers, drivers, the police,
touts, hunters, armed robbers, professional hired killers and traditional diviners, etc. Its
rituals and beliefs are kept secret from the public. This variant of the Ogboni is most deadly
and uncompromisingly violent than the others. A non-initiate that comes into conflict with
its member may come under spiritual or mystical attack in the form of sudden death,
incurable disease or accident. This cult, as a secret society, has been banned but the ban is
hard to enforce and therefore, it still remains active and engages in evil activities. This
variant is particularly intolerant of critical views and comments. It relies upon Oro, another
cult, as its executive arm. This is a sub-cult of the Ogboni cult, dedicated to the ancestral
Yoruba spirit. It is the traditional wailing spirit of the Dead that roams at will in the earthly
atmosphere. Women are forbidden to behold Oro, and so are excluded from the cult.
The Ogboni in pre-colonial days was central to the traditional administration of Yorubaland,
both in the political and the religious spheres. It acted as the executive authority for
government and for enforcing religious decrees. Consequently, it was powerful and dreaded.
It conferred authority upon its members to act as “Police” and “from time to time it exercised a kind of Star Chamber justice in society.” It was - and remains today - a fetishistic
institution, mired in magic, sorcery and voodoo.
My research clearly demonstrates, however, that in contemporary times since modernity and
democracy has taken over Ogboni’s traditional role, the cult has not clear and beneficial
relevance. The general populace sees the Ogboni and other cults as evil and antithetical to the progress of a democratic society. As the report of Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (14 November 2012) points out, the Ogboni has no formal role to play in society and since the people no longer have any use for them as their protectors, they (the Ogboni) now protect any of the self-centred interests of their members by blackmail, intimidation and murder. The report, quoting Norway, Aug. 2006, Sec. 4.1; Nigerian Observer 19 Feb. 2009 further states:
“Sources indicate that some Ogboni members are from the elite, including the Police,
Judiciary, government establishment and traditional institutions [which] makes members of
the cult to be seemingly above the law” while Ebbe (2012, 178) specifically points to the fact
that “Ogboni members run all kinds of businesses, both legitimate and illegitimate, without
any government interference [and] the societies support political candidates who can protect
their enterprises.”
Society believes that Ogboni:
> As an institution associated with traditional belief: it threatens the people
oppose it in any way with sudden death, diseases, accidents or other forms of
harm caused by magic and fetish.
> It promotes corruption
> It pursues the interest of its members to the detriment of the rest of society The
Canadian immigration Department states.
> It provides cover for criminals who are its members (as in the Anini case
(annexure 23), cf page 3);
> It punishes its critics mercilessly, eliminating them by abduction or murder.
(See Annexures 12 - 20).
Oliver Ajibo, the National Coordinator of Pilot Africa in Crime, has concluded that secret
societies such as Ogboni in Nigeria “breed robbery, rape, drug abuse, terrorism, kidnap and
all forms of social vices. Cultists are the most corrupt in our society; inhuman, selfish and
deadly, persons that promote ultimate promote evil” {Pilot Africa in Crime, 2012).
Section 38 (1), (4) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution prohibits persons to “take part in the
activity or be a member of a secret society” (See Annexure). For this reason, members of the
Ogboni prefer not to be seen as a secret society. But the Constitutional definition is very
clear. Section 318, (a), (b) and (c) states:
“Secret society" includes any society, association, group or body of persons (whether registered or not) (a) that uses secret signs, oaths, rites or symbols and which is formed to promote a cause, the purpose or part of the purpose of which is to foster the interest of its members and to aid one another under any circumstances without due regard to merit, fair play or justice to the detriment of the legitimate interest of those who are not members; (b) the membership of which is incompatible with the function or dignity of any public office under this Constitution and whose members are sworn to observe oaths of secrecy; or (c) the of whose members are kept secret and whose meetings and other activities are held in secret.
Emeritus Professor Peter Morton-Williams, of the University of Ulster is considered one of
the leading experts on the Ogboni cult, is equally clear that it is a secret society. He writes:
1.“It has a secret in virtue of which its members claim mystical and
hence secular power and privileges with regards to nonmembers.”
2.“It has a selected membership, to qualify for which some sort of
achievement is necessary.”
3.“It has the right to impose sanctions over those who reveal its
secrets and procedures to non-members.”
Individuals desirous of a shortcut to wealth and/or political and social power seek membership of one of the other of the Ogboni variants. The cult provides its members with social status as well as economic and political security (See Annexure 21 & 22).
There are many examples that could be given of the function of the Ogboni as a secret society in modern Nigeria and of the brutal violence with which its treats its opponents. The case of Lawrence Anini is telling.
Anini was a notorious armed robber. In December 1986, the police told the public: “The
reign of powerful crime Kings like Lawrence Anini, and their seemingly tenacious grip on
the Benin City underworld, have been attributed to firm and mutually benefitting links with
the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity,” (The Guardian, December 7, 1986.) The Bendel Police
Commissioner said that the local Ogboni society was part of an intricate web of crime. Most
taxi drivers joined the cult, he said, to gain “apparent invincibility and primary group’s
solidarity from the cult” and to assist their way in crime.” The National Concord (December
12, 1986) called for a full investigation, which soon confirmed that many Ogboni members
were indeed involved in criminal activities - including a number of high-ranking police
officers. They were tried, found guilty and executed by a firing squad on March 29, 1987
(See Annexure 23).
All the aspects of the Ogboni that I have outlined above - from the pre-colonial era to the
present day - are covered in much more detail in in the Exegesis of my PhD. They are also
presented dramatically in the narrative component of the PhD - the creative work.
QUESTION 45: HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED HARM IN THAT COUNTRY?
Yes. In my earlier novel. [Novel 1], I was critical of displaced Maroko peasant-residents
whose plank houses were being demolished without any plan for resettlement by the Lagos
State Government. Maroko was a slum near the Lagoon on the Lagos Island. The majority
of the displaced residents remain homeless today. On March 10, 2007,1 had just finished reading from my latest novel. [Novel 2] at a public forum at [location], Lagos when I received a phone call from a friend at the meeting, warning me that security agents in mufti were looking for me. I learned later that this was in response to my outspokenness about the displacement of the Maroko slum residents. For several months, I had to lie low, until eventually the Lagos State Chapter of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) pleaded my case with the [government official in charge].
After coming to Australia as a PhD student I delivered a paper about this experience at [a specified event] (2011). (see Annexures 24 & 25).
QUESTION: 46 - WHAT DO YOU FEAR MAY HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU GO
BACK TO THAT COUNTRY?
The most likely way the Ogboni will react to my research in Australia is to arrange for my
sudden disappearance and silent elimination. As a “harmed organization,” they can hardly
take me to court. Instead they will take action to silence me and to make an example of me,
as they have done on so many other occasions to those who oppose them, without ever being brought to justice. (ACCORD Anfragebeantwortung. Nigeria: Ogbonia-3716 (ACC-NGA- 3716): (120041 ukiat 277 - Tribunal decisions - Gov.UK): (Kirsch and Turner 2013) and
(Good. 69. 2007).
There have been so many disappearances in Nigeria linked to secret societies. Recent
examples include the bodies found at the Okija Shrine in the east, and in Ibadan (Oyo State)
in the West. On 22 March 2014 hundreds of human skulls, skeletons and decomposing bodies of the “disappeared” were discovered there (see Annexures 26 - 29) and the Statutory
Declaration).
I fear gravely for my personal safety - and also for that of my family. This is especially since
receiving a letter (03/12/2014) from my Nigerian publisher, to whom I had submitted the
creative component of my PhD for publication, advising me to “review those scenes in the
novel which are a bold indictment of the Ogboni secret society and its chieftains. This is
necessary as we do not intend for you to incur the wrath of the cult and the consequent
possible dangers to your personal safety,” (see Annexure 30).
On the advice of my supervisors and examiners, I reject this request. It would negate the
value and validity of all of the research that I have done in Australia. In any case, even
without print publication in Nigeria, the work will soon be easily accessible through the
digital catalogue of the [Library] at [University 2]. This is a condition
of candidature.
I have learned here in Australia the importance of intellectual truth and freedom, for which I
have the Australian government to thank. To accede to my publisher’s advice would render
my education here a waste of the scholarship funding that has enabled me to conduct that
research, for which I am eternally grateful. It will also mean that my research has no chance
of making a difference in Nigeria. The Australian Government has committed thousands of
dollars to this end, by way of the prestigious and competitive IPRS and APA scholarship
funds that I have received. I have told my publisher that I will not succumb to fear and
censorship [see Annexure 32].
