1823846 (Refugee)

[2023] AATA 1200

1823846 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1200 (15 February 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Shahid Nadeem

CASE NUMBER:  1823846

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sierra Leone

MEMBER:Peter Papadopoulos

DATE:15 February 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 15 February 2023 at 3:24pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sierra Leone – anti-Poro society activism – instances of harm – attack on applicant’s shop – attempted abduction – theft of crop produce – escapes from harm – credibility concerns – absence of documentary evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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

2. The applicant first arrived in Australia [in] March 2018 as the holder of a [temporary] visa and has not departed since that date. On 11 May 2018, he applied for a subclass 866 Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa).

3. On 5 July 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection 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.

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

5. The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing on 31 January 2023.

6. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is either a refugee or a person who meets the criteria 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 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.

7. 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

8. According to information contained in his protection visa application, the applicant is a [age] year old Sierra Leonean national who was born in [Town 1], Northern Province in Sierra Leone.

9. Based upon information in the protection visa application form that was signed by the applicant on 11 May 2015, the applicant:

   ·     was self-employed as a [Occupation 1] in [Town 1] from February 2006 to December 2017

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

   ·     has the following family members in Sierra Leone:

   o   his wife, [Ms A] (born [date]) whom he married in [Village 1] [in] December 2004

   o   two children with his wife:

   §  a son, [Child B] (born [date])

   §  a daughter, [Child C] (born [date])

   o   two brothers, namely, [Mr D] (born [date]) and [Mr E] (born [date])

   ·     has a sister living in [Country 1], namely, [Ms F] (born [date])

   ·     is of Temne ethnicity and is a Muslim

   ·     completed his primary and secondary education in Sierra Leone between [year] and [year].

10. In relation to his claims for protection, the applicant provided the following information in a statement accompanying his protection visa application:

    ·     He fears being harmed by members of the “Poro Secret Society”, a traditional cultural group within Sierra Leone. He claims that he has experienced harms such as “humiliation, molestation, introduction, harassment and torture” from the society. He says he was attacked on several occasions, intimidated and tied up. He fears that if he returns to Sierra Leone he will be forcefully conscripted into their society and may be sacrificed as part of the society’s traditional beliefs.

    ·     The applicant lives in a farming area. He says the Poro society are most active during the dry season when people are engaged in farming work and that they pass by his farm regularly.

    ·     The applicant stated that he voluntarily “preached” against “devilish secret societies”, such as the Poro society, and their practices for the three years prior to his arriving in Australia. He believed their way of life made the lives of others miserable and was particularly concerned with female genital mutilation. He says his preaching was well-known to the society.

    ·     The applicant stated that [in] March 2017, he was going to his farm when members of the Poro society came upon him from behind. He claims he was able to escape by running “very fast through the bush”. He reported this incident to an inspector [at] the police station but received no assistance.

    ·     He says he also sought assistance more generally from local authorities including the local chiefs. He explained that the local authorities are strongly connected to the Poro society and therefore, they were unwilling to assist him. Consequently, he moved to other parts of the country, including [Village 2] in April 2017, [Village 3] in June 2017, and [Village 4] in August 2017, but found he was not accommodated because those villages were subject to the society and the paramount chief. He moved to Freetown in November 2017 but found life difficult there because of the pervasive nature of the society. He believes his preaching and the society’s reach makes relocation implausible.

    ·     The applicant stated that as a result of his disappearance and, in revenge for his preaching, the members of the Poro society destroyed his farm. He says his [Occupation 1] shop was also destroyed by the society on 20 October 2017.

    ·     He says he then volunteered to prepare [specified supplies] for Sierra Leone’s [contingent]. This led to his obtaining an Australian visa for travel to [Australia].

    Supporting documents

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

    ·     Department Form 866 Part B – Persons included in this application and family composition

    ·     Department Form 866 Part C – Personal detail for each person included in this application

    ·     A handwritten document of four pages in length outlining his statement of claims.

    ·     The biodata page of the applicant’s Sierra Leonean passport (reference [number]) issued [in] 2018 and set to expire [in] 2023.

    ·     A High School report card from [School 1] in Freetown dated [year].

    Protection visa application interview

12. The applicant attended an interview with the Department in connection with his protection visa application on 14 June 2018. The interview was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Krio and English languages.

13. 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 was born in [Town 1]. He attended primary school there but went to Freetown for high school. From 2006, he resided in [Town 1] until he moved back to Freetown in November 2017, where he lived with a [friend].

    ·     His wife and children live in [Town 1] with his father-in-law.

    ·     He attended [with] the Sierra Leone [people] and stayed in [location].

    ·     Neither he nor any member of his family are members of the Poro society.

    ·     He first became aware of the Poro society in 2006. He said they used to force people to attend traditional practices. They would kidnap people and steal farm produce. People were scared of them. He stated they used to come to his farm at night and steal his crops.

    ·     He first began “preaching” against the Poro society in 2014. He says that he realised that people were being sacrificed by the society and that these sacrificial rituals were barbaric and against his religious beliefs. He would travel from village to village, holding community meetings, focusing his “preaching” primarily on young people. He believed young people were best placed, because of their youth, to fight back against the society and their practices. He knew that he might have to leave quickly if members of the Poro society saw him preaching, so he always had an escape plan.

    ·     In December 2016, he was attacked by approximately eight members of the Poro society in his shop in [Town 1] on [location]. They dragged him outside over concrete, which caused a skin graze on his right shoulder, and accused him of preaching against them. He pretended to be unconscious or deceased. When they “relaxed”, he jumped up, scaled a little fence and ran away. They gave chase but he was faster and managed to escape.

    ·     In March 2017, the applicant was leaving his farm when he passed some bushes. He saw a member of the Poro society. The Poro society member left but returned with other members who then proceeded to chase the applicant through the bush. The Poro society members were calling the applicant’s name. The applicant was able to escape but sustained injuries to his legs and feet as a result of having to quickly run through the bush.

    ·     The applicant’s [shop], which he owned, was attached to a large family house owned by his family. His brothers lived in the house and are still there. His two apprentices who would also often sleep in the shop. He would sleep at home, however. The shop stopped operating in October 2017 because the Poro society had “pulled it down”.

    ·     He believes his family are safe from the Poro society because the society are looking for him specifically due to his preaching. This includes his brothers who remain living in the house his shop was formerly attached to.

    Summary of the delegate’s decision

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

    ·     The delegate accepted that the applicant is opposed to the Poro society and has held this opposition status since he returned from Freetown in 2006.

    ·     However, the delegate had difficulty with the applicant’s claims to be ready to flee community meetings he was delivering speeches at immediately given he and his family lived in a small village and had done so for some time. The delegate had further difficulty with the applicant’s claim that Poro society members knew where he lived and yet left him unharmed for over three years despite the applicant publicly preaching against their practices. Consequently, the delegate was concerned with the applicant’s credibility and was not satisfied he was of adverse interest to the Poro society.

    ·     With respect to the applicant’s claim that in December 2016 that he was attacked and dragged from his shop by approximately eight members of the Poro society, the delegate considered it implausible that the applicant could have jumped to his feet and flee the scene after being brutally attacked. The delegate further found that the applicant would have been in a weakened condition, and had approximately eight people attacked him, the damage suffered would likely have been far greater than a skin graze.

    ·     The delegate had further difficulties with the applicant’s credibility and claims to be attacked by Poro society members because his brothers lived on the same block as the shop the applicant had operated and still to live there today.

    ·     The delegate had difficulty accepting that the applicant would be able to run away from multiple members of the Poro society on multiple occasions when they had experience in abducting people against their will. The delegate also noted that the members of the Poro society following the applicant in the second incident would likely have been aware of his farm’s location.

    ·     The delegate found it unlikely that the Poro society would only visit upon him at his shop on one occasion if they knew where he was during the three year period in which he was preaching against them. Likewise, the delegate had difficulties with the applicant’s claim that members of the Poro society would come to his farm and take his crops but would not interact with him.

