1820886 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 516

1820886 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 516 (27 January 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1820886

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sierra Leone

MEMBER:Peter Papadopoulos

DATE:27 January 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 27 January 2023 at 10:41am

CATCHWORDS

REFUFEE – protection visa – Sierra Leone – political opinion – All People's Congress (APC) activist – political violence – election campaigning – fear of gang assault – fear of killing – military service – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 423, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

CASES

Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 91
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347
Sun v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 52

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant is [an age]-year-old man who claims to be a national of Sierra Leone.

2. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2018 as the holder of a Subclass 408 Temporary Activity visa and has not departed since that date.

3. On 9 May 2018, he applied for a Subclass 866 Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa).

4. On 10 July 2018, the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.

5. This is an application for review of the delegate’s decision.

6. The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing on 15 and 16 December 2022.

7. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is either a refugee or a person who meets the criterion for complementary protection. The Tribunal also needs to consider whether the applicant is a member of the same family unit as a person who is a refugee or meets the criterion for complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law, mandatory considerations and an extract of key provisions of the Act is set out in the Attachment.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Claims and evidence provided to the Department

   Protection visa application

9. According to information contained in his protection visa application, the applicant is [an age]-year-old Sierra Leonean national who was born in Freetown in Sierra Leone.

10. Based upon information in the protection visa application form that was completed by the applicant on 30 April 2018, the applicant:

    ·     lived at [Address 1], Freetown immediately before travelling to Australia

    ·     has the following family members in Sierra Leone:

    o   his wife [Wife A] (born [date]), whom he married in Bo [in] July 2010 and has been communicating with via WhatsApp since arriving in Australia

    o   [number] children with his wife:

    §  [names and dates of birth]

    o   [number] siblings:

    §  [names and dates of birth]

    ·     is Muslim

    ·     is a [Sportsperson 1]

    ·     completed his [schooling] in Sierra Leone between [specified years]

    ·     has been a non-compulsory member of the military service in Sierra Leone since [year] and has undertaken ‘[specified]’ duties in the military since [year].

11. In relation to his claims for protection, the applicant provided the following information in his application form:

    ·     He was part of the Sierra Leone [Sport 1] Group. They campaigned for the All People’s Congress (APC) against the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP).

    ·     The SLPP won the election in March 2018.

    ·     Members of the SLPP have violently attacked members of his [Sport 1] group. His friend was stabbed by SLPP gangs. He is afraid these gangs will attack him.

    ·     He is the [position 1] of the Sierra Leone [Sport 1] Group so he is well-known.

    ·     He thinks he will be killed by the SLPP gangs. The SLPP gangs have threatened to kill him when he returns. He will be attacked at the airport as they want to kill him when he returns. He will be attacked as soon as he returns to Sierra Leone. He is afraid for his safety at the airport.

    ·     No one is able to protect him from gang violence and attacks. Gangs work outside of authorities.

    Supporting documents

12. The applicant lodged the following documents with the Department in support of his protection visa application claims:

    ·various photographs in support of claims that:

    othreats have been received by the applicant and another [Sportsperson 1] named [Leader A] – Photographs of two undated WhatsApp messages which contain threats received from phone number [Number 1].

    oa fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend A] was harmed in Sierra Leone – A photograph of a man in a wheelchair with a notation that he was stabbed at night following the announcement of an election result. Another photograph shows the same man unharmed and posing with two other [sportspeople]. Another photograph depicts a handwritten medical certificate for [Friend A], [a Sportsperson1], who was admitted [in] April 2018 and discharged [later in] April 2018 for a ‘penetrating [injury]’.

    oa fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend B] was harmed in Sierra Leone – A photograph of a man with [his] arm in a makeshift bandage on what appears to be a hospital gurney receiving treatment.

    othe applicant supported the APC – A photograph of a crowd attending an outdoor rally in support of the APC. Another photograph of a dozen men purportedly holding a campaign meeting with [Official A] (APC politician, [Position 3] and the [Position 4] of [Sport 1 Association]). A copy of the applicant’s Sierra Leone [Sport 1 Association 2] I.D. Card (reference [number]) which includes the APC logo.

    ·the applicant’s Commonwealth Games Identification and Accreditation Pass.

    ·the applicant’s Sierra Leone passport (reference [number]) issued [in] 2015.

    Protection visa application interview

13. The applicant attended an interview with the Department in connection with his protection visa application on 7 June 2018. The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Krio and English languages.

14. The Tribunal has listened to a copy of the recording of the protection visa application interview and refers to it, where relevant, in the findings and reasons below. However, for the sake of clarity and thoroughness of the claims presented to the Department, the following additional evidence was provided by the applicant during the protection visa application interview:

    ·     He joined the army in [year] when fighting was taking place between Sierra Leone and Nigeria. He was not forcefully conscripted. Prior to joining the army, his mother had died. He was living with his [family members] at the time he joined the army. After an initial nine-month training period in [year], he was deployed to fight against the rebels in various parts of Sierra Leone until a ceasefire took effect in April 2002. During the civil war, he rose to the rank [specified] and was part of [unit]. He did not commit war crimes or any other abuses of war with civilians or looting.

    ·     He returned to Freetown after the civil war and remained in the infantry. He trained to become an [occupation] and then eventually became involved in [Sport 1].

    ·     He had never been political or supported any political party before he started campaigning for the APC in November 2017.

    ·     He started to support the APC at that time because the Sierra Leone [Sport 1] Association [Position 4], [named Official A], was also an APC Member of Parliament. Some of his family members were also APC supporters, including his [specified family members]. He liked the APC because that party had increased the salary of soldiers and spoke of improving electricity infrastructure and completing roadworks throughout Sierra Leone.

    ·     He was happy to support the APC because the [Sport 1 Association] [Position 4] favoured him and allowed him to compete. He was confident that he would receive a promotion if he supported the APC and they won the 2018 election.

    ·     He never was a member of the APC, but did join a group called ‘[Sport 1 Association 2]’. [Number] people joined [Sport 1 Association 2]. The leaders of [Sport 1 Association 2] were [Mr A] (Chairman), [Leader A] ([a Sportsperson1] and [position 2]), [Mr B] (a [Sport 1] coach), the applicant (a [Sportsperson 1] and [position 1]) and another man. Members of the group, including him, would campaign for the APC by conducting [Sport 1] displays in public places, such as parks, where youth would congregate. They would attract crowds. They would [play sport] in front of the crowd and when they felt the crowd was big enough, they would start campaigning. They would shout and chant for the APC. They would ask young people to support the APC at the election so that sports [might] improve. They would make favourable statements about the APC having improved the lives of Sierra Leoneans by developing roads and improving access to water. These [Sport 1] displays would happen between November 2017 and March 2018 in the lead-up to the 2018 election, often on a weekly basis and mostly in Freetown but also in Bo. [Official A], [Sport 1 Association] [Position 4] and APC politician was at some of these displays. In addition to the [Sport 1] displays, the applicant and other [Sport 1 Association 2] group members would sometimes go campaigning door to door.