My wife visited me in Australia from Nigeria in December 2013 through January 2014, (see
Annexure 33), and became aware of my research topic for the first time. “Why did you
choose to research the Ogboni, for God’s sake!” she cried! “Did you not think of yourself,
myself and our children?” When she returned to Nigeria, she confided in my maternal uncle
in our village who himself is a chieftain (asipa) of the Ogboni. Part of the letter he
subsequently wrote and gave to my wife to send me reads;
"[Original text of letter redacted]”
(Translation: [Applicant’s name], you have killed me. Don’t you fear? You are not mindful of the safety of your family. Is it compulsory you become a
doctor? Why did you put your hands in an abomination, my child? I
beg you with my head and in the name of our ancestors; take your
hands off it. A wise child should heed the warning of his elder.” (See
Annexure 31).
My children, since learning of my research, have bombarded me with frantic telephone calls,
begging me to stop. But I could not withdraw from the PhD programme after all the time,
energy and money invested in my education and my future by the Australian Government.
Neither could I change topics at this juncture, even if I wished to do so. At the beginning of
my candidature, my Principal Supervisor, [Professor C] expressed concern
about the risks of researching the Ogboni to myself and my family. But the compelling and
frightening consequences of my research did not really dawn on me until it was too late.
QUESTION 47: WHO DO YOU THINK MAY HARM/MISTREAT YOU IF YOU GO
BACK?
The Ogboni will assassinate me for presenting a reasoned case about the negative effects
upon Nigerian society. I have been critical of both variants of the cult, using the common
name of ‘Ogboni.’ Although the two variants do not necessarily work in concert, the
aggrieved members of either may take the law into their hands, or perhaps a group of zealots
from one or the other will quietly organize my disappearance. We have seen the results of
such terror recently in Australia, France and Denmark where individuals have acted
independently and been sponsored in retrospect by larger terrorist organizations. I know that
whatever the identity of my executioner, he will enjoy the covert support and protection of
the Ogboni. The protection the cult offers its members is unconditional and is one of its
fundamental allurements as previously established.
QUESTION 48: WHY DO YOU THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN TO YOU IF YOU GO
BACK?
My research will be seen as a serious threat to the cult. As a novelist, I am well known in
Nigeria as already established in Annexures 1 - lOA. My books are used not only in the
Nigerian schools but across all the West Africa region [see Annexure 28]. If my novel is
published - or even if it accessed in digital form through the [University 2] Library - it will ignite
fierce debate in Nigeria (and indeed beyond), because will be the first creative work in
Nigerian to tackle the Ogboni. There has been no Nigerian novelist before who has dared to
confront the Ogboni cult. With the expert guidance of my Australian academic supervisors, I
have committed immense energy, effort and thought to my research - both the novel and the
exegesis. The examiners have unanimously agreed that it is “of the highest standard.”
Here is a very brief sample of some of the issues covered in my PhD that will rouse the
Ogboni to retaliation;
1) I challenge the oath of allegiance of the Ogboni, presenting it as detrimental to the
interest of the larger society. In the novel I do this by dramatizing the selection process of the traditional ruler of Ile-Ogbo [which is the setting of the novel], showing how the Ogboni apply pressure to swing the selection in favour of one of its own, even though that candidate is the least qualified among all of the contestants. (‘[Novel 3],” Chapter [number], pp. [deleted]). This corrupt influence of the Ogboni in this scene constitutes a biting indictment on the cult, to which its members will respond with anger and likely violence.
2) Part of my narrative deals with a protracted land dispute. The land is illegally
annexed by an Ogboni member, with the support of the cult. [[Novel 3],
Chapter [number], page [deleted]]. This kind of thing is a common occurrence in Nigeria, but is rarely addressed, for fear of the cult. Again, my social comment will infuriate the
Ogboni.
3) The Ogboni’s hands are not clean in the elimination of Ayinke, the women leader
and the arrowhead of the aborted women’s revolt against the monarch [“[Novel 3]”, Chapter [number], pages [deleted]]. This is another damning indictment of the
Ogboni on many abominable occurrences in the Nigerian society in which the
cult’s hands are not clean.
4) In another part of the novel, I show the Ogboni undermining the legitimate
authority of the Baale (Chief), sowing the seeds of rebellion and forcing him to
commit suicide [Chapter [number], pp. [deleted]]. In the Exegesis I revisit this incident
as a comment upon the Ogboni’s challenge to the State and its influence upon
contemporary politics. One of my examiners, [Ms E] ([University 3]), comments specifically about the persuasiveness of my presentation:
“The Ogboni as a cult that incorporates a sinister and corrupt influence on the
society drawn for us is well done.”
5) In the novel 1 use one of the Chiefs as the moral voice of mainstream Nigerian
society:
‘‘[Original text of novel redacted]”
This is the advice I have given the Nigerian youths. These words, running through
the mind of the Chief, are only thinly veiled. They are my own words, my own
voice. They cannot help but draw attention to me as an outspoken opponent of the
Ogboni.
QUESTION 49: DO YOU THINK THE AUTHORITIES OE THAT COUNTRY CAN
AND WILL PROTECT YOU IF YOU GO BACK?
know that the Nigerian government cannot protect me. The best it will do should any harm
come upon me is to establish an investigation panel after the fact to look into the “immediate and remote causes of the harm.” But this will come to nothing. There have many been cases of citizens who should have been protected by the State but who were killed or simply “disappeared.” The list is long, but in it includes many very prominent people, whose assassins have never been identified or prosecuted. There are at present more than 84 unresolved high-profile assassination cases in Nigeria, dating from 1986 to 2010 - and that is not even counting the many more recent examples. The list includes the following persons:
Dele Giwa (October 19, 1986)
Babatunde Elegbede (May 5, 1994)
Alfred Rewane (October 6, 1995)
Admiral Olu Omotehinwa (May 22, 1996)
Alhaja Kudirat Abiola (June 4, 1996)
Mrs Esther A. Tejuoso (September 9, 1996)
Alhaja Suliat Adedeji (November 14, 1996)
Chief Layi Balogun (December 10, 2000)
Barr. Barnabas Igwe and his wife, Amaka, (September 1, 2001)
Chief Bo la Ige, former minister of Power (December 23, 2001)
Chief Ajibola Olanipekun (June 20, 2003)
Chief Philip Olorunnipa (March 3, 2004)
Alabi Okoju (May 15, 2005)
Lateef Olaniyan (July 16, 2005)
Engr. Olufimsho Anthony Williams (July 27, 2006)
Abayomi Ogundije (August 17, 2008)
Chief Charles Nsiegbe (November 21, 2009)
Otunba Dipo Dina (January 25, 2010)
[see Annexures 34-36 for the long list].
Obviously, I do not want to be another name on the list. Should I fall a victim to the Ogboni,
my whole family will suffer. I ask the Australia Government please to grant me the
Protection Visa that will save my life.

Provided, as indicated above, are supporting documents. Included are the following testimonials from individuals from [University 2]:
·Letter dated 10 February 2015 from [Professor F], [University 2]. It makes reference to the applicant’s study at the University and positive comments in relation to his research on the Ogboni cult. Reference is made to comments made by the applicant’s principal supervisor, [Professor C] who is an internationally renowned scholar of African literature. A quote by [Professor C] makes reference to a report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada concluding upon investigation indicating that any person who reveals the Ogboni’s operations to non-members is risking his own death. [Professor F] provides the view that it is beyond doubt that the applicant’s life will be at serious risk if he returns to Nigeria.
·Letter dated 16 February 2015 from [Professor C], [University 2], making reference to the applicant’s research and indicating that there are likely serious consequences for anyone speaking out against cults in Nigeria. Positive comments are made in relation to the applicant’s research. It is indicated that the applicant is the first literary figure to draw negative attention to the Ogboni. Reference is made to three individuals killed with associations with members of the Ogboni cult. Sources for the information are not cited. The first individual, a journalist, it is claimed was gunned down by unidentified men on 31 March 1999. The individual had been a vocal critic of the Ogboni. The man associated with his murder was an Ogboni member but the case was dropped for lack of evidence. It is claimed that it is widely believed that the Ogboni were behind the killing. The second individual, also a journalist, was murdered on 26 February 1998. The individual’s widow insisted that the Ogboni were responsible. Nobody has ever been charged. The third incident involves an individual who was on an editorial board who was murdered on 16 August 2008 in Lagos. The victim was a former member of the Ogboni who had recently converted to Christianity and began to speak out against the cult. The murder remains unsolved. A 2013 media report is cited referring to many reports of missing persons with bodies being dumped on the roadside or on bush parks. Bodies have mutilations which indicate ritual killings. A 2003 report from the United Kingdom is cited indicating that the Ogboni remains active in contemporary Nigerian society. An uncited report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is stated finds that any persons openly critical of the Ogboni would be certainly be ‘risking his own or her own death’. It is submitted that the applicant falls into this category.
·Letter from [Associate Professor G], [University 2], dated 24 February 2015. It is submitted that the applicant’s research on the Ogboni cult puts the applicant at risk in Nigeria as attested by [Professor C]. The letter attests to the applicant’s good character.