    ·     Ultimately, the delegate did not accept that the applicant is wanted by the Poro society or that he fears harm for the reasons claims. Consequently, the delegate concluded the applicant would not face serious harm in Sierra Leone because of his opposing views to the Poro society. Therefore, the delegate found the applicant did not meet s 36(2)(a) of the Act. For the same reasons, the delegate concluded the applicant did not face a real risk of suffering significant harm and therefore, complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) was not available.

    Claims and evidence provided to the Tribunal

    The review application

15. On 17 August 2018, the applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal. On 1 December 2021, the applicant appointed a legal practitioner, namely Mr Shahid Nadeem, in connection with his review application. 

    Pre-hearing submissions

16. On 23 January 2023, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant’s representative which attached a letter and submission of same date, which I understood to contain the following submissions:

    ·     That the applicant relies on his statements, both verbal and written, and documents submitted by him or on his behalf to the Department.

    ·     In 2014, the applicant commenced preaching against the Poro society after being motivated to do so by an Imam in his local mosque. He would speak against the Poro society group in public gatherings in his village and surrounding villages and by 2017 he gained the reputation of being an activist.

    ·     According to the applicant, the Poro society group conducts initiation rituals in the dry seasons which runs from May to October, a period during which he did most of his volunteer work.

    ·     Due to his activism, he was attacked and intimidated by members of the Poro society:

    o   That Poro society group members would take or destroy the crops at his farmland at harvest time.   In 2015, he leased farmland about seven miles from his village to grow [produce] for his personal use.

    o   That the incident at the applicant’s [shop], which saw the applicant dragged outside, occurred on or about 10 March 2017. In addition to being dragged on his shoulder, the applicant was punched and kicked.

    o   That on or about 25 March 2017, Poro society group members tried to kidnap the applicant (for the purpose of intimidation and forcible initiation) while he was walking on his way to his farmland.  He managed to escape by running into the bush.  He reported the incident to the police but his complaint was dismissed by the police as they deemed it to be a “traditional matter”.  He also sought the help of local chiefs who did not intervene, instead telling him to refrain from sabotaging Sierra Leonean culture.  

    o   That during a time when the applicant’s shop was closed on or about 20 October 2017, the  shop was “burnt down” and also “destroyed” where the door and tables were broken, [equipment] were spoiled and all of [products] were destroyed. After this incident, the applicant, his wife and their two children moved to [Village 1] for their safety.

    ·     If the applicant returned to Sierra Leone, he would continue to preach against the Poro society.

    The hearing: supporting documents and oral evidence

17. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 January 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Krio and English languages. The applicant’s representative also attended the hearing.  Where relevant, the oral evidence of the applicant and the representative’s oral submissions at hearing is discussed in the Tribunal’s findings and reasons below. 

18. At the outset of the hearing, the applicant provided his original Sierra Leonean passport issued [in] 2018. The Tribunal made a photocopy of the biodata page of this document and then returned the document to the applicant during the hearing.

19. Prior to the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he did not wish the Tribunal to take any evidence from witnesses during the hearing.  This was confirmed by the applicant at hearing.

    Post-hearing submissions and evidence

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE: Analysis (assessment, findings and reasons)

    Nationality: Country of Reference / Receiving Country

21. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Sierra Leone and provided to the Department a copy of his Sierra Leonean passport issued [in] 2018.  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. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has the right to enter and reside in any other country for the purposes of the Act.

    Credibility

22. 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

23. 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]

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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.

   Independent Information

   Background of Sierra Leone

4. Sierra Leone was the departure point for the transatlantic slave trade, and the capital Freetown, was founded as a home for repatriated former slaves in 1787. The country went into civil war which ended in 2002. Since then, it has experienced substantial economic growth as it is rich in diamonds and other minerals. The country has a population of 7.4 million, and English and Krio are the primary languages. Both Islam and Christianity are practised.[5]

   Temne tribe

   [5] BBC News, ‘Sierra Leone country profile’, 5 April 2018,

5. The Temne people are a West African ethnic group found in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone and in a number of other West African countries as well, including Guinea and The Gambia. Their largest concentrations are found in the north-western and central parts of Sierra Leone, as well as the coastal capital city of Freetown. Some Temnes have migrated beyond West Africa seeking educational and professional opportunities in countries such as Great Britain, the United States, and Egypt. Temnes are primarily composed of scholars, business people, farmers, and coastal fishermen. Most Temnes are Muslim.

6. The Temne constitute the second largest ethnic group in Sierra Leone, at 31.6% of the total population, which is slightly less than the Mende people at 32.2%. They speak Temne, a Mel branch of the Niger-Congo languages.[6]

   Poro society

   [6] AFRICA | 101 Last Tribes - Temne people

7. In relation to the ‘Poro society’, the Tribunal has taken into account the Country of Origin Research and Information (CORI) report titled ‘Fear of forced initiation into the Poro Secret Society in Freetown’[7] which was commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Status Determination and Protection Information Section, Division of International Protection Services. The report in part provides the following (relevant) information:

   [7] “Fear of forced initiation into the Poro Secret Society in Freetown”, CORI, 09 March 2009, CISE 131007955.

   History of Poro society in Sierra Leone

   The Poro society is a long established cultural institution in Sierra Leone.[8] Membership is restricted to men[9], in Sierra Leone members come from several ethnic groups including the Mende (Southern and Eastern Provinces) and Temne (Northern Province), each comprising 30% of the total population[10]…

   [8] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The influence of the Secret Societies with Special reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from Ibid.

   [10] Ibid.

Functioning of Poro society in Sierra Leone

Secret Societies are an integral part of Sierra Leonean culture,[11] their primary purposes are to regulate sexual identity and social conduct and to mediate relations with the spirit world.[12] The societies have a religious, judicial, educational and military function.[13] The Poro society educates boys, passing on spiritual secrets and powers of witchcraft.[14]

[11] Lavenda, R.H. and Schultz, E.A. (2007) Anthropology: what does it mean to be human?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[13] Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD) (2001) Sierra Leone: 6th European Country of Origin Information Seminar, Vienna, 13-14 November 2000, Final Report. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[14] Jean Sybil La Fontaine, (1986) Initiation, Manchester University Press ND.

One source reports that membership of a secret society is a prerequisite to full tribal membership and is necessary to be considered an adult ready to marry, “as a result, nearly everyone living in Sierra Leone’s provinces, particularly the rural parts, belongs to a secret society.”[15]

[15] Alterman, O., Binienda, A., Rodella, S. and Varzi, K. (2002) The Law People See: The Status of Dispute Resolution in the Provinces of Sierra Leone in 2002, A National Forum for Human Rights Publications. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009).

According to Anthropologist Dr. Fanthorpe, secret societies play a major role in maintaining law and order in rural areas.[16]

“The secret society operates under its own, isolated legal system. The societies define their own laws, procedures, and punishments. They possess their own jurisdiction, and any conflicts or crimes arising “out of the bush” stay within the secret society purview. It is unclear, however, whether secret society jurisdiction remains within secret society matters, or whether its borders span beyond into conflicts between secret society members, or even between members and nonmembers. The secret society world is religiously kept apart from the open community sphere in that it is a punishable crime to divulge any information about it to non-members. Furthermore, betraying one’s secret society invites curses on the individual and his or her close ones.[17]

Poro believe that violations of their laws are adjudicated by a masked spirit in the society bush, those found guilty of the most serious violations may be sacrificed to assuage the spirit.[18]

According to Dr Fanthorpe traditional secret societies were brought to Freetown many generations ago by immigrants from the interior.[19] There has been an increase in the number of secret associations operating in Freetown, according to one source they are “competitive and aggressive, operating at times like inner city gangs.”[20] Dr Fanthorpe states that aggressive use of secret society rituals in urban areas has also seen members clash with non initiates, especially in the capital district (Western Area).[21] For instance in March 2003 Poro members carried out a masquerade to celebrate initiation on the streets of Waterloo in the capital district without prior warning, causing public outrage.[22] Many residents felt intimidated and fled the area, traders abandoned their goods. Residents expressed the view that Poro initiations belong in the provinces and should not be brought to the Western area.[23]

Political influence

A human rights forum publication reports that to become a leader in regular society, a person must first achieve a position of leadership within a secret society,[24]

“The interconnectedness of secret society hierarchy and the structure of leadership in the open communities are particularly clear in districts like Kailahun, where anyone hoping to become chief must first have membership and prestige within the Poro society.”[25]

[16] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[17] Alterman, O., Binienda, A., Rodella, S. and Varzi, K. (2002) The Law People See: The Status of Dispute Resolution in the Provinces of Sierra Leone in 2002, A National Forum for Human Rights Publications. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009).