    ·     He rode in [Official A’s] [vehicle] along with two other [sports people] during another APC election campaign outdoors. He and the two other [Sportsperson 1s] could not be seen as the [vehicle] windows were tinted.

    ·     In January and February 2018, [Mr C] (who is [associated with] the current Sierra Leonean President Julius Maada Bio) threatened him after training sessions at [Location 1] in Freetown. [Mr C] said that ‘when we win, we will show you who is in charge of this country’. The applicant feared [Mr C] had gangs who would harm him.

    ·     Two days after the 2018 Sierra Leone national election run-off results were announced in early April 2018, his brother took his wife and child away from their home situated at [Address 1], Freetown to the safety of the provincial town of Bo where she could live with her father.

    ·     He was not physically harmed because of his campaigning before he left Sierra Leone.

    ·     He fears harm if he returns to Sierra Leone because:

    o   threats had been received by another [Sportsperson 1] named [Leader A] (not the applicant), specifically two undated WhatsApp messages which contain threats from phone number [Number 1].

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend A] was stabbed on the day the election results were announced, rushed to hospital and survived.

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend B] was attacked. He broke his arm because he jumped a fence when trying to escape gangs who chased him. They left [him] on the ground.

    o   a soldier named [Soldier A] who had also campaigned for the APC was killed two weeks before the interview with the delegate. [Soldier A] was killed whilst he was travelling from [Village 1] to [Location 2] in [Village 2]. He assumed [Soldier A] had been killed by SLPP gangs, possibly [Gang 1] or some other retired soldiers.

    Summary of the delegate’s decision

15. The delegate’s reasoning in support of their decision to refuse the application is summarised as follows:

    ·     The delegate accepted the identity of the applicant as claimed, and that he is a [Sportsperson 1], and in Sierra Leone, [these sportspeople] may be of interest to political parties who are seeking to recruit [them] for campaign activities designed to increase voter engagement.

    ·     Whilst the delegate considered the applicant’s claim to be one of [number] [Sportsperson 1s] in [Sport 1 Association 2] who engaged in [Sport 1] demonstrations and spoke with young people about the APC, the delegate was not satisfied this amounted to the applicant being regarded as a prominent political activist. The delegate was prepared to accept the applicant had some level of involvement with the APC and had in fact played a role in campaigning for the APC in the 2018 election campaign.

    ·     The delegate considered independent country information concerning the Sierra Leone elections on 7 March 2018, including that there was some violence in both the lead-up to the election and following the announcement of the election results. However, the delegate was unable to locate information which corroborated the applicant’s claims of [Sportspersons 1] being stabbed and hospitalised and therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the images provided by the applicant were of [a sportsperson] associated with him who had been violently attacked because of their support for the APC.

    ·     With respect to the images of messages the applicant claimed to have received, the delegate considered that messages of that nature were easily contrived and could not be validated without further evidence. Nor was the delegate able to find any independent information to corroborate the applicant’s claims with respect to his friend, [Soldier A], who he claimed had been killed recently.

    ·     The delegate could not find reports of further violence following the elections and for this reason was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of harm upon his return to Sierra Leone.

    ·     The delegate further considered whether the applicant would face harm because he was a Sierra Leonean athlete who had absconded from his sports team and stayed in Australia to seek protection following a sporting event but concluded there was no evidence to suggest this was a possibility.

    ·     Ultimately, the delegate concluded the applicant would not face serious harm in Sierra Leone because of his support for the APC or because he had sought protection in Australia following the conclusion of the Commonwealth Games, and therefore, the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. For the same reasons, the delegate found the applicant did not face a real risk of suffering significant harm and thus, complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    Claims and evidence provided to the Tribunal

    The review application

16. On 18 July 2018, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal. The applicant was not represented in connection with his review application.

    Pre-hearing submissions and evidence

17. The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with any pre-hearing submissions or evidence.

    The hearing: supporting documents and oral evidence

18. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 and 16 December 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Krio and English languages.

19. At the outset of the hearing, the applicant provided his original Sierra Leonean passport issued [in] 2019. The Tribunal made a photocopy of the biodata page of this document and then returned the document to the applicant during the hearing.

20. Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested the Tribunal take oral evidence from two witnesses in Sierra Leone, namely [Official A] and [Mr D]. The Tribunal attempted to telephone each of these witnesses during the hearing but they did not answer. During the hearing, the applicant requested the Tribunal take oral evidence from his wife, namely [Wife A]. The Tribunal telephoned her during the hearing and she also gave evidence. Where relevant, the oral evidence of the applicant and his wife is discussed in the Tribunal’s findings and reasons below.

    Post-hearing submissions and evidence

21. The applicant did not provide the Tribunal with any post-hearing submissions or evidence.

    CONSIDERATION OF Claims and evidence

    Nationality: Country of reference/receiving country

22. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Sierra Leone and provided to the Department a copy of his Sierra Leonean passport issued [in] 2015. The delegate was satisfied that the applicant was using his own identity and documents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Sierra Leone. The Tribunal accepts that Sierra Leone is his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection.

    Credibility

23. In determining whether the applicant is entitled to protection in Australia, it is necessary to make findings of fact on relevant matters. In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal accepts that the benefit of the doubt be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. The Tribunal is also mindful that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by an applicant, but is unable to make that finding with confidence, it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true.[1] However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.[2]

    [1] MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220

    [2] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547

24. The mere fact that a person claims fear from harm for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or for the reason claimed. Likewise, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not itself substantiate that such a risk exists or that it amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out.[3] Section 5AAA of the Act makes clear that it is the applicant’s responsibility to specify all particulars of a claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish that claim. The Tribunal does not have any responsibility or obligation to specify, or assist the applicant in specifying, any particulars of his or her claims. Nor does it have any responsibility or obligation to establish, or assist in establishing, the claim. It remains for the applicant to present evidence and advance arguments adequate to enable the Tribunal to make a favourable decision. There is no burden upon the Tribunal to make out a case that an applicant has failed to adequately advance.[4]

    [3] MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 91, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169–170

    [4] Sun v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 52 at [69]

25. The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and evaluating the applicant’s evidence.

26. In the present case, the Tribunal takes into account the applicant’s evident lack of familiarity with the Tribunal setting and his limited English language proficiency. With this in mind, the Tribunal asked straightforward questions during the hearing, and paraphrased and checked the applicant’s responses where necessary.

27. The Tribunal does not consider things like minor changes in dates, minor details omitted from claims in the written application, or minor mistakes and omissions from an applicant’s personal history would, on their own, undermine an applicant’s credibility. However, when the evidence set out here, some of it on critical matters, is considered cumulatively the Tribunal finds that these minor errors, inconsistencies and omissions together take on more significance and so have been given weight.

1. The Tribunal formed the impression that the applicant’s protection claims drew on incidents and experiences that he had in Sierra Leone, but that he tended to exaggerate and misconstrue the consequences of these, with a view to bolstering his claims for protection. The Tribunal’s full assessment follows.