The Tribunal has reviewed all of the documents annexed to the applicant’s statement, particularly seeking corroborative reports of individuals being harmed in Nigeria from the Ogboni cult. The information, including many Internet media reports includes the following. A 2006 Internet report makes reference to a Christian ruler being pestered by Ogboni cult members who wished him to join. There is an Internet report from The Sun dated 22 March 2014. The report refers, in the recollection of a third party, to an individual who joined the Ogboni because he wanted to get rich but that this did not occur after 15 years in the cult. The individual was told that if he wanted to get rich to sacrifice his son, which he did not do. This caused him to leave the society. The same article makes reference to another individual who was a member of the society getting rich which he claimed occurred because he would cause the termination of the pregnancy of his partner’s male children. There are reports making reference to many ritual killings (but not indicating performed by the Ogboni cult). There is a report relating to nine journalists being killed with the motive unconfirmed. There are articles making reference to a number of unsolved murders.
The applicant has provided a copy of a report dated 14 November 2012 from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Nigeria: Ogboni society including its history, structure, rituals and ceremonies; information on membership and consequences of refusing to join. The report makes reference from 5 October 2012 to a Professor of Law and Forensic Science at the University of Leicester indicating that people no longer use the Ogboni Society as the protector and that the society now protects the self-centred interests of the membership by blackmail, intimidation and murder. It is indicated that corroborating information on this claim could not be found by the Research Directorate. There is a reference to reports from 2006 and 2009 which assert that members of the Ogboni Society are seemingly above the law. It is also indicated that Ogboni members run all kinds of businesses both legitimate and illegitimate, without any government interference and that the society supports political candidates who can protect their enterprises.
On 22 August 2020 the applicant provided a detailed submission to the Tribunal together with additional documents and a USB stick which contained videos. The Tribunal has noted the following from this information.
The submission provides a summary of the career and professional background of the applicant indicating that he has prominence as a published novelist, mainly young adult and biographical novels, in Nigeria. A summary is provided of the applicant’s doctoral research and its impetus in terms of the applicant wanting to better understand the Ogboni sect. A background is provided into the Ogboni.
The submission cites a 2010 report of the Refugee Documentation Centre (Ireland) (Legal Aid Board) which notes that the Ogboni is still regarded as a powerful organisation throughout Nigeria who have influence.
Submissions are made that there is credible evidence that the Ogboni reacts violently to critical views about its activities. There is a reference to a December 2018 report by the BBC referring to killings and vows to kill by the Ogboni (this written report by BBC Newslight is provided) Reference is made to the death in February 1998 of an individual who worked for a newspaper in Lagos. Police claimed it was armed robbery but the victim’s wife insisted that the Ogboni were responsible for the death. She said that for consecutive nights the Oro, which is the executive arm of one of the most vicious of the variance of the cult wailed around their home. The applicant indicates that he socialised with the individual who was killed.
Also referenced is the death in April 1999 of a journalist who had been outspoken in relation to the activities of the Ogboni. An Ogboni man who was also a journalist was charged but eventually acquitted for lack of evidence.[1]
[1] These references do not seem to appear in the cited reference.
There is a reference to an individual in July 2005 being killed allegedly by men of a political bigwig and Ogboni chieftain. There is a reference to a 21-year-old man being murdered in 2013 after several threats to his life from the Ogboni. There is a reference to an individual on the editorial board of a prominent newspaper in Nigeria. This person was Ogboni and renounced his membership and was murdered in August 2008. Nigerian police indicated that the victim was killed in an armed robbery even though nothing was taken from his car. People close to the victim would later say that the victim had been vocal about the evil activity of the Ogboni cult of which he had previously been a member.
Reference in the submission is made to the Ogboni threatening a number of individuals with death. This included a written threat to a Lagos Pentecostal pastor. (An online copy is provided of this report dated 29 November 2017). The threat is claimed to be over the pastor’s involvement in the destruction of traditional shrines and the conversion of some idol worshippers to Christianity). A December 2016 newspaper narrates the account of the threat issued to the family of an octogenarian (a copy of this report is provided with the individual being targeted whose granddaughter was also being targeted by the cult with whom the father’s child was involved). A number of incidents are referred to involving an individual without the harm being identified (and the link to the source being broken) with the unstated harm by suspected members of the Ogboni fraternity.
The submission provides a further unsourced media article dated 11 August 2017 referring to the presence of Nigerian Ogboni members in Sierra Leone creating anxiety and tensions. The article quotes the Nigeria High Commissioner indicating that the Ogboni is not taken seriously in Nigeria and is not a popular society. The High Commissioner indicates that the society’s head has agreed to leave Sierra Leone.
A reference is made to a November 2012 report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada indicating that the Ogboni still have quite significant influence and power in Nigeria. A 2003 report of the UK Home Office is referred to, indicating that the Ogboni could exert spiritual pressure to those in conflict with the Ogboni and they face sudden death, diseases and accidents caused by the Ogboni by spiritual means.
Submissions are made that state protection is not adequate in Nigeria in terms of offering effective protection.
Responses are made as to various adverse findings of the delegate. Relevantly the delegate makes reference to the fact that the applicant’s wife and children have been based permanently in Lagos, Nigeria since the applicant’s arrival in Australia in February 2011. The applicant’s wife visited Australia between December 2013 and January 2014 and she returned home to Nigeria where she remains present with her family. This led the delegate to doubt the level of harm feared by the applicant and his family overall.
In response in the submission, the applicant indicated that at the time that his wife returned to Nigeria from Australia he was still undertaking his research and the risk had not arisen at that point. The applicant states that as he maintained throughout his claims for protection since 2015 he holds a fear for himself and not for any member of his family. The applicant indicates that initially when the creative component of his research was published he had a fear that his family could be targeted but developments in Nigeria since publication (detailed below) make clear to the applicant that the threat is to him and not his family.
Submissions are made the applicant does not have a right to enter and reside in the Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS).
The applicant refers to the fact that his long-standing publisher in Nigeria declined to publish the creative component of his study in Australia unless he expunged two chapters whose content was considered offensive to the Ogboni. The applicant indicated that he found another publisher who was willing to publish the work, although they too feared for the applicant’s safety. A publication agreement was signed in 2016. In July 2018 the book was ready for the market.
[Between] November 2018 [and] December 2018 two widely read Nigerian daily newspapers reviewed the novel. One of the reviews was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.
The submission provides details of incidents claimed to be a product of the publication of the book affecting the applicant’s family in Nigeria, as follows:
·An incident [in] October 2018. The applicant’s wife was stopped on the street by a man who had moved to the applicant’s area shortly before the applicant left Nigeria in 2011. This man told the applicant’s wife indicating that the afront will not be tolerated by (effectively) the Ogboni. The man told the applicant’s wife he was surprised about the depth of the applicant’s knowledge about the Ogboni. The threats by this man brought home to the applicant that this man was Ogboni.
·An incident [in] November 2018. An older and younger man were at the gate to the compound of the applicant’s home seeking entry. These men asked after the applicant and the applicant’s son told them that the applicant was not at home and he could leave a message. One of the men angrily stated the suburb where they were from and demanded entry. The respondents indicated to the applicant’s son some bad intentions. One of the men was banging on the gate. The applicant’s wife attended the gate and spoke to one of the men. This man told her that he had been at a reading at the University of Lagos by the applicant of his novel and was wanting to enquire about the possibility of the applicant undertaking another reading. The applicant’s wife knew that he was lying. While the applicant’s son continued to engage with these men, the applicant’s wife called local security. In the meantime, the men sped off on a motorbike cursing and swearing that they should tell the applicant that nobody can save him from the punishment he will receive for ‘defecating’ on the elders of the people. It was determined it would be best if the police were not contacted.
·An incident a few days later. Oro (a sub-cult of the Ogboni according to the applicant’s claims) came ‘wailing spirit’ in front of the house.
As a result of these incidents it is indicated that the applicant’s wife remained away from the home for a period. Most of the applicant’s children were elsewhere, but one son moved to his friend’s parents’ house for a number of months. The applicant tried to persuade his family that the Ogboni will not come after them, but only the applicant. After the initial shock and fear, they eventually returned home.
It is claimed that between March 2019 and July 2019 there have been five suspicious visits similar to the first one. This is in addition to the occasional anonymous phone call to the applicant’s son or wife, and once to his first daughter, asking to speak to the applicant. When it was indicated that the applicant was not at home, the caller would hang up.
The applicant [in] February 2020 received an email from the Chief Executive Officer of the publishing house that published the novel, [Mr B]. The applicant provides a copy of this email which makes reference to the publisher receiving some strange calls from anonymous callers interested in getting the applicant’s contact details in connection with his recent book. It is stated that if the applicant’s contact details had appeared in the book they would have contacted the applicant directly. The publisher comments that a book like the applicant’s is bound to generate controversies, which are good talking points to popularise the title and a win for more readership.