[18] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[19] Ibid.

[20] David M. Rosen, Armies of the Young, Rutgers University Press, 2005, p. 69.

[21] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[22] Standard Times (Freetown), “Abuse of secret society in Waterloo”, 20 March 2003. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009).

[23] Ibid.

[24] Alterman, O., Binienda, A., Rodella, S. and Varzi, K. (2002) The Law People See: The Status of Dispute Resolution in the Provinces of Sierra Leone in 2002, A National Forum for Human Rights Publications. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009).

[25] Ibid.

Dr Fanthorpe states that “men and women winning seats in parliament and jobs in government are expected to stay loyal to their home communities and direct state resources towards these communities. The secret societies remain a fundamental, albeit unspoken, factor in these informal political pacts. Few politicians that were not initiated in the localities they wish to represent can expect to win elections and once in office they are expected to provide job opportunities for fellow initiates.”[26]

[26] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

Dr Fanthorpe reports that secret societies have become more ‘secret’ as a result of these tensions between civic governance and local loyalties.[27]

[27] Ibid.

In rural areas Paramount Chiefs are leading political figures, they authorize all initiation rites in their chiefdom and are expected to serve as patrons, attending the rites and contributing to their costs. According to Dr Fanthorpe senior politicians and bureaucrats often play a similar role. Alliances with village chiefs and society leaders allows the politically ambitious to secure command over local youth.[28] Fanthorpe further notes that “both of the major political parties have used this strategy for recruiting and disciplining political followers”. The prominent politician Aiah Abu Koroma from Kono was publicly honored in 2007 because he had paid for the initiation of boys and girls into the Poro and Sande since the 1970s. According to Sierra Leonian newspaper, the Awareness Times, a local chief described Koroma’s acts as having “helped in preserving Kono tradition and culture, which he noted are under "serious threat" from both western civilization and religious evangelism”.[29]

[28] Ibid, p. 10.

[29] Awareness Times (Freetown) “Konos remember Aiah Abu Koroma in Sierra Leone”, 4 April 2007. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009).

In 2003 Dr Fanthorpe interviewed a Paramount Chief in central Sierra Leone who had used Poro society to recruit and train a loyal local defence force.[30]

[30] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p11. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

During the civil war both pro government Kamajors and RUF rebel forces attempted to utilize the Poro society for military and political ends.[31] Dr Fanthorpe also reports that threats have been made to use the Poro society membership to influence the outcome of post war elections.[32]

[31] Ibid, p. 11-12.

[32] Ibid, p. 12-13.

Initiation rituals

Dr. Fanthorpe reports that secret society members are inducted through initiation, they are required to observe a range of laws and protocols, to assure the cooperation of spirit powers. Initiates must not speak about the society to non initiates and non initiates must not witness any society rituals.[33] Rituals take place in secluded clearings in the forest or on farmland. Some societies have the power to impose a curfew on a settlement whilst rituals take place demanding that all non initiatives remain indoors and shutter windows.[34]

[33] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[34] Ibid.

Each local Poro group has a sacred place in the bush where initiation rituals take place. Initiation usually happens at puberty and marks not only admission into the society in itself, but also a rite of passage to adulthood.[35] In some cases initiation involves the payment of a fee by the family of the initiate or an external sponsor.[36]

[35] Jean Sybil La Fontaine, (1986) Initiation, Manchester University Press ND; Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[36] Lavenda, R.H. and Schultz, E.A. (2007) Anthropology: what does it mean to be human?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boys are taught to become men learning traditional laws, customs, crafts, farming and spiritual knowledge. They undergo competitive tests of physical prowess and endurance.[37] A special emphasis is put on the initiate’s ability to keep secrets.[38] The young men are symbolically “killed” and eaten by the spirits, and then reborn as adults, prepared for life in society. The rituals involve the scarification of the body of the initiates.[39] The ordeal of initiation is severe, occasionally an initiate may die.[40] Village chiefs and male elders usually organize the initiations, because initiation guarantees community membership families may feel beholden to the organizers. According to Dr Fanthorpe “elders may use that moral indebtedness to secure compliance with their decision making or claim resources from lower status families.”[41]

[37] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[38] Lavenda, R.H. and Schultz, E.A. (2007) Anthropology: what does it mean to be human?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[39] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p4. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[40] Lavenda, R.H. and Schultz, E.A. (2007) Anthropology: what does it mean to be human?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[41] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p4. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

Methods of intimidation

Societies can place a taboo (i.e. curse or condemn) on any person or anything, including crops or livestock, which can exert a controlling effect on the entire community[42]. The Poro Society has used symbols of witchcraft to intimidate community members[43] and has vandalized property and attacked families who refuse to participate in Poro society.[44] The Poro often abduct people that they intend to forcibly initiate.[45]

[42] Lavenda, R.H. and Schultz, E.A. (2007) Anthropology: what does it mean to be human?, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[43] Awareness Times, APC MP Tells ‘Poro’ to Manhandle Makeni Carpenter :Elected Lawmaker Exhibits Sheer Lawlessness in Sierra Leone, 21 April 2008, Awoko, Poro men hunt activist son,15 August  2007, Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from (accessed 6 March 2009); United States Department of State (2006/2007/2008) US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Groups and individuals at risk of forced initiation in Freetown

In 2008 the US State Department (USSD) reported that men were forcibly initiated into secret societies. According to the USSD, the forced initiation of men usually includes circumcision.[46]

Members of different religions (young people and religious leaders, especially when open critics of Poro)[47], teachers[48], public servants and politicians[49] are amongst those reported to have been forcibly initiated into Poro society. According to Dr Fanthorpe, trans-local religionists (e.g. ‘stranger’ groups, Muslims and Christians), socially marginalized youth and western area urban poor in Freetown are at risk of enforced membership of secret societies.[50] He also states that government workers including school teachers, police, NGO workers and treasury clerks posted to rural areas may be at risk of forced initiation.[51]

Dr Fanthorpe states that “people who speak out against the societies risk violent confrontation and forced initiation.”[52] A news source reports that in some areas Poro society has adopted a policy of forced initiation of non members.[53]

Due to the civil war and displacement, a large number of young people have not been initiated at the time they would traditionally required to be. According to Dr Fanthorpe “social pressure on young people to submit to initiation is considerable”.[54]

Some members of other religions, largely Christians and Muslims, are publicly opposed to the secret societies and openly criticize them.[55] There are several reports of Imans being abducted and forcibly initiated in Freetown and other major cities in the country,[56] according to Dr Fanthorpe these “are overtly political acts designed to intimidate and punish rather than convert”.[57]

Dr Fanthorpe states that in the countryside, teachers and public servants who are not born in the region are targeted to be initiated because secret societies’ members want to ensure that their children receive “traditional” education and for their communities to receive support in the struggle for job opportunities[58]. In March 2006, a teacher of the Makeni Comprehensive Academy was abducted and forcibly initiated into Poro at the behest of the locally born school bursar.[59]

There are several reported cases where the police have been informed about abductions but have been unable to prevent the forced initiation of those held captive, in some instances the police response has been to refer the matter to local chiefs.[60]