   Independent information

2. In March 2018, the opposition SLPP candidate, Julius Maada Bio, won the presidential election in a second-round run-off. In the 2018 parliamentary election, the APC retained its majority in parliament. Following a High Court decision in May 2019 to remove 10 APC members of parliament for allegedly violating electoral laws during the election campaign, and replace them with nine SLPP members, with the tenth to be chosen through a by-election, the SLPP became the largest party in parliament. In March 2021, following a by-election, the SLPP held 59 seats in parliament and the APC 58 seats. In June 2021, it was reported that the SLPP may have lost its majority in parliament after the National Electoral Commission declared an SLPP Member of Parliament the newly elected Paramount Chief of Sambaia Chiefdom.[5]

   [5] 'Sierra Leone: 20211008163242 - Political Situation - Political Parties - Violence - Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP) - All People’s Congress (APC) - Activists - Journalists - Poro Society - Recruitment - Athletes Overstaying Abroad - Tribal Affiliations', Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS), 19 November 2021, 20211123103128

3. The US Department of State (USDOS) report on human rights practices in Sierra Leone for 2020 states that ‘Sierra Leone is a constitutional republic with a directly elected president and a unicameral legislature’.[6] The report continues:

   In March 2018 the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party [SLPP] candidate, Julius Maada Bio, won the presidential elections. In January 2018 parliamentary elections, the All People’s Congress [APC] won a plurality of the seats. After the December 12 election re-run and by-elections, the Sierra Leone People’s Party and the All People’s Congress each held 58 seats. Observers found these elections to be largely free and fair.[7]

   [6] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020 - Sierra Leone', US Department of State, 30 March 2021, Executive Summary, p.1, 20210409135837

   [7] Ibid.

4. Other credible sources also reported on the assessment that the elections were found to be largely free and fair. For example, the 2021 Freedom House report[8] and the BTI 2020 country report on Sierra Leone.[9] The BTI report also indicated, however, that in mobilising the electorate, ‘both parties resorted to exploiting existing ethno-regional divides within the country… As in the past, political mass support was generated by accentuating ethnicity rather than presenting competing political visions and programs. This resulted in the deepening of societal antagonisms and contravened the peace consolidation processes’.[10]

   [8] 'Freedom in the World 2021 - Sierra Leone', Freedom House, 2021, A1, pp.2-3, 20211001084356

   [9] ‘BTI 2020 Country Report Sierra Leone', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020, p.3, 20200430165835

   [10] Ibid.

5. The BTI report further states that ‘[o]rganized violence remained at a fairly low level during the review period [from 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2019], but the potential for mass violence remains high’. Antagonism between the APC and the SLPP had ‘led to violent clashes in the run-up to the general elections in March 2018. This was not unexpected. Despite an agreement to prevent violence between supporters of each party, signed by both parties in 2009, their radicalized youth organizations are prone to the use of violence’.[11]

   [11] Ibid., p.25

6. An April 2018 article in The Economist refers to ‘[t]ensions based on ethnic, political and regional divisions’ simmering throughout the 2018 election campaign. When the result was announced, ‘[s]upporters of [Sierra] Leone People’s Party (SLPP) attacked followers of the APC, which previously held the presidency. Much of the violence’ had ‘taken place in the SLPP’s southern strongholds. But more than 100 people’ had ‘also fled Kono, a volatile swing state in the east’.[12]

   [12] ‘A little hope in Sierra Leone - Sierra Leone’s new president has made big promises’, The Economist, 14 April 2018, 20211116182555

7. A number of by-elections have been held since the March 2018 elections, helping the SLPP consolidate its power.[13] The practice of importing groups of youths/thugs to intimidate and harass communities prior to by-elections has occurred in recent years. Publicly, the APC and SLPP tend to blame incidents of low-level violence on each other.[14]

   [13] ‘Sierra Leone: How the SLPP took power. And then took some more’, L Enria, J Hitchen, African Arguments, 28 October 2019, 20211118133107; ‘The new government’s tense struggle for control a year on’, K De Bruijne, African Arguments, 18 April 2019, 20211116075802

   [14] ‘President Bio's Allegation Dismays APC, Calls for Peace and Justice’, Concord Times, 13 May 2020, 20220317150919

8. The USDOS report on human rights practices in Sierra Leone for 2020 indicates that the non-governmental organisation (NGO) the Center for Accountability and Rule of Law, reported there were clashes in Freetown between supporters of the APC and SLPP in January 2020. In an incident on 27 January 2020, ‘27 persons were reportedly wounded. Police arrested 19 persons after the clash; all were later released on bail’.[15]

   [15] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020 - Sierra Leone', US Department of State, 30 March 2021, Section 3, p.13, 20210409135837

9. A July 2020 US Overseas Security Advisory Council crime and safety report on Sierra Leone states that ‘[p]olitical violence is sporadic and normally increases during election periods’. The report also states that ‘[p]olitical demonstrations and rallies are generally peaceful, but sporadic clashes do occur, often instigated by individuals within the crowds. Participants at political rallies are easily incited and may use weapons of opportunity, including sticks and rocks. Strong rivalries exist in Sierra Leone; participants at large demonstrations can become aggressive toward one another and the police. The police deploy crowd-control techniques, including the firing of warning shots and use of tear gas’.[16]

   [16] 'Sierra Leone 2020 Crime & Safety Report', Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), 4 July 2020, 20210924101412

10. An October 2019 article from African Arguments indicates that in the 18 months since the general election, Sierra Leone had held by-elections that had ‘been marred by political violence and accusations of malpractice’. The article refers to the comments of Marcella Samba-Sesay from the Campaign for Good Governance, who said that by-elections in Sierra Leone had ‘become battlegrounds for “a [wider] fight between the APC and SLPP that permeates every space in society, including state institutions”’.[17]

    [17] ‘Sierra Leone: How the SLPP took power. And then took some more.’, Enria, L & Hitchen, J, African Arguments, 28 October 2019, 20211118133107

11. In May 2020, it was reported that over the previous few weeks, sporadic violent clashes had occurred in parts of Sierra Leone, ‘leaving over a dozen people dead, many hospitalised and property destroyed. Reasons for this unrest are unknown but have been widely attributed to coronavirus restrictions’. In an address to the nation, ‘President Bio accused the main opposition, All Peoples Congress (APC), of aiding and abetting the violence by financing, planning and inciting crimes he labelled as “terrorist attacks”’.[18] The government said the unrest was ‘part of a calculated plot by the APC to fulfil a threat by its defeated candidate in 2018 elections to make the country ungovernable’.[19] The APC denied the accusations.[20]

    [18] 'Covid-19 restrictions give rise to political tensions in Sierra Leone', Mail and Guardian Online (South Africa), 18 May 2020, 20200616121306

    [19] 'Sierra Leone president accuses opposition of 'terrorizing' state', Daily Nation - Kenya, 9 May 2020, 20200511104901

    [20] 'Sierra Leone's president accuses main opposition party of inciting violence', Reuters, 10 May 2020, 20200619104919

12. Observers said ‘that accusing the main opposition in such strong terms’ would ‘only aggravate the political tension’ that had ‘been brewing’. This came ‘off the back of the arrests and detention of high profile former ministers in the APC administration’, including ‘Alfred Paolo Conteh, a retired major and former minister of defence, who was accused of treason as well as possession of undeclared weapons. Another arrestee is Sylvia Olayinka Blyden, a journalist and politician who served as former minister of social welfare, gender and children’s affairs, who was arrested for incitement and subversion, according to the Sierra Leone Police’.[21]