The applicant indicates that he expressed displeasure to the publisher and giving any information about the applicant to faceless people and reminded him of the ongoing experience of his family.
The applicant refers to a phone call received in November 2019 with a ‘No Caller ID’ which he answered. The person introduced themselves as a person from a university in Nigeria asking the applicant if he was intending to be in Nigeria for Christmas. A few days later the applicant’s wife indicated that she received a similar call from the same person. Internet research by the applicant provided no information that this claimed individual belonged to the relevant university. It dawned on the applicant that this person could be an Ogboni agent.
The applicant indicates that these incidents show the real and imminent threat to the applicant’s life and his elimination should he return to Nigeria.
The submission provides explanatory notes to the three videos provided on the USB showing Ogboni activity.
The submission attaches a number of documents including the following of relevance:
·A newspaper review, the particular newspaper not indicated or dated, of the applicant’s book [Novel 3].
·An email from [Mr B], CEO/Publisher, [named publishing house] to the applicant dated [in] February 2019 advising that the publisher has been receiving some strange calls from anonymous callers with an interest in getting in touch with the applicant. This is in connection with the publication. The email indicates that if the applicant’s contact details had appeared in the book they would have contacted the applicant directly. The email comments that the applicant’s book is bound to generate controversies which are good talking points to popularise the title and a win for greater readership.
·Internet media report from [a website] dated [in] November 2017 providing an account of a Lagos based pastor receiving a threatening letter purportedly written to him by people claiming to be members of the Ogboni. The threat was over the involvement of the pastor in the destruction of traditional shrines and the conversion of some idol worshippers to Christianity. The letter was signed by two named individuals who claimed to be the ‘[Position 1]’ and ‘[Position 2]’ of the sect.
After the first hearing the applicant provided a number of documents, including information requested by the Tribunal in the first hearing. Provided is a letter from the applicant’s publisher, the full text of which is extracted later in this decision. The applicant was asked to have the publisher corroborate that they were fearful for the applicant’s safety as a result of the book. A November 2012 report on the Ogboni is provided from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The applicant’s thesis is provided with annotated issues on the Ogboni. Component 2 of the thesis is provided. A list is provided of writing projects comprising continuing work of the applicant on the Ogboni.
Independent information
The 3 December 2020 DFAT report on Nigeria, 3 December 2020, provides the following information:
Members of Confraternities/ Cults
Confraternities/cults are mostly concentrated in the southern states of Nigeria, particularly Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta and Edo states. Some reportedly have an overseas presence through diaspora communities, although DFAT is not aware of any operating in Australia. Initially introduced by Nigerian scholars returning from the United States in the 1950s as a variation of student confraternities, many confraternities/cults have become more violent over time and are now essentially criminal gangs. There have been reports linking confraternities/cults with political violence, with some politicians reportedly co-opting them to support their political rallies and disrupt those of opposition groups.
In-country sources report that, in addition to operating on university campuses, several confraternities/cults also have a presence in high schools and thrive in poor urban areas. Many young men (and some women) voluntarily join confraternities/cults, motivated by the opportunity to earn money and gain power, but some reportedly join through peer pressure, under threat of reprisal or to gain protection. Inter-cult violence reportedly occasionally results in the death of cult members, and cult members have assaulted individuals who attempt to leave.
DFAT understands many confraternities/cults operate more like gangs than religious cults. Young men in particular are targeted to join confraternities for protection and through peer pressure. Many young men and women also voluntarily join, as confraternity membership offers opportunities to earn money and gain power. The process of gaining membership can include violent initiation, in some cases reportedly including beatings and/or rape. According to Amnesty International, over 60 people were killed in 2019 in Rivers state alone through cult-related violence.
Some of the more prominent confraternities/cults are the Pyrates confraternity, created at the University of Ibadan campus in 1952 and Nigeria’s oldest; the Buccaneers Confraternity, the Family Confraternity and the Black Axe Movement. The latter emerged from the University of Benin in the southern state of Edo. From its origins as an idealistic confraternity, the group has reportedly grown into a sophisticated criminal organisation, with international chapters established outside Nigeria. The Black Axe Movement, like other confraternities/cults, targets students for membership, and students who refuse to join may face intimidation and violence.
The Rivers state government signed an anti-cultism bill into law in March 2018. The bill prescribes the death penalty for any cultist who kills during a cult activity and life imprisonment for any cultist apprehended. This follows similar laws implemented by the southern Edo, Ebonyi, Kwara, Enugu and Akwa Ibom state governments.
DFAT assesses members of confraternities/ cults face a high risk of legal sanction if they reside in states in which their organisations are proscribed. They also face a high risk of experiencing violence from other organisations or from their own group should they attempt to leave.[2]
[2] DFAT, Country Information Report – Nigeria, 3 December 2020, paras [3.128]–[3.133].

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Research Directorate, provides the following information dated 20 June 2019 (underlining added):
Subject: Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April 2019) [NGA106269.E]
1. Challenges in Gathering Information
In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian High Commission in Abuja stated that there is "very little concrete information or evidence available about the Ogboni society" or information that is not speculative (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). For the purpose of this Response, the official gathered information from other officials in Nigeria who provided comments and references to "speculations … based on local knowledge and research/consultations with local sources in Abuja and Lagos" (Canada 27 Mar. 2019b). The Canadian official also noted that locally-held beliefs about the cult were strong and local sources were fearful of speaking openly about the Ogboni society, leading to extrapolation and inference based on available information (Canada 27 Mar. 2019b). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a professor of Yoruba language and culture at the University of Indiana stated that information on the structure of the Ogboni Society and its rituals is accessible only to its members or individuals who are very close to a member (Professor 27 Mar. 2019).
2. Overview
For information on the Ogboni society's history, rituals and ceremonies, see Response to Information Request NGA104213 of November 2012. More recent information on these topics could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
According to a representative of Nigeria's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), as stated in correspondence with the Research Directorate, the word "Ogboni" is a generic term that can refer to "several Ogboni societies," such as the Osugbo, Aborigine Ogboni Society, Awo Opa, or the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity (ROF), for example (Nigeria 21 Apr. 2019). However, some sources stated that the "traditional" Ogboni society is distinct from the ROF (Sociologist 27 Mar. 2019; Centennial Professor 18 Mar. 2019), which is described as a "Nigerianised version of the Freemasons with some 'traditional' elements" (Centennial Professor 18 Mar. 2019) and was founded by educated elite Yoruba Christians in 1915 with voluntary membership for the purpose of networking (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019).
Sources state that the traditional Ogboni society was an organization created among the Yoruba ethnic group in Nigeria as a society of elders (Sociologist 27 Mar. 2019; Canada 27 Mar. 2019a; Centennial Professor 20 Mar. 2019), with ranking (Sociologist 27 Mar. 2019), leadership (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a) or prestige in the group based on old age (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019).
The NHRC representative described the Ogboni society as a Yorubaland social-cultural institution that "functioned as a town council, civic cult, and electoral college for selecting a new king and dethroning a bad or unpopular one" (Nigeria 21 Apr. 2019). The Ogboni society is referred to as a "cult" (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a), a "secret society" (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019), or a [translation] "traditional secret society" (France 27 Feb. 2015, 3). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a centennial professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics (LSE), whose research focuses on Yoruba-speaking areas of Nigeria, stated that the Ogboni has "historically" been "feared" as a society of Yoruba elders due to the fact that its members were "very old" and seen as carrying authority due to their closer proximity to their ancestors (Centennial Professor 20 Mar. 2019). The rituals and practices of the Ogboni society are not known to outsiders or the uninitiated (Professor 27 Mar. 2019; Canada 27 Mar. 2019a; France 27 Feb. 2015, 2).
The Professor of Yoruba studies also commented that the cultural belief in the supernatural cuts across all spheres of life in Yorubaland, even among nominal Christians and Muslims, and "especially" among "traditional religious practitioners" (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Without providing further details, the Canadian official noted that there is a belief among non-members that the Ogboni society engages in "supernatural" rituals and practices that can be "brutal and violent" (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). Sources indicate that Ogboni society is alleged to engage in activities such as ritual human sacrifices [or sacrifices involving body parts (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a)] (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019; Professor 27 Mar. 2019) or blood rituals, or rituals aiming to become wealthy (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Further information on rituals and activities of the Ogboni society could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. For further information on ritual practices in Yorubaland, see Response to Information Request NGA104602 of November 2013.