In 2006 the USSD reported a case of forced initiation despite police intervention “in March and April the Poro Society in Manowa Kailahun District attempted to forcefully initiate a man into the society. The man ran away and reported the matter to the police, who deferred to the local paramount chief. The paramount chief then allowed Poro members to drag the man out of his home, beat him, and initiate him into their secret society.”[61]

There have been several reports of Muslims being targeted by the Poro for forced initiation. In 2005 there were reports that Poro society in Kailahun town in eastern Sierra Leone restricted the movement of Muslim traders and forced some to undergo initiation.[62] In 2005 it was reported that an Imam, near Bo, protested the forced initiation of a local Muslim man. The USSD reports that the Imam was abducted, when called to investigate the Sierra Leone Police referred the case to chiefdom authorities. The Imam reappeared after several weeks and had been forcefully initiated into Poro society. The Freetown-based Council of the Imans registered a complaint about the issue, the chiefs apologized about the incident but the matter was not referred to court.[63]

In January 2007 the Awareness Times reported increased tension between Muslims and Poro members in Pendembu town in Kailahun District. Several Imans, Sheiks and Muslim youths were abducted and forcibly initiated into Poro society. The Awareness Times reports that this was a response to Islamic preaching against the society’s practices and that the Poro society have consequently adopted a policy of forced initiation of non members, including religious leaders.[64]

[46] United States Department of State (2006) US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – Sierra Leone. Available from:

[47] Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Available from:

[49] Awareness Times (Freetown) “Former Makeni Town Council Chairman under death threat in Sierra Leone”, 3 April 2006. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009); Standard Times (Freetown) “Defying State authority… Poro devil threatens Government workers”, 20 September 2002. Cited on Fanthorpe, R., (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

[50] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p14-15 Available from:

[51] Ibid.

[52] Ibid; Awoko, Poro men hunt activist son, 15 August 2007. Available from: Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p14 Available from:

[55] Ibid.

[56] United States Department of State (2006) US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005 – Sierra Leone. Available from: Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p. 18. Available from:

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid.

[60] United States Department of State (2007) U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006 – Sierra Leone. Available from: United States Department of State (2006) US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005– Sierra Leone. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009); Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from

[61] United States Department of State (2007) U.S. Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006 – Sierra Leone. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

[62] Fanthorpe, R. (2007) Sierra Leone: The Influence of the Secret Societies, with Special Reference to Female Genital Mutilation. Writenet, Report commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p17 Available from:

[63] United States Department of State (2006) US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005– Sierra Leone. Available from: Awareness Times (Freetown), “Muslims clashes with Poro Society in Kailahun, Sierra Leone”, 29 January 2007. Available from:

Government attitudes to Poro society and forced initiations

According to the CRI Project, the government has taken little action to curb Poro activities in relation to forced initiation.[65] CRI state that abduction and forced initiation affects freedom of movement across the country. In its analysis of safety concerns for returned Sierra Leoneans the CRI Project states that,

“Another obstacle to internal travel comes from the poro society (secret society) during the initiation season, when members are not allowed to move freely upon risk to be captured and forcefully initiated. Successive governments have made little effort to change this picture either because the practice is so deeply embedded in the culture of the people or because politicians fear losing the votes of the people if they attempt to ban it, or both. Caution has to be taken during this season if you are a non-initiate.”[66] [An initiation season may last for 6 months].[67]

According to the Awareness Times, an MP ordered Poro society members to intimidate a tradesman in Makeni City and a police officer who intervened in the case.[68]

[65] Country of Return Information Project, Country Sheet: Sierra Leone, Bo and Kono District, 2007, p. 7. Available from: Ibid.

[67] Jean Sybil La Fontaine, (1986) Initiation, Manchester University Press ND, p. 97

[68] Awareness Times, APC MP Tells ‘Poro’ to Manhandle Makeni Carpenter :Elected Lawmaker Exhibits Sheer Lawlessness in Sierra Leone, 21 April 2008. Available from: (accessed 6 March 2009).

1. The Poro society is further described in the following research response[69] from Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (citation references removed):

   [69] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Sierra Leone: Information on the Poro Society, including rituals and initiation; ability to refuse initiation or leadership roles; availability of state protection (2015-July 2017), 18 September 2017, SLE105973.E, available at: to sources, the Poro Society is a male secret society … A 2011 article, written by academics from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos in Spain and the University of Makeni in Sierra Leone, on the role of secret societies in forest conservation in Sierra Leone, states that the Poro Society is "for men belonging to the temne and mende ethnic groups…. Corroborating information on the ethnicity of Poro Society members could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response.

   A chapter in a 2015 book on peace building in post-conflict Sierra Leone … explains that "these societies play an important role in regulating social events, respect, and control" … A 2017 report by the SMART Consortium … on the "barriers and enablers to community acceptance and implemenation [sic] of safe burials" during an ebola outbreak in 2014 … indicates that secret societies in Sierra Leone "were introduced to prepare the male and female children for adulthood" ... According to a 2012 book entitled African Myths and Beliefs … the "central focus of the [Poro] society was and remains the preparation of adolescent boys to take their place in society"       A 2017 academic article "explor[ing]…the socio-cultural power structures of the Poro and Bondo secret societies" in Sierra Leone … states that "[m]embership of secret societies is the prerequisite for gendered personhood and carries high purchase and social prestige in the local socio-political organization and in national politics in Sierra Leone" ...

   According to sources, new members are marked with scars... [and] that, during initiations the boys stay in a camp away from their parents and friends, sleeping out in the open and shouting to scare off strangers who happen to come near. There they learn the ancient traditions and practice drumming and Poro songs. They are …taken before masked initiates impersonating spirits, the chief of whom is known as the Gbeni. At the end of the training they return to the community as fully fledged adults…. The initiation "takes place in a series of rituals lasting from November to May". The 2017 SMART Consortium report cites "a local authority in Port Loko district" as saying that "[s]ometimes the initiation ceremony [for secret societies] takes close to three years teaching initiates their role in society”…  the report adds: “Meanwhile these traditions demand a seclusion ceremony known as 'Kantha' for members such as traditional leaders, ceremonial chiefs, and others who hold positions in the secret society”.

   Information on the treatment of individuals who refuse initiation and/or leadership roles within the Poro Society could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

   Information on state protection was scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate within the time constraints of this Response. The 2011 academic article on the role of secret societies in forest conservation in Sierra Leone states that "[m]ost members of Sierra Leonean society are initiated into one secret society, and their membership will last until their death"...

   Jackson's 2015 book chapter indicates that "[c]hiefs are part of these societies but not necessarily in control of them. However, it would be difficult for a chief to consistently act in opposition to a secret society"… According to Allan et al., the "Poro numbers many of the nation's highest-ranking officials among its members"...

   The 2017 academic article similarly states that "most of the ruling male elites hold [Poro] membership because of its symbolic power". The same source further states that members of the Poro secret society "use their position to evade the law and go unpunished for human rights violations in the name of 'defending culture'" ...

   A July 2016 article in the Sierra Leonian newspaper the Concord Times reports that "Poro men attacked the [Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces] Maritime Wing Base in Bronthe" and 12 people were arrested as a result. The article further quotes police Superintendent Amadu Mohamed Turay as stating "[w]e are still investigating the matter and I cannot proffer any charges at the moment. What is very clear is that the entire township came under attack by the Poro boys. I am a member of the Poro society and I am not in any way intimidated by their activities, I want to inform the public that the leader of the group, one Michael Palmer, has also been arrested." …

   A May 2017 article by the Awareness Times, a Sierra Leonian newspaper, reports that seven persons were accused of allegedly murdering "famous [All Peoples Congress] youth," Mohamed Taimeh and the case has been "committed to the High Court of Sierra Leone for trial". The same source further states that [t]he men are alleged to have tortured Taimeh to death under the guise of forcefully taking him to the sacred Poro society bush for initiation. The alleged abuse of the respectable Poro society by the men facing trial, is said to have seriously upset the traditional Poro chiefs in Kenema who speedily intercepted the accused and handed them over to the State authorities. Awareness Times Newspaper can also confirm that the Poro chiefs have testified in court during the hearing, that they do not want their society to be stained so they were totally distancing legitimate and respected Poro activities from the cruel murder of Taimeh …

   Assessment of claims

2. At hearing, the applicant stated that he feared subjected to intimidation and harm from members of the Poro society if he were to return to Sierra Leone, including forced initiation, threats and crop theft and damage.