    [21] 'Covid-19 restrictions give rise to political tensions in Sierra Leone', Mail and Guardian Online (South Africa), 18 May 2020, 20200616121306

13. Media articles indicate that the SLPP and APC tend to blame politically motivated violence on each other.[22]

    [22] See for example, Sierra Leone's president accuses main opposition party of inciting violence’, Reuters, 10 May 2020, 20220317144122, President Bio's Allegation Dismays APC, Calls for Peace and Justice’, Concord Times, 13 May 2020, 20220317150919

14. In its February 2022 country report on Sierra Leone, Bertelsmann Stiftung indicate that there are ongoing risks of violence surrounding elections when parties appeal to ethno-regional divide (tribalism) which is typical.[23] This risk extends to by-elections and re-run elections. A number of by-elections, re-run elections and paramount chieftaincy elections took place during the reporting period and more are scheduled for 2021. In a hotly contested by- election in Constituency 110, Freetown Peninsula, in December 2020, which was overshadowed by violence and allegations of fraud, the APC candidate won.[24]

    [23] ‘BTI 2022 Country Report - Sierra Leone', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 22 February 2022, p.9, 20220301124010

    [24] Ibid., p.10

15. Bertelsmann Stiftung report that ‘[i]mpoverished youth are particularly prone to political indoctrination and instrumentalization’ and that an ‘enduring lack of socioeconomic opportunities may tempt desperate young men to resort to violence’.[25]

    [25] Ibid., p.35

16. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) considered the prevalence of political violence in Sierra Leone since the end of the civil war 20 years earlier, finding that political violence had increased since 2014/15:

    By early 2020 Sierra Leone found itself at levels of political violence that were higher than at any time since the end of the war. Some months in 2018 and 2019 show levels of political violence that are comparable with periods during the civil war.[26]

    [26] ACLED, When Emerging Democracies Breed Violence – Sierra Leone 20 years after the civil war, 2020, available at: ndael_WANEP-SL_2020webpub.pdf , p.10

17. ACLED reports that official security forces, militias and members of the SLPP and APC are active perpetrators of political violence in Sierra Leone:

    The second most active group are official security forces, most notably police and military forces, including various branches such as the Presidential Guard and the Operational Support Division (OSD). From the data, it is clear that the police forces are more involved than the military in violence. Police are particularly responsible for most violence against civilians events since the end of 2017. Both the larger share of police activity vis-à-vis the military, as well as their overall involvement in violence against civilians, is roughly comparable with other countries in the sub-region.

    A third category of perpetrators are militias and members of the SLPP and APC. It is an open secret that both the SLPP and APC have well-developed security outfits orbiting both parties since at least since 2007, when high-ranking commanders from all former warring factions were recruited into political parties. Party militias are divided into various branches. Ex- combatant commanders generally are on top of the hierarchy, serve as close protection units to party leaders, and run paid and relatively professional party intelligence systems. Next to them are semi-institutionalized militias around the party offices, headed by some notorious leaders who are directly deployable when needed. Orbiting around these militias are large groups of party supporters, more or less experienced in using violence, who move in and out of these semi-institutionalized militias and can be called upon in times of need. Finally, there are specific groups to each party that in varying degrees can control violence. The SLPP has, in addition to its militias, a very large defensive and well-organized structure called the “Benghazi Unit” or “Party Marshalls.” This structure has a presence throughout the country and consists of older ex-combatants, among others.[27]

    [27] Ibid., pp.15–16

18. By way of recent example of political violence in Sierra Leone, on 10 August 2022, a protest about the cost of living spiralled into deadly clashes between security forces and young men calling for President Bio to resign. Violence erupted and official reports indicate that 27 civilians and six police officers were killed. In the days following the protest, police conducted raids on ‘hideouts for perpetrators’. According to police, during one such raid in Makeni, Hassan Dumbuya (also known as Evangelist Samson) was killed in crossfire. Hassan Dumbuya was a prominent APC member and social media influencer and the APC has called for an independent probe into his death.[28]

    [28] Department of Home Affairs, Standard Q & A Report, Sierra Leone: 20221111104133 – Political Violence (6 December 2022)

    Assessment of claims

19. The applicant fears that he would be subjected to serious physical harm and killed if he returns to Sierra Leone because of his campaigning for the APC and role in [Sport 1 Association 2]. He believes that he will be targeted because he is well-known in Sierra Leone because of his [Sport 1] career success and his profile as a military officer. He states he fears that if he returns to Sierra Leone his life will be in danger from SLPP gangs and expects to be identified and located by SLPP gangs upon his return to Sierra Leone because he previously worked near the airport and airport staff will recognise him upon his return to the country.

20. On the basis of the documentation before it, the consistent evidence of the applicant across his application and at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is [an age]-year-old man who lived in Freetown immediately before travelling to Australia. The Tribunal also accepts that he is married to [Wife A], is a Muslim, is a [Sportsperson 1] and completed his [schooling] in Sierra Leone between [specified years]. The Tribunal also accepts that he has been a non-compulsory member of the military service in Sierra Leone since [year] and was a [Sportsperson 1] [since] September 1999.

21. In determining whether the applicant would suffer persecution involving serious harm on return to Sierra Leone due to his association with the APC, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence about his involvement in campaigning for the APC as part of the [Sport 1 Association 2].

22. The Tribunal explored the applicant’s knowledge and involvement with the APC. Overall, the applicant appeared to have a basic knowledge of matters associated with the APC insofar as they related to his own interests. He was for example able to speak knowledgeably about the APC indicating support for military personnel by way of increasing their salaries while he was in the army. He was also able to speak about the campaigning activities of [Sport 1 Association 2] in support of the APC in the lead-up to the 2018 election. The Tribunal accepts aspects of the applicant’s evidence at hearing in this regard as credible and accepts that he undertook [Sport 1] demonstrations as part of [Sport 1 Association 2] in order to promote the APC, particularly among youth. There was an expectation that he advocate for the APC through his participation in [Sport 1 Association 2] and the Tribunal accepts that he may be identified as an APC supporter in some communities through this engagement.

23. On this basis, the Tribunal accepts the applicant was part of [Sport 1 Association 2] which campaigned for the APC against the SLPP in the lead-up to the 2018 election.

24. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it and finds that the applicant promoted the APC in his role as a member of [Sport 1 Association 2] in the lead-up to the 2018 election, and in this capacity, he had some profile in the community as an APC supporter and campaigner.

25. However, the Tribunal is less convinced about the applicant’s claims regarding the level and profile of his political activism on behalf of the APC. The Tribunal notes the applicant has never been a member of the APC nor otherwise promoted the APC in other fora such as social media. Taking into account the fact that the applicant has only promoted the APC in a space of about four months prior to his departure from Sierra Leone in March 2018 and has not engaged in any political activities prior to that period and since arriving in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant held a high-profile role in the APC or would be recognised as having ever held a high-profile role in the APC. While the applicant did promote the APC in the lead-up to the 2018 election, including by chanting slogans after [Sport 1] displays, he did not address APC supporters on political issues in public fora.

