Country Guidance on Ahmadis from Pakistan

Source: Free Movement via Wasim Sroya:

The Baitul Futuh Mosque in London

The Upper Tribunal has issued a new Country Guidance case on Ahmadis from Pakistan, the case of MN and others (Ahmadis – country conditions – risk) Pakistan CG [2012] UKUT 00389 (IAC). Shivani Jegarajah and Colin Yeo of Renaissance Chambers (and this blog) were instructed, as were Manjit Gill QC, Peter Jorro and David Lemer.

There were five appellants and all had been disbelieved to various extents by judges of the First-tier Tribunal, although it is interesting that at paragraph 128 the tribunal suggests a degree of over-scepticism on their part:

Having heard the extensive evidence from the expert and other witnesses as to Ahmadi practices and circumstances in Pakistan whose integrity is beyond doubt as well as the appellants who gave evidence before us, we consider that had the First tier Tribunal Judges heard this new evidence it is possible that they might have come to different conclusions.

Certainly the Upper Tribunal heard a wide range of evidence over the seven days of the hearing. Four independent experts gave evidence on various aspects of the situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan: the history and social context, the position of women, the position in law and the position on the ground in terms of police and court practice. A further three non appellant Ahmadis gave evidence as witnesses on the situation of women, on doctrinal and theological issues and on the targeting of Ahmadis, the way the community records such incidents and the way the community organises itself.

Read More:

Categories: Europe, Pakistan, UK

2 replies

  1. It is a good decision but needs to be appealed on some areas where UT badly got confused and mixed up between the same level of risk to an ahmadi male and female and ahmadi practices taken are only in defiance of the anti ahmadi legislation is persecution as per their decision. It is my view that those appesls are failed need to be challenged on these grounds to set the records straight. It is first time the leadership of the AMAUK played pivotal role to address this matter. They should continue to do so with their active practical support to asylum seekers and their cases with physical presence in courts by way of witnesses.

  2. The recent UT case is somehow in conflict with findings of the House of Lords landmark case in Shah & Islam re gender discrimination in a male dominated society where women virtually have no rights. The UT made findamental mistake in treating ahmadi men and women alike regarding risk of persecution in Pakistan. Ahmadi women are more vulnerable than men who cannot defend or protect them against attacks without support from men.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.