3. 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 a [age]-year-old man who lived in Freetown immediately before travelling to Australia. The Tribunal also accepts his family composition as claimed, that he is a Muslim of Temne ethnicity who completed his primary and secondary education in Sierra Leone between [year] and [year].

4. In determining whether the applicant would suffer persecution involving serious harm on return to Sierra Leone due to his anti-Poro society activism, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence about the evolution of that activism along with the adverse experiences he suffered as a result of such activism.

5. During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his family, education, employment, where he lived in Sierra Leone, his migration history, the problems he experienced in Sierra Leone and why he fears returning there. The Tribunal found, among other things, there to be discrepancies in aspects of the applicant’s evidence between the written claims in his protection visa application form and statement, what he told the delegate in the interview and his oral evidence to the Tribunal, which undermined his credibility. Overall, the Tribunal did not find him to be a credible witness.

6. The Tribunals’ concerns and findings are set out below.

   Profile as anti-Poro society activist

7. The Tribunal explored the applicant’s knowledge of the Poro society. Overall, the applicant appeared to have some basic knowledge of matters associated with the Poro society insofar as it related to his own claims. While he was able to provide the Tribunal with commentary in relation to his concerns about the “devilish” practices of the Poro society, he was unable to provide any insight into the society’s history, purpose, leadership and organisational structure. Asked at hearing what are the beliefs of the Poro society, the applicant acknowledged that he did not know any of their beliefs because “he was not part of that society”. Asked at hearing about the Poro society’s practices, the applicant stated that they were involved in destroying political opponents, causing destruction, introducing people to witchcraft and performing rituals. When pressed in relation to their rituals, the applicant stated that society members were more active between May and October because “that is the time of famine” when they would steal farm produce.    

8. The Tribunal then explored the applicant’s family history along with the motivation for, and development of, his anti-Poro society beliefs. The applicant said he remembers hearing about the Poro society since he was a [boy] but stated that his family did not speak with him about the Poro society.  After much discussion, it became apparent that none of the applicant’s male family members, including his father and two younger brothers, had ever been initiated forcefully or otherwise to become members of the Poro society.  When asked to explain why that had been the case, the applicant maintained that they were Muslims and membership was contrary to their religious beliefs and that they had not been threatened with forceful initiation because they never expressed any anti-Poro beliefs publicly.  When asked why he had become a target of the Poro society members, the applicant explained that he began preaching publicly against the Poro society since 2014  after having been influenced by the preaching of his local imam [named]. Asked whether his imam had been harmed by Poro society members because of his preaching, the applicant explained that unlike him, the imam had not been harmed because he had not preached or otherwise expressed his anti-Poro society beliefs in a public forum.  After some discussion, it became clear that the imam only made anti-Poro society statements inside the mosque and the applicant was thereby inspired to spread that message in public fora.

9. The Tribunal then sought to understand the nature and extent of the applicant’s expression of his anti-Poro society beliefs both in Sierra Leone and Australia.  After some discussion, while the applicant agreed that he was not an imam he insisted that he would “preach” at public gatherings where he would extol the virtues of the Muslim faith and make anti-Poro society statements. These public gatherings took place in [Town 1] and its neighbouring villages between December 2014 and October 2017.  The applicant would organise them with the help of other Muslims in the local area however, according to the applicant, none of them were targeted by Poro society members because they only assisted to organise, and did not speak, at these gatherings.  The gatherings in [Town 1] would usually happen on a weekly basis or when there was a local football match while the gatherings in surrounding villages would happen on a weekly basis, most often on Fridays. Asked what he would say at these gatherings, the applicant stated that he would tell attendees to embrace Islam and not join the Poro society because that would involve joining “people who take drugs and drink alcohol to go and cause mischief” and result in Muslims not “getting a reward in the next world”.  Asked how many people would attend these gatherings, the applicant estimated 70 to 80 people would come to these meetings and would “nod their heads” which he took to mean as acceptance of his message as truth.  Asked why he ceased spreading his message at these meetings in October 2017, the applicant responded “that was the time I realised that the Poro society members were very desperate to harm me”.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant moved to Freetown in November 2017 and remained there until he departed Sierra Leone in March 2018, during which time he chose not to further attend or speak at any such meetings in Sierra Leone.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he has not expressed any anti-Poro society opinions or beliefs since he arrived in Australia [in] March 2018.  The applicant also told the Tribunal that the expression of his anti-Poro society beliefs did not extend to print or other online fora, indicating that he only commenced using Facebook recently in Australia and did not have time for that.    

10. The Tribunal accepts aspects of the applicant’s evidence at hearing in relation to having spoken publicly in [Town 1] and its surrounding villages to persons about the virtues of the Muslim faith and the “devilish” activities of the Poro society. The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it and finds that the applicant is a Muslim who spoke out in his local community against the Poro society, and in this capacity, he had some profile in the community as an anti-Poro society activist.  However, the Tribunal is less convinced about the applicant’s claims regarding the nature, degree and commitment to his activism in this regard and the level of his profile. 

11. The Tribunal regards the applicant’s understanding of the Poro society’s history, purpose, leadership and organisational structure to be very superficial and finds it difficult to accept that a frequent public speaker who spoke out against that society over a period of some three years to relatively large groups of people in public places would have such a limited knowledge of these matters. The Tribunal has considered the possibility that the applicant could have gained some regular following at his public engagements without having or indeed demonstrating any insight into these matters as there are many instances in history where persons with limited insight and knowledge have otherwise amassed a following and become the target of persons whom they speak against. While the Tribunal is not in a position to assess what public statements made by the applicant might have regularly attracted a crowd or following in regional Sierra Leone such that he would eventually be of concern to the Poro society in 2017 as claimed, it is noted that there is no evidence before it, apart from the applicant’s testimony, to attest to the content and frequency of these public engagements or the size of his audiences.  Taking into account the lack of detail in relation to the applicant’s evidence at hearing in relation to these public engagements, including the content of his preaching and exactly how these gatherings were organised and who patronised these events, the Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant at hearing that there was no evidence corroborating his claims about these public speaking engagements, such as statements from his imam, family members and others.  The Tribunal also noted that these engagements took place over a period of almost three years and that the applicant had not provided any documentary evidence to support his claims surrounding his public speaking over this three year period and had also declined the Tribunal’s offer to present evidence from witnesses at the hearing.  By way of response, the applicant insisted that what he was telling the Tribunal was true because he was under oath and that it was difficult for him to produce evidence partly because the witnesses were not in Australia.  

12. The Tribunal does not accept that explanation for the absence of evidence in this regard as the applicant had been represented for over two years prior to the hearing and did not offer any explanation as to why it was particularly difficult in his case to provide documentary or oral evidence to support his claims about his anti-Poro society profile in Sierra Leone. Given the claimed frequency of public speaking over a three year period and with the claimed audience size at each of these events, the Tribunal reasonably expects that the applicant could have provided a more detailed account of the content of his statements at the events along with corroborative written statements or oral testimony from a number of persons in Sierra Leone who had either attended these events or otherwise knew that they had occurred. The Tribunal’s concern about the lack of persuasive evidence underscores its impression that the applicant has exaggerated the nature, frequency and popularity of his public speaking engagements in Sierra Leone.