26. The Tribunal does not accept because he had been a military officer and was the [position 1] of the national [Sport 1] team during the 2018 Commonwealth Games that this would make him of great renown in Sierra Leone such that he would be regarded as having held a prominent role in the APC.

27. On this basis, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was a key member of the APC or a strong figurehead of the APC or a well-known APC supporter.

    Political violence

28. On the documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant came to Australia as an athlete and member of the Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games [Sport 1] team and participated at the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast in March 2018. The Tribunal accepts that while the Games were taking place, the SLPP, the opposing party to the APC, was narrowly successful in gaining government in the 2018 general elections, and the new SLPP President, Julius Maada Bio, was installed.

29. In determining whether the applicant would suffer persecution involving serious harm on return to Sierra Leone due to his association with, and promotion of, the APC as accepted above, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that:

    ·     during January or February 2018, [Mr C] threatened the applicant because he refused to campaign for the SLPP and support [Mr C]’s [relative]’s bid to win the election

    ·     after the applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2018:

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Leader A] (who was also in Australia competing at the Games) received two WhatsApp text messages which contained threats from phone number [Number 1].

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend A] was stabbed by an SLPP gang member on the day the election results were announced, rushed to hospital and survived.

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend B] was chased by an SLPP gang member and injured himself when trying to escape.

    o   a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend C] was shot with a witch gun[29] but survived.

    o   a soldier named [Soldier A] who had also campaigned for the APC was killed two weeks before the interview with the delegate. [Soldier A] was killed whilst he was travelling from [Village 1] to [Location 2] in [Village 2]. He assumed [Soldier A] had been killed by SLPP gangs, possibly [Gang 1] or some other retired soldiers.

    o   he instructed his brother to take his wife and child to her hometown of Bo, a couple of days after the final election results were announced in April 2018, as it was safer there.

    [29] Superstitious belief in the ‘witch gun’ is common among the peoples of Guinea and Sierra Leone. The belief is that people can shoot and kill others spiritually using this ‘weapon’. Most often cases of mysterious or premature deaths are attributed to ‘witch gun’ attack. For instance, a young person who dies suddenly or a middle-aged person who collapses and dies without showing any sign of sickness or a powerful and successful person who dies after a brief illness. These are often incidents categorised as unnatural deaths arising out of instances of misfortune believed to be caused by enemies using a ‘witch gun’. For further information about ‘witch gun’ belief and practices in Sierra Leone, see Igwe, L., ‘“Witch Gun” and Superstition in Guinea and Sierra Leone’, Sahara Reporters, 7 September 2013

    [Mr C’s] threats

1. At hearing, the Tribunal explored the basis, nature and frequency of the threats made by [Mr C]. The applicant explained that he and [Mr C] had known each other prior to the election because they were both sportsmen who trained at [Location 1] in Freetown. [Mr C] was a [sportsperson] who had requested the applicant campaign for the SLPP, instead of APC, so as to improve the prospects of his [relative] Julius Maada Bio’s electoral success. The applicant refused that request in favour of supporting [Official A], the [Sport 1 Association] [Position 4] who was an APC politician. This resulted in [Mr C] threatening that he would destroy the applicant’s career and kill him. The threats were made at [Location 1] in Freetown prior to the election and intensified once [Sport 1 Association 2] had formed.

2. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have been spoken to by [Mr C] in such terms but is unwilling to accept that these comments amount to politically motivated intimidation and harassment that would persist beyond the election cycle. As indicated above, country information before the Tribunal indicates that politically motivated harassment, intimidation and occasional violence are commonplace, and have been escalating in recent years, in Sierra Leone. Politicians from both main parties tend to promote tribalism to gain support and this leads to regional divisions and violence. Violence is ongoing in the sense that it recurs during elections but the activities generally ease following the conclusion of an election. The Tribunal’s conclusions in this regard are further supported by the fact that there is no evidence of any direct threats received by the applicant from [Mr C] since he arrived in Australia.

3. Concerned about the lack of evidence of any ongoing threat from [Mr C], the Tribunal explored at hearing the applicant’s knowledge of [Mr C]. Of concern to the Tribunal was the applicant’s lack of knowledge of [Mr C’s] activities after the election, particularly since the applicant’s central claim was that [Mr C] was going to harm and kill him by ordering an SLPP gang to do so upon the applicant’s return to Sierra Leone. The Tribunal raised this concern with the applicant who explained that he only knew that [Mr C] was in Sierra Leone and controlling a [different sporting] association. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has exaggerated the nature of the threats made by [Mr C] and the degree to which he fears harm as it would expect the applicant to have continued to monitor the activities of [Mr C] whilst in Australia if indeed those threats were genuine or would be perceived by him to be genuine.

4. The Tribunal also raised its concern with the applicant at hearing that he had only ever campaigned for the APC between November 2017 and March 2018 and did not have a high profile as an APC campaigner or supporter. The Tribunal drew to the applicant’s attention that recent events, including the protests on 10 August 2022 and their aftermath, indicated that the SLPP and SLPP gangs have not targeted persons who did not have a high profile and have not been politically active. Taking into account this information, the Tribunal invited the applicant to address its concern that there was not a real chance of him facing any harm in Sierra Leone. The applicant responded by way of insisting that he has a high profile in Sierra Leone because he had been a soldier and had served in the army with men who are now close to President Bio, including some ministers. The applicant further insisted that he feared harm from such persons now that the SLPP is in power.

5. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence to support the claim that he is personally known to male colleagues from the military who are now close to President Bio. Despite this lack of documentary evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to inquire further in relation to the strength of this claim. Noting that the claim in relation to the agent of his persecution now expanded to include the former military colleagues close to President Bio who knew him, who would presumably instruct SLPP gangs to harm him upon his return to Sierra Leone, the Tribunal then asked why he had not raised this claim earlier and received the following response:

   Because you didn’t ask me. Anything you ask me, I will explain that. I know that [Mr C] will target me because we always argue in [Location 1]. If we aren’t in the country it would be easy for us. [Mr C] threatened me when we were in [Location 1].

6. The Tribunal does not regard this explanation as reasonable as the applicant had sufficient opportunity to raise this claim with the Department, either in writing or at interview with the delegate. The Tribunal expects that the applicant would have previously advised the Department about his fear that the SLPP gangs were to be instructed to harm him by the men he knew from his military days who were now close to the President. The Tribunal’s expectation in this regard is supported by the fact that the applicant had previously been very specific about [Mr C] instructing such gangs to harm him. Given the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why this claim in relation to his former military colleagues had not been provided to the delegate before they made their decision, the Tribunal draws an adverse inference regarding the credibility of these claims pursuant to s 423A of the Act.

7. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing, the applicant stated that he has previously been in jail in Sierra Leone with other politicians and high-profile military personnel. He insisted that this was relevant because it indicated that he was of high profile and would thereby be targeted by the SLPP and its gangs. Again, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence to support this new claim that he was in jail in Sierra Leone. Despite this lack of documentary evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to inquire further and sought an explanation as to why he had not raised this claim earlier. The applicant insisted that he had raised this claim with the delegate at interview. The Tribunal has listened to the delegate interview recording and finds that the applicant did not raise this claim at interview. Given the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why this claim had not been provided to the delegate before they made their decision, the Tribunal draws an adverse inference regarding the credibility of these claims pursuant to s 423A of the Act.

   Threatening text messages from an anonymous source

8. At hearing, the applicant clarified that another Sierra Leonean [Sportsperson 1] and fellow APC supporter, namely [Leader A], had also travelled to Australia to participate in the Commonwealth Games. Contrary to the information provided to the Department and the Tribunal, it became apparent at hearing that the applicant did not receive these messages on his mobile phone when he stated that these messages were received by [Leader A] while they were in Australia soon after the final results of the 2018 Sierra Leone election had been announced in early April 2018. [Leader A] received two WhatsApp messages from phone number [Number 1] which contained threats to him and his wife and family. The two text messages sent to [Leader A] read as follows:

   You think I will not get your number but now that I have your number. You just wait and see you were fighting against SLPP but now is our turn because we are in power. I will personally kill you the day I set my eyes on you. If you know what is good for you, just stay where you are because if I failed to kill my colleagues will not fail to kill you. As for your wife we will find her.

   You and your entire family is going to pay for what you did against our party. The damage you cause, you are going to pay with your life. We are following your movement, the day you step your feet on the airport of Sierra Leone just say your last prayer. you change your number today i am going to get the new one. The only thing that saves you now is because you out of the country.

9. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had made any effort to determine the source of these messages in order to assess whether the threats were genuine and would conceivably apply to him even though they were not sent to him. The applicant believed that [Mr C] sent the messages to [Leader A] but never spoke with [Leader A] about who may have sent those messages to him. The Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant that the messages were not genuine, particularly given that he had made no attempt to discuss the identity of the sender with [Leader A] who was the recipient of those messages. The applicant was unable to address the Tribunal’s concern but simply insisted that the sender was [Mr C], presumably because he and other [Sportsperson 1s] who had supported the APC had been threatened by [Mr C] in Sierra Leone.

10. The Tribunal does not accept that the text messages sent to [Leader A] were directed to the applicant as they were not sent to him and are generic in their terms. Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s insistence at hearing that the messages were sent to [Leader A] by [Mr C] is indicative of a willingness to support his own narrative, particularly given the applicant’s deliberate decision not to speak with [Leader A] about who sent the messages. The Tribunal is unwilling to accept that the messages are genuine threats directed to the applicant or could be reasonably perceived as such given the applicant’s deliberate decision to make no effort whatsoever to ascertain the identity of the person who sent those messages.

    Harm sustained by certain [Sportperson 1s] in Sierra Leone

11. At hearing, the Tribunal explored with the applicant his claims pertaining to the harm sustained by fellow [Sportsperson 1] [Friend A]. He stated that [Friend A] was stabbed by SLPP gang members in Freetown one evening while he was out walking. He also stated that the photographic evidence in this regard had been provided to him by [Leader A].

12. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that this evidence included a photograph of a handwritten medical certificate for [Friend A], a [Sportsperson 1], who was admitted [in] April 2018 and discharged [later in] April 2018 to a hospital in Freetown for treatment of a ‘penetrating [injury]’. The Tribunal noted that the medical certificate relating to [Friend A’s] admission to hospital documents three weeks of treatment after he was stabbed soon after the final election results were announced in early April 2018. The document states that [Friend A] stayed in hospital [between dates in] April 2018 and was treated by [a named doctor] and underwent an exploratory [procedure specified]. While the procedure was spelt correctly, the handwritten certificate, whose author is unknown, specifies that the ‘[Hospital 1]’ in Freetown was where the treatment occurred. The [Hospital 1 spelling variant] is [a] hospital in Freetown and there is no ‘[Hospital 1]’ in Sierra Leone. The Tribunal raised this discrepancy with the applicant, noting that while the author of the document spelt ‘exploratory [procedure specified]’ correctly, they could not correctly spell the hospital’s name which suggested that the person who wrote this document was not in any way connected to the hospital. By way of response, the applicant stated that he did not know who wrote the medical certificate but insisted that it must have been a spelling mistake as some people in Sierra Leone do not know how to spell correctly. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation for this discrepancy in the document particularly given that the more complex procedure ‘exploratory [procedure specified]’ was correctly spelt. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that the name of the author of the document is not specified. Therefore, the Tribunal is unwilling to rely upon the document or give it any weight.

13. The Tribunal is also unpersuaded by the applicant’s evidence that [Friend A] was stabbed because he was an APC supporter as the applicant neither spoke with [Friend A] about the incident nor provided the Tribunal with any explanation as to when the photographs of [Friend A] were taken and by whom.

14. In light of the Tribunal’s finding rejecting the applicant’s claim to be an active and high-profile APC supporter, the lack of any history of past harm from local SLPP members and the abovementioned concern in relation to the authenticity of the medical certificate, the Tribunal finds that this claim lacks credibility.

15. At hearing, the Tribunal also explored with the applicant his claims pertaining to a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend B]. During the hearing, the Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant’s documentary evidence in this regard and noted that there was no explanation of when the picture of [Friend B] was taken, who gave the applicant that photographic evidence and who chased [Friend B]. During this inquiry, the applicant stated that [Friend B] had sustained the injury to his arm when he jumped out of a window at the back of his house while escaping an SLPP gang member. This evidence was significantly different from previous evidence the applicant provided to the delegate at interview whereby it had been claimed that [Friend B] broke his arm because he fell off a fence while escaping from an SLPP gang member. The Tribunal raised this inconsistency with the applicant at hearing who simply insisted that [Friend B] jumped out a window and broke his left arm.

16. In light of the Tribunal’s finding rejecting the applicant’s claim to be an active and high-profile APC supporter, the lack of any history of past harm from local SLPP members and the abovementioned inconsistency in his account of this incident, the Tribunal finds that this claim lacks credibility.

17. At hearing, the Tribunal also explored with the applicant his claims pertaining to a fellow [Sportsperson 1] named [Friend C]. The applicant stated that [Friend C] had been shot with a traditional witch gun and was ill for a period but survived. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that he had never previously mentioned [Friend C] or the harm sustained by him. By way of response, the applicant indicated that he had learnt of this incident after his interview with the delegate from a fellow Commonwealth Games team member who had been in contact with a person named [Mr E] who told him that [Friend C] had been injured. The Tribunal is unprepared to give any weight to this claim for three reasons. Firstly, the Tribunal has no documentary evidence or other oral evidence corroborating this incident. Secondly, there is no acceptable medical evidence available to the Tribunal which details the nature of any injuries sustained by [Friend C] and how such injuries may have been caused. Thirdly, the applicant has neither verified, nor made any effort to verify, the nature of this incident with [Friend C]. These reasons, cumulatively, lead the Tribunal to conclude that no weight can be attributed to this claim.