3. Current Status
According to a 2018 article in the Guardian Nigerian newspaper, the Ogboni society plays a role in the "socio-political and religious affairs of the Yoruba people" and, in pre-colonial times, the judiciary of Yoruba kingdoms was under the "tutelage of the Ogboni," though "this [has] changed and translated into dubious tendencies, attaching a derogatory tag to the group" (The Guardian 16 Sept. 2018). The Professor of Yoruba studies said that, "traditionally," the Yoruba had their own political system of government in which the Ogboni society played a role like a "secret service" for the town, enforcing the law and bringing criminals to the Yoruba kings for judgment; however, since colonization and Nigerian independence, Yoruba kings only have ceremonial positions, rather than the role and power they once had (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Sources indicate that the influence of the Ogboni society has declined in past decades (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019; France Dec. 2016, 49-50) or is "waning" (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019). One source said this decline started in the 1950s (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019) while France's Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (OFPRA) states that this decline has been taking place since the 1990s (France Dec. 2016, 50). The Centennial Professor expressed the view that the Ogboni society's "[p]resent-day membership, presence, and activities are insignificant" (14 Mar. 2019) and that the traditional Ogboni is "now almost defunct" (18 Mar. 2019). According to the same source, the traditional Ogboni society today "has no power or influence" and it is stigmatized as a "pagan remnant" of the past (Centennial Professor 14 Mar. 2019). Similarly, a 2016 OFPRA fact-finding mission interviewed a Nigerian researcher who stated the following: [translation] "'In those days, [the 1990s], if you were not O[gb]oni, you could not be part of the government, have a job with a position of authority. Nowadays, Christianity has taken over, it is seen as shameful to belong'" to the Ogboni society (France Dec. 2016, 49, brackets in original). The same source gave examples that, in the past, in order to become the director of her university, or to get positions in other institutions, with the police, etc., a person had to be Ogboni, remarking that [translation] "this is no longer the case today" (France Dec. 2016, 49). A representative of International Crisis Group, interviewed for the OFPRA fact-finding mission, also stated that the group's influence has not completely disappeared, but is much less important than in the past, noting that what matters in politics today is money, and that the political influence of [translation] "'godfathers [politicians]'" is greater than that of traditional societies such as the Ogboni society (France Dec. 2016, 50, brackets in original). In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a sociologist at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), who has researched cults in Nigeria, indicated that the Ogboni society is "not widespread compared to other religious movements" and that "traditional belief systems, such as Ogboni" are giving way to other religions like Christianity and Islam (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019).
4. Membership, Structure, Recruitment
4.1 Location of Members
Information on whether Ogboni society members are present within major cities of Nigeria, including non-Yoruba areas, was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The Nigerian Guardian states that the Ogboni society "functions in a few remote kingdoms and is popular in Nigerian Yoruba and Igbo-speaking communities" (The Guardian 16 Sept. 2018). Sources report that Ogboni society membership is regionally located in Yorubaland (Professor 27 Mar. 2019) or in "mostly Yoruba-speaking areas of Nigeria" such as the south-west states of Ogun, Oyo, Lagos, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti, as well as parts of Edo state in the south-south of Nigeria (Sociologist 27 Mar. 2019). The Sociologist added that cities such as Abeokuta, Warri, Benin, Ibadan, and Osogbo, as well as "several of the rural areas," have "strong presence of Ogboni practice" (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019). The rural areas of Yorubaland have more traditional beliefs than big cities, though such beliefs also exist in the cities, according to the Yoruba studies professor (Professor 27 Mar. 2019).
4.2 Recruitment and Motivation for Joining
Sources indicate that membership to the Ogboni society is voluntary (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a; Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019; Professor 27 Mar. 2019) or by invitation through contacts (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). The Professor remarked that a person has to agree to join, and generally cannot be forced to do so, while noting, however, that "supernatural powers" may be used to try to "compel" a person to join (27 Mar. 2019). Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
According to the Sociologist, people join voluntarily because they believe that the Ogboni belief system confers extraordinary abilities and powers from deities, especially when human sacrifices are alleged in the performance of rituals. However, those who are expected to retain membership as a family heritage may be coerced or forced when they reject it. (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019)
The Sociologist stated that people who join the Ogboni society are those who "seek spiritual protection from evil forces, or who want to use the powers of Ogboni lodges to gain advantage in political or religious circles" (Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019). The Professor similarly explained that people join groups like the Ogboni society due to promises of protection, favours, patronage and connections (Professor 27 Mar. 2019).
4.3 Structure and Membership
The Sociologist explained that the Ogboni society is organized into age-grades and ranked in terms of seniority, noting that in its traditional organization, membership of the various ranks is exclusive and even the names of the topmost leaders are not known to those below (27 Mar. 2019). The Professor of Yoruba studies stated that often a person's membership only becomes known when they die and the Ogboni members appear at the funeral to perform funeral rites (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Further and corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
According to information provided by the Canadian official, membership is reportedly based on being a wealthy member of the community and "signifies a high level of power and prestige, which some members do not hide," and may display indicators that they belong to the group, such as banners, markings or clothing (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). Membership is predominantly male and "generally considered" to be based on lineage with nobility connected to the Yoruba Kingdoms (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). Further and corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
In order to join the group, a person has to take a vow not to reveal the secrets of the group and to protect one another (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Similarly, the Canadian official stated that the "organizational structure is a secret available only to members of the Ogboni" (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a).
Sources report that non-Yoruba members can join (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a; Sociologist 29 Mar. 2019) if certain "requirements" are met; however these are not publicly known (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a).
4.4 Inheritance of Positions in the Ogboni Society and Recruitment
Information concerning the inheritance of positions in the Ogboni society was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The Professor of Yoruba studies said that she had not heard of cases in which a person was forced to take up an inherited position in the Ogboni society after the parent died, though parents who are members may try to convince their children to join (Professor 27 Mar. 2019). Without providing further details, the Sociologist stated that "male children ought to inherit their late fathers' rights in the organization" (27 Mar. 2019). Underage children do not join the Ogboni society, according to the Professor (27 Mar. 2019). The Canadian official stated that it is reportedly common for a first-born son to "inherit" the position of their Ogboni father, but that taking the position is not mandatory, unless the Ogboni member "commit[ed] their unborn child or teenager to the group," in which case the child reportedly "will be compelled to join when he is of age," which is 21 for males and 40 for females (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). Further and corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
The Nigeria researcher interviewed by OFPRA during its 2016 fact-finding mission made the following observation about hereditary recruitment:
[translation]
"When the parent dies, the oldest child has to remain in the house and he will be initiated – this is normal. An Ogboni man or a woman always initiates their eldest child in the Ogboni to perpetuate the lineage. If my father was Ogboni, given that I am the eldest child, I would refuse to desecrate my father's remains, but if I take part, I would understand that it is my destiny and I would volunteer to join. This is normal; many eldest children take part." (France Dec. 2016, 50)
Corroborating information could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
5. Consequences for Refusing to Join or for Leaving, and Documented Instances of Harm and Violence by the Ogboni Society
According to the Canadian official, "it is assumed" by the sources that the mission consulted that the child of a member who refuses to join the Ogboni could encounter harassment by the society, "even to the point of death," and that those who want to leave the group may face "tough consequences" or may be killed for revealing the group's secrets to non-members, noting, however, that "[n]o recent information is available to support or refute such claims" (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). According to the Professor of Yoruba studies, "[i]f you already joined it is very hard to leave because it is breaking a vow. You already know the secrets of the cult"; "[i]t is very difficult to come out of the group because people are afraid of" supernaturally-inflicted severe consequences for leaving the group stemming from the "magical" or "spiritual" power of the group (Professor 27 Mar. 2019).
Nigerian news media have reported the following examples of alleged harm by Ogboni groups (without clearly referring specifically to the traditional Ogboni Society):
A 2016 Vanguard news article reported that a woman sought a divorce from an Ikole court, Ekiti State, due to allegations that her husband threatened to "deal with her by reporting her to the Ogboni cult," whom she claimed had previously "summoned her to appear" before them in 2012 (Vanguard 15 June 2016). The woman claimed that her husband threatened to use her "'hair and pants for rituals to [drive her] mad'" if she attempted to leave him (Vanguard 15 June 2016);
Without providing further details, a 2018 article in the Daily Trust reports the case of a Lagos woman who petitioned a court for a divorce because she alleged that her husband was a member of the "'Ogboni Confraternity'"; she said that he was "'devilish and demonic'" and accused him of "attacking her and [their] children spiritually" with his "'devilish powers'" in order to prevent the children from marrying (30 July 2018);
In 2018, the Nation wrote a story in which a man claimed that, a few years earlier, the Ogboni Society's "'oracle'" had "'chosen'" him and that members had tried to initiate him by force because the man had "'royal blood'"; he alleged that "'the cultists'" attacked him in 2006 in Ijebu Ode [Ogun state] and tried to "'abduct'" and "'forcibl[y]'" initiate him, and, in two separate incidents in 2013, they set fire to his barn in Lagos and tried to kidnap him on his wedding day, forcing him into hiding (The Nation 5 Oct. 2018). The article quotes a member of the family who stated that "'[a]ll these attacks on him were reported to the police but nothing came out of it'" (The Nation 5 Oct. 2018);
A January 2019 news article by the Nation indicated that a man from Ogun state claimed that "suspected members of [the] Ogboni fraternity" had been "intimidat[ing] and harass[ing]" his nephew since 2014 because he refused to join the group and take over the former leadership role his father had held (The Nation 5 Jan. 2019). The man claimed that his nephew was "brutally attacked" in 2016 and that the police handled the matter "with levity" and did not ensure his nephew's safety (The Nation 5 Jan. 2019). The same article claimed that the nephew's Lagos residence was "stormed" by "old men" who threatened to punish him for "turning down his nomination as new head of the cult group" (The Nation 5 Jan. 2019).