13. Of further concern to the Tribunal was the applicant’s vague responses to its inquiries at hearing in relation to how and why his anti-Poro society beliefs arose in 2014 when he was a [age] year old man.  Taking into account the country information extracted above in relation to the pressure upon families in Sierra Leone to agree to their boys being initiated into the Poro society, the Tribunal finds it curious that at no point before or during the hearing, did the applicant express any concern that the Poro society would seek to initiate, forcefully or otherwise, his only son [who] was reaching puberty at the time the applicant’s anti-Poro society beliefs and activism arose in 2014.  Nevertheless, at hearing the Tribunal noted the applicant’s oral evidence that his own family did not nurture his anti-Poro society beliefs in any way but then sought to understand how and why his beliefs arose and developed over time.  By way of response, the applicant stated that he would go to the mosque and hear his imam preaching against the Poro society and this influenced him.  Asked how the Poro society’s beliefs conflicted with his own religious beliefs, the applicant could only state that the Poro society would change a Muslim initiate’s name to a Poro name and that the Poro make the younger generation “destructive” and that Muslim parents should not allow their children to be initiated because that “is totally against the Muslim religion”.  

14. While the Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant is a Muslim who saw fit at the age of [age] to begin taking a stance in his local community against the Poro society, the Tribunal notes that the applicant’s evidence in this regard is lacking in detail and expects that an activist who frequently spoke out against the Poro society to large audiences on the basis of his religious views would have had more to share with the Tribunal in this regard. 

15. Furthermore, of some concern to the Tribunal was the applicant’s admission at hearing that his preaching was a “gradual process” and it was only in 2017 that he became a target.  While each of the applicant’s claimed instances of harm are discussed in some detail below, for present purposes the Tribunal notes that the applicant was able to speak publicly in his local community against the Poro society relatively freely for two years between December 2014 and December 2016 and without any serious consequences being visited upon him or his family.  Asked at hearing as to when he stopped his “preaching” in Sierra Leone, the applicant first stated that these meetings ended in 2016.  Asked what month in 2016, the applicant stated that they ended in December and then stated “it was actually around 2017”.  The Tribunal then confirmed with the applicant that the meetings ended in 2017 and asked in which month of that year they ceased.  The applicant first stated that they ceased in March 2017 and then stated they ended in October 2017. Asked why they ceased in October 2017, the applicant replied:

    That was the time I realised that the Poro society members were very desperate to harm me.   

16. The Tribunal finds that the changing nature of the applicant’s evidence in relation to when his “preaching” ceased further indicates that the applicant’s claims in relation to the level of his anti-Poro society activism  lack credibility.  Noting the representative’s submission that the applicant gained a reputation for being an activist by 2017, the Tribunal expected that the applicant would have been able to provide clearer and more definitive evidence at hearing in relation to exactly when, and not just why, his activism ceased. 

1. Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that the applicant did not speak out against the Poro society while he lived in Freetown between November 2017 and March 2018.  While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that this was because he may have feared repercussions in doing so,  the Tribunal observes that the applicant has not engaged in any anti-Poro society activism since arriving in Australia in March 2018, such as continuing his “preaching” within the expatriate Sierra Leonean community in Australia, where he has been free to do so.  This lack of ongoing activism causes the Tribunal to question the applicant’s commitment to the expression of his anti-Poro society beliefs and doubt the degree to which the applicant claims to have held such beliefs.

2. Taking into account the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has exaggerated or embellished his claims in relation to the extent he has spoken out publicly against the Poro society in his local community in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone.  The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant was regarded as an outspoken member of his local community who frequently expressed anti-Poro society beliefs such that they would give rise to him being intimidated or otherwise harmed for that reason.  The Tribunal’s finding is supported by the fact that the applicant abandoned the expression of his beliefs as soon as he moved to Freetown in November 2017 where it was possible for him to meet with like-minded Muslims to engage in other forms of anti-Poro society political expression.  Furthermore, as stated above, the applicant’s choice to refrain from expressing his beliefs in any forum whilst he has resided in Australia for almost five years since leaving Sierra Leone indicates that his beliefs are either not genuine or at least not deeply held such that he would feel compelled to express them upon return to Sierra Leone.  In that regard, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he would resume his preaching if he were forced to return to Sierra Leone. 

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was regarded in his local community in Sierra Leone by Poro society members as an anti-Poro society activist of renown.  While the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant held some anti-Poro society beliefs, the Tribunal finds that he has exaggerated the degree to which he expressed those beliefs while living in [Town 1] and its surrounding villages along with the degree to which Poro society members were concerned by his activism such that they took action against him because of his political expression.  On this basis, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has ever garnered a discernible profile in Sierra Leone, either nationally or in his local area within the Northern Province, as an anti-Poro society activist.  The Tribunal’s finding in this regard is further supported by the discussion below in relation to the instances of harm as claimed by the applicant.

   Instances of harm

4. In determining whether the applicant would suffer persecution involving serious harm on return to Sierra Leone due to having an actual or imputed political opinion as an anti-Poro society activist, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence that:

   ·     on 10 March 2017, he was attacked by eight Poro society members at his [shop] in [Town 1]

   ·     on 15 March 2017, while he was walking to his farmland, some Poro society members attempted to abduct him for the purpose of forcibly initiating him

   ·     on 20 October 2017, Poro society members destroyed his [shop]

   ·     during harvest time, Poro society members regularly went to his farmland, where he grew [specified produce] for personal use, to take his farm produce or destroy the crops

   ·     on two occasions, once in each of 2015 and 2017, he managed escape harm from Poro society members because he had been suitably forewarned by a member of his family. 

   The attack on the applicant at his shop on 10 March 2017

5. The Tribunal explored the applicant’s claim that he had been physically attacked by eight Poro society members at his [shop] on [location] in [Town 1] on 10 March 2017.  At hearing, the applicant stated eight men who were Poro society members came into his [shop] around 8pm on 10 March 2017.  He understood they were Poro society members because they were “using different voices” and “singing songs” that only Poro men would use and sing, the evening was the usual time that Poro men would come out and Poro society members were the only people he had spoken out against in his community.   These eight men grabbed him then punched and kicked him. He resisted. They dragged him outside his shop where the beating continued.  His right shoulder was injured during the attack. He pretended to surrender and then managed to run away and escape.  When asked for more detail of how he escaped, the applicant responded:  “I run for my life”.  He reported the incident to the local chief who dismissed the matter and warned him not to “talk against Sierra Leonean culture”. The following day he returned to work at his [shop].      

6. The Tribunal raised with the applicant that this incident had not been described in his protection visa application but first raised by the applicant during their interview with the delegate.  In doing so, the Tribunal noted the additional detail provided to the delegate at interview that he had managed to escape these eight men by lying on the ground outside his shop after the beating, pretending to be dead or unconscious, and then suddenly leaping up, rushing towards a small fence, jumping over it and then running away quickly from his eight attackers who gave pursuit.  The Tribunal then raised its concern with the applicant that his account appeared to be far-fetched and implausible as it was difficult to accept that, after being accosted and beaten by eight men, he was capable of suddenly leaping to his feet and escaping from those same eight men after he had been beaten and injured in the manner he had described.  The Tribunal alerted the applicant to its concern that this aspect of his narrative was not credible and might lead it to find that he had fabricated or embellished his evidence.  The applicant replied that he was under oath and telling the truth and that the Tribunal may have its own opinion on the matter. 

7. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response and notes that no persuasive explanation was given as to how he successfully managed to escape these eight men in the circumstances.  The Tribunal has also considered the representative’s oral submission at hearing that it was impermissible for the Tribunal to make a determination that the applicant’s escape was implausible in the absence of an analysis of his injuries.  The Tribunal acknowledges the representative’s submission and notes that the applicant did not provide any documentary or other evidence detailing his injuries and has therefore considered the matter on the available evidence.  The Tribunal maintains that regardless of the severity of the applicant’s shoulder injury from this incident, it is still implausible that he would single-handedly be able to escape eight men who had overpowered and aggressively attacked him in the manner described.

8. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant at hearing that he had told the delegate at interview that this incident occurred in December 2016 and not on 10 March 2017. Asked to explain this inconsistency in his evidence, the applicant gave the following response:

   Firstly, what the representative has given you and what I have said today is the right thing that happened to me. When I had my interview with immigration, to be honest, I hadn’t had legal advice. Secondly, that was the very first time that I was in front of a white man to have that sort of interview since I was born. I was nervous and I was not in my right state.