    Harm sustained by others in Sierra Leone

18. At hearing, the Tribunal explored with the applicant the relevance of various photographic evidence that had been lodged with the Tribunal on 9 December 2022. This material was provided to the Tribunal with no explanation as to its provenance and relevance to the applicant’s case.

19. The applicant said that he received these photographs through a WhatsApp group but could not explain why he provided the Tribunal with a photograph of an unidentified naked man in a recumbent pose whose penis was partially concealed by toilet tissue. The applicant did explain that some of the photographs were taken recently in Freetown after the 10 August 2022 protests. One photograph depicted a person sitting on a hospital bed with a bandage on his arm. The applicant stated that this person was an ex-soldier he knew [who] had been attacked by an SLPP gang. Another photograph depicted a person [undertaking Sport 1] with the letters ‘RIP’ superimposed on the photograph. The applicant stated that this man was [Mr F] who had died after having been shot with a witch gun.

20. While the photographs show individuals who the applicant claims to have been harmed, in light of the independent evidence outlined above, those photographs in themselves are not probative of the harm that he claims to face upon his return to Sierra Leone. At best, the photographs support the applicant’s assertion that individuals are harmed in Sierra Leone, but are of little probative value in relation to the claim that he will be harmed by an SLPP gang influenced by [Mr C] upon his return to Sierra Leone.

21. At hearing, the Tribunal also explored with the applicant his claims pertaining to a soldier named [Soldier A] who had campaigned for the APC and was killed two weeks before the interview with the delegate took place. At interview, the applicant told the delegate that [Soldier A] was killed whilst travelling from [Village 1] to [Location 2] in [Village 2]. The applicant also told the delegate that he assumed [Soldier A] had been killed by SLPP gangs, possibly [Gang 1] or some other retired soldiers. At hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he did not know who killed [Soldier A] as he was in Australia at the time of that incident. The Tribunal is unprepared to give any weight to this evidence as the applicant can only speculate on who killed [Soldier A] and their reason for doing so. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that there is a sufficient nexus between this incident which occurred over four years ago and any risk that the applicant faces now or in the foreseeable future.

22. Finally, the applicant briefly raised at hearing other claimed instances of persons known to him having been harmed in Sierra Leone. These claims had not been raised with the Department before the delegate made their decision. Furthermore, no documentary or other oral evidence was provided to the Department or the Tribunal in relation to these claims prior to the hearing. In the absence of such documentary evidence, and in light of the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the credibility of other claimed instances of harm described above where documentation has been provided, the Tribunal is not prepared to give any weight to these claims. Furthermore, in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to why these claims had not been provided to the delegate before they made their decision, the Tribunal draws an adverse inference regarding the credibility of these claims pursuant to s 423A of the Act.

    Safe harbour of the applicant’s wife in Bo after the 2018 election

23. The Tribunal notes that neither the applicant nor his wife or their children have experienced any direct harm from SLPP supporters or gangs before or since the March 2018 elections.

24. At hearing, the applicant explained that shortly after the announcement of the 2018 election results he became concerned about the safety of his wife [Wife A] in Freetown. He explained that he asked his brother [Brother A] to chaperone his wife to the safety of her father’s home in the provincial town of Bo. However, his wife appeared to give inconsistent evidence whereby she stated that [Brother A] took her to the home of a woman named [Ms A] in Bo. The Tribunal clarified with the applicant’s wife that [Ms A] was not related to her or the applicant. The Tribunal then raised this inconsistency with the applicant who had been present while his wife gave evidence. The applicant explained that he told his brother to take [Wife A] to live with her father in Bo but because there was no room at her father’s house so she ended up living elsewhere. The Tribunal is prepared to accept this explanation.

25. However, it then became apparent during the hearing that the applicant’s wife and children had recently left Bo in early December 2022 to resume their residence at [Address 1] in Freetown. This was the address they had fled upon the applicant’s advice in 2018. Interested in determining when the applicant’s family returned to Freetown, the applicant maintained that they would be safe in the family’s compound at Freetown which is situated at [Address 1]. The Tribunal then asked the applicant to provide some evidence of his wife returning to Freetown only two weeks earlier such as text message correspondence between him and his wife in which the move was discussed. The applicant explained that no such messages existed because he only telephones his wife. Taking into account the fact that both the applicant and his wife have access to mobile telephones and have been apart for almost five years, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s explanation in this regard for the absence of text messages to be implausible. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s wife is now in Freetown, it holds doubts in relation to when she returned to Freetown. In any case, the applicant’s confirmation at hearing that his wife is now in Freetown indicates that the applicant believes Freetown is safer for her now than it was after the 2018 election.

    Overall findings in relation to the applicant’s political activities, expression and profile

1. Taking into account the accepted evidence in relation to the nature of the applicant’s political activities in Sierra Leone and whilst living in Australia as described above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not garnered any significant profile as an APC supporter such that he would be of any interest to SLPP gangs if he were to return to Sierra Leone.

2. It is also worth noting that when asked at hearing whether he would express any political opinions or somehow be politically active if he returned to Sierra Leone by supporting the APC, the applicant did not engage with this question apart from insisting that he cannot support anyone, was not in Sierra Leone, was not a politician and did not want to return to Sierra Leone.

3. On the available evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant holds a political opinion that motivates him to speak out or become engaged in Sierra Leonean political issues or campaign again for the APC.

4. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s short period of campaigning for the APC was primarily undertaken to advance his [Sport 1] career which he believed would best occur through the APC winning the 2018 election in Sierra Leone. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant would not be perceived by the SLPP or SLPP gangs of having a political opinion opposed to the SLPP such that he would be targeted, harmed or indeed killed. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal takes into account the nature and level of campaigning that the applicant undertook in support of the APC in the lead-up to the 2018 election, as assessed above.

   Assessment: refugee criterion

   Political opinion

5. The Tribunal now assesses whether, in light of the above findings, and having regard to other relevant factors – in particular country information on the applicant’s future conduct – there is a real chance of him experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution if he returns to Sierra Leone (for the reason of his political opinion, actual or imputed, or for any similar reason enumerated in s 5J(1)).

6. The Tribunal has found above that the applicant has campaigned in support of the APC in the lead-up to the 2018 elections in Sierra Leone. It accepts that he approves of the APC, but is not satisfied that he has a political opinion that extends beyond that general view. It accepts that he was involved in some incidents with [Mr C] whilst training at [Location 1] in Freetown where he was threatened but finds that he has exaggerated the degree to which those threats can be taken seriously and the degree to which his campaigning activities in late 2017/early 2018 were, or indeed would continue to be, of any interest to the SLPP, [Mr C] or any SLPP gangs. The Tribunal finds that the 2018 election outcome may have added to the applicant’s resolve to remain in Australia but that he did not flee persecution or significant harm.

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his future conduct if he were to return to Sierra Leone. As stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant holds a political opinion that motivates him to speak out or become engaged in Sierra Leonean political issues or campaign again for the APC. When asked where he would live in Sierra Leone if he were forced to return there, the applicant did not give an answer apart from insisting that he did not want to return. On the limited available material, the Tribunal infers that the applicant would return to Freetown where his wife currently resides, re-establish himself there and seek work commensurate with his qualifications and experience.