Corroborating information for these incidents could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.
The Canadian official from the High Commission in Abuja stated that the mission had no knowledge of reports that it deemed credible of ongoing or recent cases of targeting or killing of Nigerians by the Ogboni, or those fleeing from the Ogboni society, including in major centres of Western Nigeria and the capital, among mission contacts, local contacts and media sources it consulted (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a). The Sociologist indicated that during his research on cult groups in Nigeria, he had not come across direct mention of the traditional Ogboni society being involved in violent attacks, for instance, against individuals who refused to join or who left the group (Sociologist 2 Apr. 2019). The NHRC representative stated that they had not received any reports of cases of people being targeted by the Ogboni society using violence because a person refused to join or left the group (Nigeria 21 Apr. 2019).
6. Relationship with the Police and Judicial Authorities
Information on the relationship between the Ogboni society and the authorities, including police and judicial authorities, was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The NHRC representative stated that there is "no evidence" that the Ogboni society has influence on the police in main cities in Nigeria, such as Abuja and Lagos (Nigeria 21 Apr. 2019). The Canadian official stated that in Abuja, the group is not recognized and not known to have influence within the Nigerian authorities (27 Mar. 2019a). The Canadian official noted that the Ogboni society "does not have legitimate or legal influence in any federal institutions," however, there is "a great belief" that securing a prominent government or law enforcement position requires being a member (Canada 27 Mar. 2019a).[3]
[3] Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April 2019), 20 June 2019
Hearing, credibility, findings, and assessment

The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her: Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437.
In considering overall the credibility of the applicant the Tribunal is cognisant of the words of Beaumont J in Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 in which he stated that ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for… [but this should not lead to]… an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by supplicants’. The Tribunal notes also the remarks of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 191 where it was said that ‘the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising’. The Tribunal has sought to adopt the liberal approach outlined in these cases.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Nigeria and accordingly his claims will be assessed against Nigeria.
Findings that are clear
The Tribunal notes the following observations and findings of the delegate as contained in her decision (footnotes omitted):
The applicant attended his Protection Visa Interview held on 24 November 2015. He spoke fluent English with interview duration and did not require the assistance of an interpreter. His oral testimony was clear, concise and he communicated with a large degree of confidence. The applicant was not legally represented however he did engage the assistance of a support person who was present at the interview.
I am willing to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt that he is a member of the Yoruba ethnic group, while he did not provide any documentary evidence to support this claim, his oral testimony regarding details of this ethnic group/tribe were significantly detailed.
I accept that the applicant is a Nigerian novelist and scholar. His rights as name is [specified pen name]. He explained [the meaning of his pen name]. The applicant discuss this in detail and interview. Based on the information before me I’m willing to accept this. The applicant wrote a series of novels based on African society and politics. A series of these novels have been published and circulated through a number of school curriculum is in Nigeria. He also submitted the original publisher contracts for these books. He has written a number of other publications in Nigeria as discussed in detail at interview. In support of this claim he submitted a wealth of original supporting documentary evidence which was also cited. The applicant submitted an article from [a named publication] which talks about his work as a writer and his university qualifications in writing and writing course certificates. It is documented through a simple internet search that the applicant has a writer’s profile in the name of [specified pen name]. Based on the available information before me, it is further noted that [in] April 2016 the applicant spoke on [a radio broadcast programme].
He has recently completed his PhD at [University 2]. His doctoral thesis is called ‘[title]’. The focus of the research is on the traditional institutions of the Ogboni cult and kingship in precolonial Yorubaland, Nigeria whose influence and relevant still looms large on the political, social and religious landscape of today’s Nigeria. At interview he went into detail on his PhD thesis.
I further accept the applicant’s stated employment history in Nigeria as declared in his Protection Visa Application. His oral testimony was thorough with supporting evidence submitted. His most recent employment in Australia is as a [Occupation 2]. Responsibilities include [specified duties] at [University 2]. He was also a university tutor for ‘[named subject]’. His last employment role in Nigeria was between 2001 – 2011 where he taught courses in [discipline], especially [specified subject] at [University 4], Lagos.
I accept that the applicant is married with [number of] children from the relationship. His wife and children are currently permanently based in Lagos, Nigeria. According to departmental records, his wife travelled to Australia to visit him [between] December 2013 [through] January 2014 before returning to Nigeria.
The applicant believes that he will be targeted by the Ogboni secret society due to recently writing about them and their traditions for his PhD paper. Country information indicates that the Ogboni people have been active in Nigerian society to a certain degree.
He further contends that he has extended family connections affiliated with the Ogboni group such as his uncle. Again he did not provide any direct evidence of this however I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his detailed oral and written testimony.
Overall based on the applicant’s oral and written testimony in the available evidence before me, I consider the applicant to be a credible witness in this instance.
The Tribunal agrees with the findings concerning the applicant’s background as a novelist, his employment and family background and details as to the nature of his research in Australia.
The Tribunal also accepts the applicant published in Nigeria the creative component of his PhD as a novel, [Novel 3] in July 2018 which contains information, including critical information, concerning the Ogboni.
The key issue for determination is whether elements of the Ogboni would harm the applicant because of the revelations in his book. Credibility concerns in relation to this key issue follow.
Credibility issues, findings and assessment
The Tribunal has a number of credibility concerns with the applicant’s substantive claims as to him facing or fearing requisite harm in Nigeria.
In summary, the Tribunal has credibility concerns with claims that the applicant would have allowed his creative work to have been published if it created a risk to himself and his family. There are credibility concerns and inconsistencies between the applicant and the applicant’s wife as to the details of encounters and threats to his family as a result of the publication of the book. The Tribunal does not consider that the current publisher has had or currently has any significant concerns for the applicant’s physical safety as a result of the publication of the book. There are also inconsistencies between the evidence of the applicant and the applicant’s publisher as to the applicant’s publisher conveying a risk to the applicant about harm from the book. The Tribunal does not consider that the weight of independent information suggests that the Ogboni are currently a meaningful force or that there is corroborative independent evidence that members currently in Nigeria engage in frequent or systemic way with violence and nefarious acts.
The various credibility concerns follow with detail.
Firstly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would have allowed the publication of the book in Nigeria if its publication was likely to cause a risk of requisite harm to the applicant’s family, and to a lesser extent, himself.
The applicant’s detailed written statement provided with the protection visa makes clear in multiple references to the fact that the applicant feared risk to himself as well as his family as a result of his research and literary work critical of the Ogboni. The applicant specifically indicates that his wife, when she visited Australia at the end of 2013, was mortified that the applicant was undertaking such work. The applicant refers to his children making frantic telephone calls to the applicant begging him to stop his work.
In the hearings, the applicant substantially shifted this earlier evidence as to his own view of the risk to his family saying that he did consider the risk to the family at the time that he was writing the work and its publication. However, the applicant indicated that the various claimed negative encounters that his family had had following the publication, made him realise that the threat was not to harm his family but only to harm him.
The Tribunal put to the applicant in the first hearing how it was that he could have proceeded in Australia to work on the claimed sensitive Ogboni with a view to the publication of this material in Nigeria, if this would cause a risk of harm to himself, and particularly his family. In response, the applicant indicated that he was driven in terms of his creative and intellectual integrity to undertake and publish this work because it revealed aspects of Nigerian society that needed to be exposed.
The Tribunal accepts that there is an extent to which the applicant has engaged in his creative work about the Ogboni with a genuine creative and intellectual desire to undertake the work and reveal the workings of the Ogboni in Nigeria.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant would endanger particularly his family in Nigeria, and himself (albeit from the current safety of Australia) to a risk of harm as a result of the publication of the work.
The applicant claimed in the first hearing that he had a concern for the safety of his family whilst he was undertaking the work and as it was published, but after the encounters that his family faced after the book was published he realised that the risk was only to him, not his family.
However, the relevant point at which the applicant’s fear for his family is to be considered is the point that he made the decision to publish the book. It is the publication that crystallised the risk to the applicant’s family, and to the applicant. The fact that claimed encounters with his family as a result of the book have not resulted in them suffering harm is not relevant to the applicant’s state of mind at the time of his decision to publish the work.