9. The Tribunal has considered this response and finds that the explanation does not adequately explain the inconsistency.  The discrepancy in dates is significant in that the dates given were at least three months apart.  While the Tribunal is willing to accept some minor inconsistencies in dates, it is unwilling to accept that the applicant’s error at interview can be attributed to him not having had legal advice and/or being nervous or otherwise uncomfortable in the delegate interview setting.  The Tribunal does not accept that the provision of legal advice would, or indeed should, have enabled the applicant to give an accurate date for this incident to the delegate, particular as no explanation was given as to how such advice might have improved the applicant’s memory call of this incident during the interview.  Upon further review of the interview recording, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant was nervous or otherwise having difficulty presenting his evidence to the delegate.  The manner of provision of his evidence in relation to this incident was calm and free-flowing while the content of his evidence was especially detailed. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant was comfortable with the delegate during the interview by way of answering her questions directly and even offering to show her the skin on his back in an effort to support his claims in relation to this incident.  Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the applicant’s explanation for this inconsistency.  While not determinative on this issue, the Tribunal also notes that the applicant neither sought to correct his error at interview nor provide an explanation for that error after the interview, even after he had engaged his representative, and only sought to rectify the issue once it had been brought to his attention during the hearing.

10. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant that he had not provided any corroborative evidence to support his claims surrounding this incident and had chosen not to present evidence from witnesses at the hearing.  The Tribunal raised a concern about the lack of corroborative evidence giving rise to an impression that the applicant had fabricated this incident, or at the very least exaggerated or embellished the harm that was sustained during this incident.  By way of response, the applicant insisted that what he was telling the Tribunal was true because he was under oath and that it was difficult for him to produce evidence partly because the witnesses were not in Australia.  

11. The Tribunal does not accept that explanation for the absence of evidence in this regard as the applicant had been represented for over two years prior to the hearing and did not offer any explanation as to why it was particularly difficult in his case to provide a written statement or other oral evidence from a witness in Sierra Leone, such as a member of his family, who could attest to various matters including the nature of the attack, when it occurred, the injuries he sustained and his narrow escape.

12. Taking into account the implausible nature of the applicant’s claims in relation to this incident, the inconsistency in his evidence and the absence of any persuasive explanation for the lack of corroboration of those claims, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated this incident in order to support his claim for protection.

    The attempted abduction of the applicant on 25 March 2017

13. The Tribunal explored the applicant’s claim that Poro society members attempted to abduct him while he was walking to his farm on 25 March 2017. At hearing, the applicant stated that one evening as he was walking to his farm he heard shouting and screaming and he thought that these were threatening voices of Poro society members.  He felt frightened because he thought they were coming to abduct him for the purpose of initiating him against his will. He began running through the bush in order to escape them all the while hearing them yell intimidatory statements such as “you just stand and wait for us, we will capture you”, “ you will know what will happen to you”, “you are there always criticising us, you just stand there and wait”. The men did not catch him but he did sustain injuries including scratches to his arms, legs and face as he ran quickly through the bush. He did not know how many men were chasing him as he had no time to stand still, look over his shoulder and count them.  He went straight to his local police station to report the incident and also reported the incident to local chiefs.

14. The Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant that his account appeared to be far-fetched and implausible as it was difficult to accept that he was again capable of single-handedly outrunning and escaping from a group of Poro society members who would be experienced in taking people away against their will for the purpose of forced initiation.  The Tribunal alerted the applicant to its concern that this aspect of his narrative was not credible and might lead it to find that he had fabricated or embellished his evidence.  The applicant replied that he was familiar with the bush roads and knew various escape routes and that he ran faster than these men because he was running for his life and that God was protecting him. 

15. The Tribunal is unpersuaded by the applicant’s response as it does not address the concern raised in relation to how he could have escaped from these men who, as described in the country information above, would also have been familiar with the bush if they were Poro society members as such members would have themselves been initiated and performed rituals in bush settings.

16. Furthermore, the Tribunal raised its concern at hearing that certain aspects of his evidence relating to his escape from these men were inconsistent with the evidence he gave to the delegate. The Tribunal indicated that this may lead to an adverse credibility finding.  By way of example, the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that when asked at hearing about what injuries he sustained while running away through the bush, he had said that he had been grazed all over his body and on his face but that was inconsistent with he told the delegate where he said that he had only injured his legs and feet. By way of response:

    As I have said just now, when I run in the bush, I hurt my leg and my foot, then your body, your face and your arm, will have brush. Because those parts are more exposed to the bush then your legs and feet. But as I said earlier on, at that time, I was not in my right state of mind. I was traumatised. I was panicked, since it was my first time. That is the reason why I was not able to bring those details out at that moment.

17. The Tribunal has considered this response and finds that the explanation given does not adequately explain the inconsistency.  The discrepancy in the nature of his injuries is significant in that the applicant did not state at interview that he sustained any brush-related injuries to his face, arms and body as he quickly navigated his way through the bush paths during the chase.  Upon further review of the interview recording, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant was panicked, traumatised or otherwise had difficulty presenting his evidence to the delegate in relation to this incident.  The manner of provision of his evidence in relation to this incident was unhesitating while the content of his evidence was detailed and he was allowed time by the delegate to recall the event and fully describe the injuries he sustained. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied with the applicant’s explanation for this inconsistency. 

18. Taking into account the implausible nature of the applicant’s claims and the inconsistency in his evidence in relation to this incident, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated this incident in order to support his claim for protection.

    The destruction of the applicant’s [shop] on 20 October 2017

19. The Tribunal explored the applicant’s claim that Poro society members destroyed his [Occupation 1] shop on 20 October 2017. At hearing, the applicant stated that during the morning of 21 October 2017 a woman by the name of [Ms I] visited him in his village of [Village 4] to relay a message from his brother [Mr D] that he should go back to [Town 1] because Poro society members had gone to his [shop] and destroyed it. Asked how [Mr D] knew that Poro society members were responsible, the applicant stated that [Mr D] did not see the act of destruction but heard the voices and song of Poro society members at the relevant time because he resided in a house which was only three metres away from the shop. The applicant further explained that [Mr D] did not witness the incident or bother to inspect the damage until the following morning because he and his other brother [Mr E] were too frightened to observe or intervene and there would be no point in doing so.

20. Having explored how the applicant became aware of the incident having occurred, the Tribunal asked whether he assessed the damage and what steps were taken to address the situation. The applicant stated that he did inspect the damage and noted that the chairs, doors, tables [and] other shop contents had been destroyed and that he reported the matter to the local chief whom he thought should know what happened.  Asked whether he had any evidence of this damage, the applicant stated that it did not occur to him to gather any evidence.  Asked why he bothered to report the matter to the local chief given that he had received no support following his two previous reports relating to the two incidents that occurred in March 2017, the applicant stated that he reported it just so the chief would know what happened.

21. While the Tribunal is willing to accept the explanation why his brothers did not intervene at the time of the incident, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation for not thinking to make any record of the substantial damage to his shop and its contents as that business was integral to his livelihood.  The Tribunal also finds it curious that the applicant would not have taken any steps to record this damage and again simply report the matter to a local chief given that the damage was significant and evidence of this would have been worth recording as part of putting his case to the local chief and pressuring them to take action to assist him as they had not done so in the past. 

22. Again, the Tribunal’s concern about the lack of evidence to corroborate the applicant’s claims, such as photographs of the damage to the shop or oral evidence from the applicant’s brothers who heard the incident and also saw the damage, was raised at hearing. By way of response, the applicant insisted that what he was telling the Tribunal was true because he was under oath and that it was difficult for him to produce evidence partly because the witnesses were not in Australia.  

23. The Tribunal does not accept that explanation for the absence of evidence in this regard as the applicant had been represented for over two years prior to the hearing and did not offer any explanation as to why it was particularly difficult in his case to provide documentary evidence or other oral evidence from his brothers, [Ms I] or another witness in Sierra Leone who could attest to various matters pertaining to this incident.     