8. The Tribunal has had regard to a range of country information, including the independent information summarised above. While it accepts that the applicant may feel reluctant to return to Sierra Leone given the changed political landscape since his departure, and possible consequent loss of patronage, it is not satisfied he faces a real chance of being targeted for serious harm for reasons of his campaigning for the APC in the lead-up to the 2018 elections. The applicant has been outside Sierra Leone for almost five years and has had limited contact with the APC and APC members and has not engaged in any political commentary or activism in this time. His wife and children have been living safely in Sierra Leone since 2018, having suffered no significant incidents or concerns since the applicant’s departure in March 2018.

9. As indicated above, country information before the Tribunal indicates that politically motivated harassment, intimidation and occasional violence are commonplace, and has been escalating in recent years, in Sierra Leone. Politicians from both main parties tend to promote tribalism to gain support and this leads to regional divisions and violence. Violence is ongoing in the sense that it recurs during elections but the activities generally ease following the conclusion of an election.

10. The next presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in June 2023. In the case of the March 2018 presidential and parliamentary elections, the SLPP won the presidential election but without a parliamentary majority. The period following the elections was tense and a number of results were challenged in court. More generally, as described in the country information above, the SLPP and APC often utilise groups of youth to harass and intimidate their rivals. Harassment and intimidation can be generalised against political party supporters during electioneering or more targeted towards politicians and their families, or sometimes those with close connections to politicians. Given the 2018 parliamentary elections were won by a slim margin by the SLPP, by-elections have been crucial for the SLPP to consolidate its power, and there have been isolated incidents of harassment and intimidation surrounding some by-elections in various districts during 2021.

11. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that he fears harm in future on the basis of his profile as an APC campaigner. Above, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was an APC campaigner but rejected his claims about being a well-known, nationally recognisable or famous APC supporter or leader. It found that neither he, nor members of his family, have experienced harm from the SLPP either before or since the March 2018 elections. He has not engaged in any political activity nor has he built a political profile since he has been in Australia. The Tribunal acknowledges and accepts that a degree of political violence, including between supporters of the APC and SLPP, continues to occur in Sierra Leone. It accepts there is information which suggests it has in recent years been escalating. However, having regard to the nature of that violence, as described and analysed in independent information before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s findings about the background and profile of the applicant, it is not satisfied that he personally faces a real chance of serious harm on the basis only of being an APC campaigner.

12. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant will not face a real chance of serious harm if he returns to Sierra Leone on account of his low-level profile as an APC campaigner for approximately four to five months leading up to the 2018 elections. Similarly, there is no persuasive evidence to indicate that there is a real chance of the applicant being subject to serious harm arising from discriminatory treatment from the Sierra Leonean authorities, including military personnel, due to his political opinion (actual or perceived), his past work as a military officer or for any other reason set out in s 5J(1)(a).

    Economic prospects

13. On the available evidence, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are any factors that would prevent the applicant from re-establishing himself in Sierra Leone. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of being subject to serious harm – including the denial of a capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist[30] – on his return to Sierra Leone.

    [30] To take one of the non-exhaustive instances of serious harm set out in s 5J(5) of the Act.

14. At hearing the applicant stated that because the APC is no longer in power, he will not be able to get work and it will be difficult to support himself. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has benefited in employment and training and travel opportunities from his support of the APC. However, the Tribunal notes that he worked [in two other occupations] prior to entering the military and later becoming involved with the APC indicating that he did not require government support/party patronage to earn a living. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant as an APC member may have difficulty obtaining a role in a government agency. The Tribunal also acknowledges that from an employment perspective, the applicant may not be able to obtain the level of employment that he had previously. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that on return to Sierra Leone, the applicant will be able to obtain work, albeit outside the government sector.

15. The Tribunal has had regard to information from the Bertelsmann Stiftung report of 2022 indicating that Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world and the majority of the population lives in poverty.[31] However, given the Tribunal’s finding above that he will be able to secure employment in Sierra Leone, working, the Tribunal is satisfied that he will also have resources to draw upon to support himself.

    [31] ‘BTI 2022 Country Report - Sierra Leone’, Bertelsmann Stiftung, 22 February 2022, p.10, 20220301124010

16. On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that while the applicant may not be able to obtain positions related to government, he will be able to find employment of some kind and draw upon resources such that he will not be subjected to serious harm as instanced in s 5J(5) such as significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist on return to Sierra Leone.

    Non-returning member of the Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games team

17. Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal accepts the applicant will return to Sierra Leone having not returned with other members of the 2018 Commonwealth Games team which travelled to and from Australia in 2018. There is no information to suggest that members of the Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games team may face harm on return to Sierra Leone because they remained in Australia at the completion of the Games.[32]

    [32] 'Sierra Leone: SLE CI180507122758089 - Athletes overstaying abroad', Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS), 9 May 2018, CR837DFFB138. COISS consulted CISNET and Internet sites - including news websites (including allAfrica, Awoko, Concord Times, Politico SL, The New Rising Sun and The Patriotic Vanguard) and Internet search engines - in English. 2 ‘Athletes' accreditation revoked’ 2006, The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March, CX157636; Purtill C 2014, ‘When athletes go missing’, GlobalPost, 18 April, on PRI [Public Radio International] website, CX1B9ECAB13160; ‘Sierra Leonean scouts 'missing' in Sweden’ 2011, BBC [British Broadcasting Corporation] News, 8 August, CXCB3E63421471

18. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Sierra Leone now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a high-profile sportsman who did not return to Sierra Leone with the Commonwealth Games team and remained in Australia. Similarly, based on the findings above and on the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Sierra Leone as a high-profile sportsman who did not return to Sierra Leone with the Commonwealth Games team and remained in Australia.

100.   The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons enumerated in s 5J(1), now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Sierra Leone.

101.   The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Assessment: complementary protection criterion

102.   The Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Sierra Leone.

103.   The Tribunal takes into account the above findings of fact; its view of the applicant’s future conduct; and country information about general conditions and political violence in Sierra Leone. It concludes that there is no real risk that the applicant will be subjected to any form of harm which would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on him (such as to meet the definition of torture; or to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment). It is also not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty. In other words, the Tribunal finds no other grounds that suggest he will be subject to significant harm, for any reason, if he returns to Sierra Leone.

104.   The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s claim that he fears a fate similar to what happened to Hassan Dumbuya and others who were killed recently after a political protest clash between APC and SLPP supporters on 10 August 2022. The Tribunal has considered the evidence relating to this incident submitted by the applicant together with other independent information of the general security situation in Sierra Leone. To the extent the applicant fears harm from generalised violence, the Tribunal finds that this is a risk faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally and on this basis there is taken not to be a real risk pursuant to s 36(2B).

105.   Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sierra Leone, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa).

CONCLUSION

106.   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).

1. 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).

2. 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 criteria in s 36(2).

   DECISION

109.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Peter Papadopoulos
Member

Attachment – Summary of the relevant law, mandatory considerations and an extract of key provisions of the Migration Act 1958

The relevant law

The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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 below.

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 below.

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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

Extract of key provisions of the 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.

…