On the applicant’s clear evidence he states that he considered that there was a risk to his family when the decision was made to publish the book. Notwithstanding the intellectual and artistic integrity of the applicant to publish the work, the Tribunal is not persuaded that he would have done so had he believed that there was a risk to his family and himself, as he clearly states in his original detailed written claims.
The fact of the applicant causing the work to be published while his wife and four children were still living in Nigeria, is significantly undermining the work would be, or would be thought by the applicant to be, so controversial that it would entail a risk of requisite harm to, particularly the family (as originally claimed), and to a lesser extent the applicant.
Secondly, the applicant’s wife did not in the second hearing corroborate the details of the applicant’s claims as to the negative encounters that she and the children had had as a result of the publication of the book. The applicant’s wife was not persuasive or consistent to the Tribunal with the applicant’s evidence in her articulation of the claimed encounters.
The applicant’s wife was confused and inconsistent when the Tribunal explored with her in the second hearing the various adverse contacts that she and her children had had as a result of the publication of the book. Eventually, after saying there were two physical encounters, the evidence of the applicant’s wife was that there were three different encounters with individuals coming to the family home asking about the applicant’s whereabouts. The applicant’s wife eventually settled on evidence that she was present in two of these encounters, but in one of them only the daughter engaged with visitors and the applicant’s wife was not at home at the time.
Initially, the applicant’s wife had referred to the first encounter as being when she was not at home but her daughter was there and there were individuals looking for the applicant at the gate of the compound to the home. Later, the applicant’s wife changed her evidence to say that this was the third encounter. The applicant’s wife referred to there being a four-month gap between the first and second encounter. This is in contrast to the applicant’s accounts of his family’s encounters when the first two encounters were indicated to be within weeks of each other.
The applicant’s wife indicated that in none of these encounters was there a specific complaint about the applicant’s book, including its dealing with the Ogboni or any threat issued towards the applicant. Unknown or identified individuals were only asking for the whereabouts of the applicant for unstated reasons.
The applicant’s wife indicated that these were the only three physical encounters the family experienced. The encounters caused her to leave her home. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife how long she left home for, and she said it was for three days.
This evidence of the time that the family home was vacated for only three days does not accord with written claims by the applicant that his wife moved away from the family home for a period and that the applicant’s son moved away to his friend’s parents’ house for a number of months. It was only after the initial shock and fear it is claimed that they eventually returned home. The last sentence implies that both the son and the applicant’s wife remained away from home for several months. It would not otherwise seem likely that the son would remain away from the home for months and yet the applicant’s wife only remained away for three days, when there was a potential for danger.
The account of the applicant’s wife did not corroborate the applicant’s claims of encounters [in] October 2018 [and] November 2018 where specific mention of the book and the Ogboni were made. As indicated, the applicant’s wife said in the hearing that the first and second encounters were four months apart and the applicant’s wife indicated that in none of the encounters was the book or the Ogboni mentioned.
A further concern is the fact that the applicant’s wife did not corroborate evidence in the second hearing that at one point the Oro (a sub-cult of the Ogboni) were ‘wailing’ outside the family home. The presence of a known group outside the family home linked to the Ogboni was not mentioned by the applicant’s wife in her evidence in the second hearing. Further, in the hearing the applicant indicated that all of the encounters were with unknown individuals asking about the whereabouts of the applicant and not mentioning or pertaining to the book or the Ogboni. The Tribunal considers that if there had been an incident where a known sub-cult of the Ogboni were ‘wailing’ outside the applicant’s home this would have been quite an impactful event that would have been remembered by the applicant’s wife and conveyed to the Tribunal.
The applicant’s claims are that after the initial encounters causing the applicant’s wife and child to leave home that between March 2019 and July 2019 there were five suspicious visits to the home similar to the first one.
This is not evidence provided by the applicant’s wife in the hearing who referred at the end of her evidence to only three physical encounters, instead of eight on the applicant’s version.
The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife if there were any relevant problematic phone calls that she had received. In response, the applicant’s wife indicated that she would sometimes get calls from anonymous people asking details of the applicant’s whereabouts. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s wife if she was aware if any of her children had received similar calls. The applicant’s wife responded that she was not sure.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s earlier written account of what occurred in terms of family contact was that his son and daughter also received anonymous calls asking to speak to the applicant. Whilst it is not a major issue, if these calls reflected a risk to the family, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s wife would have remembered these calls to her children, had they occurred.
When the Tribunal put to the applicant the inconsistencies with his claims as to the accounts of the applicant’s wife as to encounters suffered by her and her family on account of the book, the applicant indicated that the encounters that he had described had been narrated by his wife to him.
Both the applicant’s wife and the applicant submitted in the second hearing that a key reason for unsatisfactory and inconsistent evidence by the applicant’s wife in the second hearing was because the applicant’s wife’s mother had recently died, creating emotional difficulties for her causing a deficiency in her ability to give evidence to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal put the discrepancy between the evidence of the applicant and the applicant’s wife as to the applicant indicating at least eight physical encounters with the applicant’s family, but the applicant’s wife referring to only three encounters, the applicant indicated that there is understandable difficulty in remembering precise numbers.
Whilst the Tribunal would accept the difficulty of remembering the precise number of encounters, the difference between three encounters and eight encounters is quite material, particularly when they represent a risk to safety, and are not likely to be confused by such a margin. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is explained by understandable confusion.
The Tribunal has made allowances for the fact that the mother of the applicant’s wife has recently died and that this created an extra degree of vulnerability for the applicant’s wife in the second hearing. The Tribunal also makes allowances for the passage of time and the inability to remember precise details of events that occurred a number of years ago.
Nevertheless, there are multiple credibility concerns and inconsistencies identified between the claims of the applicant and the applicant’s wife as to the adverse encounters of the applicant’s family in Nigeria as a result of the book. There are internal inconsistencies in the claims by the applicant’s wife. Considered cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s wife has not been a credible or satisfactory witness in terms of corroborating the applicant’s claims as to the encounters and threats that his family have received in Nigeria as a result of the publication of the book. This undermines in turn the credibility of the applicant’s claims as to adverse encounters suffered by his family.
An associated concern in relation to claimed threats to the family relates to the email that the applicant received from his publisher [in] February 2020 making reference to some strange calls being received in relation to the book, with individuals wanting to make contact with the applicant. The applicant indicates that, in response, he expressed displeasure to the publisher giving any information about the applicant and reminded the publisher, [Mr B], of the ongoing experiences of his family.
The Tribunal asked [Mr B] in the second hearing if he had been made aware by the applicant as to problematic encounters faced by his family in Nigeria as a result of the publication of the book. [Mr B] indicated that the nature of his relationship with the applicant was such that they would have discussed matters relating to his family.

This inconsistency is further undermining of the credibility of claimed negative encounters of the applicant’s family as a result of the publication of the book.
Thirdly, considering all of the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s publisher, [Mr B], had previously or currently has significant concerns for the applicant’s safety as a result of the publication of the book. The Tribunal considers that this is a not unimportant factor in determining whether there is an objective risk. The applicant has made claims inconsistent with those of [Mr B] concerning the fear held by the publisher at the time of publication. While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that there have been a handful of negative phone comments in relation to the book in relation to the description of the Ogboni, the Tribunal does not consider that this relatively minimal level of adverse contact makes likely the applicant facing a real chance of serious or significant harm from interests associated with the Ogboni.
At the end of the first hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant to have the applicant’s publisher write to the Tribunal confirming claims by the applicant that the publisher has had or has a fear for the applicant’s safety in Nigeria as a result of the publication of the book.
The applicant’s publisher, [Mr B], CEO/Publisher, [publishing house] provided the following information to the Tribunal dated 10 May 2021:
We write to give a brief profile of [the applicant]], one of our signed authors. He is well-known here in Nigeria owing to his successful titles, especially [Novel 3].
[The applicant] has asked us to urgently provide him with evidence of public reactions to his book, [Novel 3], which was released in July 2018, though the Author/Publisher Agreement was signed by both parties in 2016. [Novel 3] was made available in most important public and university bookshops, malls and other bookselling outlets in Nigeria.
It is interesting to note that in spite of the poor reading culture in Nigeria, [Novel 3] has done comparatively well selling more than 3,000 copies within the first two years of its release (this is a moderate figure for fictional texts) while many institutions of higher learning are currently processing its adoption as a text for literary studies in their institutions.
Expectedly, owing to its controversial subject-matter, mixed reactions came in the wake of its release, mostly by way of phone calls (some anonymous), or discussions, sometimes complimentary and other times, threatening and harsh. This is understood given the confrontational thematic engagement of the book, specifically the Ogboni confraternity, which has never been so tackled in a novel genre. Nevertheless, we consider the complimentary, threatening and harsh comments a welcome development as they are an indicator that the information and knowledge in the novel are resonating with the public.