24. Taking into account the lack of corroborative evidence in relation to this incident, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated this incident in order to support his claim for protection.

    The theft of the applicant’s crop produce and the destruction of his crops

25. The Tribunal notes that in a handwritten statement accompanying his protection visa application form signed on 11 May 2018, the applicant claimed that his farm had been destroyed some time after the attempted abduction incident on 25 March 2017. At the interview with the delegate on 14 June 2018, the applicant did not refer to that claim but did indicate that a group of Poro society members would steal his ripe crops mostly at night at the end of harvest season.  In paragraph 23 of the representative’s submission to the Tribunal dated 23 January 2023, the representative confirmed the applicant’s instructions that:

    in 2015 he leased a farmland about 7 miles from his village. He leased the farmland to grow [specified produce] for his personal use. To intimidate him, the Poro society group members would regularly come to his farmland at the time of harvest and either take the crops without his will or destroy it.

1. At hearing, the Tribunal explored the applicant’s claim that that Poro society members regularly went to his farmland, where he grew [specified produce] for personal use, to take his farm produce or otherwise destroy the crops and farm.  The applicant explained that he had a farm about seven miles from [Town 1] which he would attend between 8am and 4pm.  He would then travel to his [shop] in [Town 1] and work there until 10pm before leaving to go home to sleep.  Asked about any theft and damage, the applicant stated that at harvest time Poro society members would repeatedly take crop produce away and poison or destroy his potato vines.  However, during his interview with the delegate, the applicant did not mention any of his crops being poisoned or destroyed but simply told the delegate that Poro society members would take “stuff” from farms, including his farm, during the night when he was not there.

2. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have forgotten to fully recount the theft of his crop produce at interview.  While his evidence at interview suggests that he was not being targeted as other farmers had also had their crop produce stolen at night, the Tribunal did not engage the applicant further on this issue.  Instead, the Tribunal focussed the applicant’s attention again on the implausibility of his evidence insofar as it was difficult to accept that he would continue to farm this land after the first theft without having at least considered and possibly implemented ways to minimise or stop such thefts and damage on an ongoing basis.  By way of response, the applicant stated:

   The things that I plant on the farm are for consumption, they are not for sale. These are things that we use. I have no option. I have no alternative but to continue farming. Because that is what the family consumes. They do away with what they take but we still live with some.

3. The Tribunal understands the applicant’s response to be that he did not take any steps to avert the claimed crop theft and damage at every harvest because he accepted the situation as his farm was not a commercial venture and he was still left with enough crop produce for his family to consume.  It is difficult to accept that the applicant would simply tolerate the repeated theft of, and damage to, his crops without even considering strategies to avert or minimise the adverse impact of such incidents.  The applicant’s failure to articulate at hearing any strategy for averting or minimising such loss and damage, along with his ongoing tolerance for same during every harvest season, leads the Tribunal to find that these incidents have either been fabricated or at the very least exaggerated.  Furthermore, the applicant was unable to provide the Tribunal with an acceptable explanation why he had been unable to obtain corroborative statements or witness evidence from his family members or other persons in relation to these incidents.     

4. Taking into account the applicant’s unpersuasive evidence at hearing as described above and the lack of corroborative evidence in relation to these incidents, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated, or at the very least exaggerated, these incidents of theft and crop damage in order to support his claim for protection.

   The applicant’s escapes from harm in 2015 and 2017 because he had been suitably forewarned by family members

5. At hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant whether his family had been harmed by Poro society members and was told they had not as they did not speak out publicly against the Poro society. The applicant then indicated that his family had protected him on two occasions from being harmed by Poro society members.  On one occasion in 2015, his wife had heard Poro society members singing and came to his shop to warn him that they might be coming for him.  He left the shop and “found [his] way somewhere”.  On another occasion in 2017, his brother had heard a Poro society man singing and saying they were coming so he came to the shop to warn the applicant and told him to hide. 

6. The Tribunal pressed the applicant further about where the applicant went to hide on each occasion.  The following is a transcript of the Tribunal’s interaction with the applicant (through the interpreter) in this regard:

   Tribunal: Where did you go? On each occasion.

   Applicant: It was in the same town. I left my own place and went to another place.

   Tribunal: What do you mean you went to another place?

   Applicant: I went and hid myself somewhere else.

   Tribunal: Where did you hide?

   Applicant: At the end of the town.

   Tribunal: Where at the end of the town?

   Applicant: In [Town 1].

   Tribunal: In any particular place?

   Applicant: It was at night. I am not a stranger in the town. 

7. Setting aside the fact that the applicant did not previously raise any claims or evidence of this nature with the delegate or the Tribunal prior to the hearing and that there is no evidence to corroborate these new claims, the Tribunal is unprepared to accept that these incidents occurred because it found the applicant to be particularly evasive and not forthcoming with any detail during the hearing as to his chosen hiding location.  This left the Tribunal with the distinct impression that the applicant was fabricating this evidence and unwilling to offer detail as that would have invited further questioning which he sought to avoid.

8. Taking into account the vague nature of the applicant’s claims in this regard, his evasive manner at hearing when questioned in relation to these claims and the lack of corroborative evidence in relation to these incidents, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has fabricated these incidents in order to support his claim for protection.

   Overall findings in relation to the applicant’s profile and credibility

9. Taking into account the accepted evidence in relation to the nature and extent of the applicant’s anti-Poro society 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 anti-Poro society activist such that he would be of any interest to Poro society members if he were to return to Sierra Leone.

10. Having considered all the applicant’s claims and evidence, for the reasons set out above the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s central claims which relate to him having been intimidated, harassed, threatened, injured, deprived of a livelihood or otherwise harmed for reason of his anti-Poro society opinions and activities. In light of this, and in light of the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s remaining claims which flow from his central claims.

11. It is also worth noting that when asked at hearing whether he would express any political opinions or somehow be politically active against the Poro society if he returned to Sierra Leone, the applicant insisted that he would “continue to preach against them in the same way”.  Taking into account the above analysis and findings in relation to the applicant’s profile as an anti-Poro society activist, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he would engage in any anti-Poro society activities or conduct that would be of any interest to Poro society members if he were to return to Sierra Leone. 

12. On the available evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant holds a political opinion that motivates him to speak out against the Poro society or become engaged in anti-Poro society activities in a manner that would be of any interest to Poro society members if he were to return to Sierra Leone.   

    Does the applicant meet the refugee criterion?

13. In his protection visa application and written statement, and at interview with the delegate, the applicant claimed that he cannot return to Serra Leone because he will be forcibly initiated into the Poro society and killed by way of a sacrifice as part of the society’s traditional beliefs. In the Tribunal hearing, the applicant claimed that he cannot return to Sierra Leone because he would be intimidated, harassed, threatened, injured, deprived of a livelihood, killed by way of sacrifice or otherwise harmed for reason of his anti-Poro society beliefs and activities. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that he was harmed by Poro society members, or anyone else, when he was in Sierra Leone. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims and finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm arising from these circumstances if he returned to Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future.

14. The Tribunal has noted the country information provided by the applicant in support of his claims, however, as the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims of harm for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal does not accept the country information provided by the applicant as relevant and gives it no weight.

15. Taking into account the findings set out above, and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to Sierra Leone now or in the foreseeable future that he faces a real chance of serious harm for any reason set out in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or for any other reason.

16. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in the Act, or for any other reason. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, it is not satisfied that the applicant meets the definition of refugee in s 5H(1). As the applicant does not meet the definition in s 5H(1), the Tribunal is not satisfied he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?

17. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, it has considered whether he meets the criterion for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa).

18. As the ‘real risk’ test under the complementary protection criterion imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test under the refugee criterion,[70] for the same reasons as those set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real risk of significant harm for any reason. Therefore, 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. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

    [70] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

    Conclusion

19. 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).

20. 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).

21. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2).

    DECISION

22. 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.

    …