[The publishing house] would have presented [Novel 3] as an entry for the highest literary award in Nigeria, the NLNG Prize for Literature, but for the Covid-19 pandemic and the attendant lockdown, which prevented inter-state movements. It is our hope to re-present this critical piece of fiction when the Award rotates to Fiction again in less than four years.
[The publishing house] is willing and ready to supply further information on [Novel 3] and its author.
Tellingly, in relation to what the Tribunal requested of the applicant, the publisher makes no statement in his letter that he holds a fear for the applicant’s safety as a result of the contents of the book.
When the Tribunal explored with [Mr B] in the second hearing whether he had a fear for the applicant’s safety as a result of the contents of the book, [Mr B] indicated that it was not an issue that he had thought about. However, when the Tribunal explored this further with [Mr B] he shifted his evidence to say that at the point that the decision was made to publish the book he did not have concerns for the applicant’s safety, but that this changed when three or so unpleasant anonymous phone calls were received complaining about the content after the book was published. [Mr B] indicated that if the applicant was to return to Nigeria there would not be a public event in relation to the book because of its controversy. [Mr B] also gave evidence that perhaps the greatest risk to the applicant is not physical harm but the potential for supporters of the Ogboni to use supernatural means to harm the applicant.
The Tribunal has concerns with the truth of [Mr B]’s statement that he formed a fear for the applicant’s safety after the book was published. If this were true, the Tribunal considers that it would have been clearly indicated in the letter from the publisher provided to the Tribunal after the first hearing given what the Tribunal had requested of the applicant to obtain from the publisher. The Tribunal certainly does not think the publisher would have said, as he did, that the harsh and negative feedback on the book was a welcome development to aid in publicity. The Tribunal also does not consider [Mr B]’s evidence that he did in fact have fears after adverse comments were received is consistent with [Mr B]’s first response in the second hearing that he had not thought about the risk to the applicant’s safety as a result of the book. The Tribunal considers this is the truth – the lack of [Mr B]’s reflections on the matter.
The Tribunal also notes that the tenor of the email from [Mr B] to the applicant dated [in] February 2020 making reference to ‘strange’ calls from anonymous individuals interested in getting in contact with the applicant about the book, while referring to the calls as strange does not suggest any perceived fear as a result to the applicant. The comment that the applicant’s book is bound to generate controversies which are good talking points to popularise the book does not suggest any fear by the publisher for the applicant’s safety.
Whilst the correspondence is certainly an acknowledgement of the controversial nature of the book, the contents of the email are not consistent with the controversy being so acute that it would put the applicant or his family at risk for their safety as a result of the contents of the publication of the book and/or that the publisher had any risk to the safety of the applicant. The is not consistent with the contents or tone of the email.
The lack of this correspondence indicating a fear by the publisher for the safety of the applicant or his family is undermining of claims that at this point he thought there was such a risk.
The Tribunal also notes that the clear evidence in the hearing of [Mr B] that he did not have a fear for the applicant’s safety as a result of the contents of the book at the time the decision was made to publish, is not consistent with evidence by the applicant that the publisher did indeed have a fear for the applicant’s safety but agreed to publish the book in any event. This demonstrates to the Tribunal significant embellishment in the applicant’s claims.
While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s book is controversial and makes critical comments of the Ogboni, the Tribunal is not inclined to be satisfied that three negative anonymous phone calls received by the publisher demonstrate the requisite risk to the applicant.
Further, [Mr B] referred to there being social media commentary in relation to the book. The Tribunal asked [Mr B] if there were in any of the social media commentary, or otherwise received in email or other written form, threats that have been issued to the applicant as a result of the publication of the book. [Mr B] indicated that to his knowledge there were not. The lack of evidence about threats on social media or via other written means is undermining that the applicant faces the requisite risk of harm.
Fourthly, the weight of independent information as to the current status of the Ogboni in Nigeria indicates that it has little power or influence. Further, while clearly there is significant media and other speculation as to harmful and nefarious behaviour by the Ogboni, little of this is corroborated.
As discussed with the applicant in the first hearing, adverse to his claims that he is at risk from the Ogboni cult are that most of the various media reports that have been provided alleging harm perpetrated by members of the cult are speculative and lacking corroboration or firm findings, such as by courts of Ogboni involvement. The Tribunal also noted to the applicant that the more recent 2019 research by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada into the Ogboni, whilst referring to some reports of harm perpetrated by members, provides information that officials from the High Commission in Abuja found no report that it deemed credible of ongoing recent cases of targeting or killing of Nigerians by the Ogboni. The Tribunal also noted that the DFAT report on Nigeria cited in this decision makes no mention of the Ogboni cult nor has information as to a systemic or widespread risk of harm by this cult having been provided by international NGOs such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or by government authorities such as by the US Department of State in its human rights reports on various countries.

100. In response to all of these issues, the applicant indicated that authoritative determination by such bodies of the Ogboni being at risk has not been possible to be made because the Ogboni act covertly without revealing their identity. The applicant indicates that ‘on the ground’ however in Nigeria it is clear that the Ogboni do act in adverse and harmful ways and that this is known by Nigerians. The applicant also indicated that the Ogboni still have a not inconsiderable presence in Nigeria, and the 2019 research by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that that influence has waned is not correct.
101. The supporting letter provided on behalf of the applicant by [Professor C] makes a claim that an uncited report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada finds that any person openly critical of the Ogboni would be certainly ‘risking his or her own death’. The Tribunal gave the applicant the opportunity following the first hearing to provide a copy of this report by the Board which was not in any of the Board reports that the Tribunal had in its possession. In response, the applicant provided a copy of the 2012 report of the Board referred to, which does not contain this assessment. Evidence of this assessment having been made by the Refugee Board of Canada has not been provided.
102. It is quite clear to the Tribunal that the Ogboni in Nigeria are a key part of community and local folklore including allegations that they engage in nefarious, cultish and violent activities. The Tribunal is satisfied with the accuracy of the 2019 assessment by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that the influence of the Ogboni has significantly waned over time.
103. The weight of independent information as to the waning influence and presence of the Ogboni in Nigeria undermines claims that a negative reaction by the Ogboni to the publication of the applicant’s book would result in them having the desire or capacity to inflict serious or significant harm towards the applicant of as a result of the publication of adverse material concerning the Ogboni.
104. The Tribunal considers these four credibility issues cumulatively. Considered together, they undermine claims by the applicant and his wife as to the extent and nature of suspicious or threatening encounters following the publication of the book. The Tribunal is not satisfied with claims by either the applicant or the applicant’s wife as to the details of adverse encounters including adverse or intimidating encounters faced by the applicant’s family or the applicant with elements connected with the Ogboni who are unhappy with the contents of the book.
105. The Tribunal is not satisfied with the truth of claims that the applicant’s wife and/or son fled the family home for a period as a result of intimidating visits.
106. The Tribunal is not satisfied with the truth of the applicant’s claim that the current publisher of his book was concerned about the applicant safety as a result of the contents of the book, either at the time of publication or subsequently.
107. While the Tribunal accepts three adverse phone calls were made to the publisher about the book, it is one thing to have an aggrieved reader of the applicant’s book venting anger to the publisher. It is another thing to conclude that unhappiness and anger about the applicant’s book would translate into those aggrieved inflicting serious or significant harm on the applicant.
108. The Tribunal does not consider that the controversy is so great or that individuals associated with the Ogboni, in their current reduced presence and status, are so aggrieved that they have a desire or capability to inflict upon the applicant serious or significant harm in Nigeria following the publication of his book several years ago. The Tribunal is not otherwise satisfied that any intended future work or publications by the applicant about Ogboni would create a risk to the applicant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would cause such work to be published if it posed the requisite risk to either the applicant or his family. The Tribunal makes this finding accepting that the applicant has intellectual and artistic integrity. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that these attributes would be trumped by a risk to the safety of his family, and to a lesser extent himself.
109. These findings are buttressed by the fact that none of the applicant’s family have come to any serious or significant harm as a result of the publication of the book in the context of the applicant initially claiming that his family were at risk of harm along with himself. Indeed, on the evidence of the applicant’s wife there has not been one encounter in which the book and its contents relating to the Ogboni have been raised with her in a negative way, contrary to the applicant’s claims.
110. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence probative of the applicant’s claims, correspondence from the applicant’s former publisher declining to publish the book because of the risk that it creates to the applicant’s safety. Whilst this is supportive of the applicant’s claims, it does not, in the Tribunal’s view outweigh the cumulative impact of the adverse credibility issues identified.
111. The Tribunal has taken into account supporting statements by Australian academics who have worked with the applicant who attest to there being a risk to the applicant in Nigeria for the reasons claimed. The Tribunal does not think that the weight of independent indicates that there is an objective requisite risk, including in as set out in the fourth credibility issue above.
112. Given these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed.
113. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in s.5J(1). The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Nigeria, there is a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm.
114. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
115. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
116. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
117. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
David McCulloch
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2021] AATA 3536

9 August 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction