A Travesty Of Justice - The Case Of Ahmed Zaoui by David Small
Peace
Researcher 28 – December 2003
Ahmed
Zaoui, an Algerian Islamic politician, has been in custody since he was
arrested upon arrival, in Auckland, in late 2002. He has never been charged or
tried for any offence. He arrived on false papers, and claimed refugee status,
which he has been granted by the appropriate official body. The Government
chose to override that decision, citing the woebegotten Security Intelligence
Service (SIS) as its preferred authority on the case. Zaoui is wanted by Algeria (site of a particularly murderous
civil war, one where the West now backs the regime because it is fighting
Islamic fundamentalists). For most of the 1990s Zaoui was shunted from exile to
exile, in Europe and Africa. The Intelligence agencies of various European
countries, principally France, plus the Algerians and NZ’s more usual
Intelligence allies, have all contributed to Zaoui remaining in prison in
Auckland, and facing imminent deportation (with the very real prospect of
death, should he be returned to Algeria, which has sentenced him to death in
absentia).
Zaoui’s
plight has become a national cause celebre, and there is any number of
appalling aspects to it (such as the racist and shoddy Immigration laws and
procedures exposed for all to see). Peace
Researcher has a longstanding interest in
the SIS and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, so we decided
to concentrate on that aspect.
David
Small is well known to PR readers because of his involvement in the case of Aziz Choudry (it was David who caught the SIS agents
breaking into Aziz’s Christchurch home, in 1996). David later won his own civil
court case arising out of that. See PR
21, June 2000, “David Defeats Goliath”. David has become heavily involved in
the campaign to free Ahmed Zaoui. He
has visited Zaoui in prison (they both speak French); attended the successful
December 2003 Auckland High Court hearing; spoken in the media and at public
meetings. We invited David to write us a lead article on the Zaoui case. He was
so keen that he hand wrote it, whilst on a family holiday (special thanks to
Leigh Cookson for typing it for us, also whilst on holiday).
We
consider it appalling that Ahmed Zaoui has been imprisoned, most of it in
solitary confinement and in maximum security, without charge or trial, and
faces deportation and possible death, because of the cackhanded malice of New
Zealand “Intelligence” (a contradiction in terms if there was ever one), backed
up by the bumbling prejudices of the Inspector-General, and the gutlessness of
a Government whose most senior Ministers put a higher premium on sucking up to
our masters in the “War On Terror” and on a relationship with the Intelligence
agencies from the likes of France (our “ally,” which, in the 1980s, sent
Intelligence agents to bomb the “Rainbow Warrior” in Auckland Harbour, killing
a man in in the process) than on the life and liberty of a Third World refugee.
Shame on the lot of you. Ed.
Zaoui Put In Solitary On Scandalously Flimsy Grounds
One of the more disturbing details of the saga of Algerian refugee, Ahmed Zaoui, was his incarceration for ten months in Paremoremo Maximum Security Prison in solitary confinement. He was placed and kept there on the strength of a report produced by the threat assessment unit of the Police. The Police gave three reasons for their recommendation. The first was an assertion that Mr Zaoui was a member of the Armed Islamic Group (whose acronym, in French, is GIA. French is the colonial language in Algeria); a claim whose sole source was a Website whose other outrageous theories include one about Queen Elizabeth being a big-time drug smuggler. The other two Police arguments were that Mr Zaoui might use lawful means to try to stay in New Zealand, and that he may generate support amongst the New Zealand public for his plight.
It
is scandalous that these were seen as sufficient grounds – or any grounds at
all – for keeping a person in solitary confinement in maximum security. But the two fears of the Police have been
realised: Mr Zaoui has been finding lawful means to stay in the country and
support for him is growing. In fact
recently he received 100 letters in a single day from wellwishers.
Mr
Zaoui’s legal team who, contrary to claims about being on the gravy train, have
only been paid for two weeks of their work of several months, succeeded in
getting him out of solitary and transferred from Paremoremo to the Auckland Remand
Prison, and have got the Government on the back foot on several other matters
as well. Deborah Manning and Richard McLeod, together with Queen’s Counsel, Dr
Rodney Harrison, have also just won a legal challenge to an interim ruling of
the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Laurie Greig. In December
2003, they persuaded the Auckland High Court that, in considering Mr Zaoui’s
appeal against the Security Risk Certificate that he was issued with by the
Security Intelligence Service (SIS), the Inspector-General was wrong to refuse
to consider human rights issues, and to refuse to release even a summary of the
classified information that the SIS relied on for the Security Risk Certificate
(the first such Certificate ever issued
in NZ. This case was historic also because Zaoui’s lawyers succeeded in making
the SIS Director, Richard Woods, appear as a witness. Ed.).
Initially
depicted as some kind of Islamic terrorist caught by our vigilant intelligence
organisations, the turning point in the public perception of Mr Zaoui came with
the August 2003 decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority to accept his
application for refugee status. The Authority’s 223 page decision described Mr
Zaoui’s evidence in the following terms:
“In
11 days of questioning, the appellant's evidence has been internally consistent
in every respect…On no occasion…did he give evidence inconsistent with what he
had already said…His account is also consistent with information from reliable
third parties…his evidence on the complex events spanning more than a decade is
corroborated by this wealth of information from other sources in every material
detail…The appellant has given approximately 50 hours of evidence. At no point
has he prevaricated or hesitated. His answers have been spontaneous and
non-contrived”.
The
Authority concluded that Mr Zaoui “has only ever been a member of the (Islamic
Salvation Front; French acronym FIS); a political group and found “no serious
reasons for considering he is a member, let alone the leader, of the GIA or…
any armed group”. It described Mr Zaoui as “an articulate, intelligent,
committed and principled individual who, despite the hurdles placed before him
over the last ten years, remains a passionate advocate for peace through
democracy in Algeria”.
The
Authority was scathing in its comments on the material provided to it by the
SIS.
“The
(SIS’s) chronology of the appellant…is mostly devoid of any citation of the
sources relied on. Many of the entries consist solely of unsourced extracts
from various news reports, with no attempt to excise opinion from fact…the SIS
commentary on the FIS…is superficial and, to the extent that it reflects the
official biases of the Algerian regime, contentious. Its attached chronology on
the FIS is more interesting for its selective omissions than anything it says
about the FIS…We were surprised at how limited (the SIS unclassified material)
was and the questionable nature of some of the contents”.
What
made this judgement a turning point was that its findings turned the spotlight
onto the SIS, its reasons for issuing a Security Risk Certificate against Mr
Zaoui, and the sole avenue for appeal against the Certificate, the
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
It
is the role of the Inspector-General to determine whether the Certificate was
properly issued. In doing so, he has privileged access to classified security
information, significant powers, and wide discretion as to how to use them. The
position of the Inspector-General was created in conjunction with the
controversial 1996 Amendment to the SIS Act.
The
Inspector-General’s first case was one familiar to readers of Peace Researcher. He heard complaints
from Aziz Choudry and me concerning events around the 1996 Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC) Trade Ministers’ meeting in Christchurch: the SIS
break-in to Mr Choudry’s house; a hoax bomb that looked like a set-up; and
questionable Police searches.
The
Inspector-General, without confirming or denying any SIS involvement, concluded
that no law had been broken. Subsequent court cases found that both the SIS and
Police had acted illegally*. The latest
court case is a further example of the Inspector-General getting the law wrong
and erring on the side of secrecy, rather than accountability. * The best summary of the Choudry case can be
read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/choudry.htm Ed.
Since
then, the SIS has had its powers increased through amendments to the SIS Act
and Immigration Act in 1999, the Terrorism Suppression Act (2002) and the
Counter-Terrorism Act (2003) *. Through
all this, the Inspector-General remains the only avenue for appeal against the
SIS. *ABC’s submissions on these latter
two Acts, and similar legislation, can be read online at http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/submissions.html
Ed.
With
such broad discretion, the views of the Inspector-General are very important.
He revealed these in an interview with Listener
writer, Gordon Campbell (29/11/03; “Watching The Watchers”), in which he
expressed a lack of sympathy for asylum seekers, a cosy, rather than critical
relationship with the SIS, and a willingness to rely on uncorroborated hearsay
as grounds for people being declared threats to national security. His remarks
provoked an outcry and have led to Mr Zaoui’s lawyers formally calling for Laurie
Greig to be removed from deliberating on the appeal against the Security Risk
Certificate that has been issued against Mr Zaoui.
In
the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, there has been intense
pressure on all countries to sign up to the “War On Terror”. New Zealand has
been an enthusiastic participant in this “war”. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark
(who is Minister in Charge of the SIS, a portfolio only ever held by the PM),
and Immigration Minister, Lianne Dalziel, have consistently argued that, if New
Zealand is to play its part, it cannot divulge any information that it receives
from foreign Intelligence agencies.
However,
given what we know about the SIS and the Inspector-General, what this almost
certainly amounts to is the SIS uncritically accepting information from North
American and European intelligence agencies, and Laurie Greig uncritically
accepting the assurances of the SIS. In this globalised unaccountable world of
“intelligence”, New Zealand’s role is to act on reports it is given from its
more powerful counterparts, not to question or demand evidence of its
reliability.
All
of this leaves Mr Zaoui in a difficult predicament. The Security Risk
Certificate he is appealing says not that he is a terrorist, but that his presence
in New Zealand would endanger our national security. Any challenge to such
broad, value-laden and imprecise grounds would be difficult, but it becomes
impossible when one is forbidden from knowing anything about the accuser’s
evidence. This is a fundamental breach
of natural justice and one that even other paid-up members of the “War On
Terror”, including Britain and Canada, do not rely on.
In
Mr Zaoui’s case it is compounded by what we know is a very low threshold that
the SIS uses to give something the status of “classified security information”.
As anyone who has had dealings with the SIS knows, all you are likely to get
out of them (if you are lucky) is copies of letters you have sent to them and
maybe the odd newspaper clipping. In the Choudry case, one document, which had
been classified but was eventually extracted from the SIS, was a photocopy of a
section of a Christchurch street map. Expect similar absurdities now that
aspects of the classified information on Mr Zaoui have to be released.
The
suspicion of the low threshold for classified information was recently
confirmed by the discovery (it could be said “by chance”, but again experience
shows that the more ends you tug at, the more incriminating evidence falls out)
of a secret recording of a seven hour interview that the SIS and Police
conducted with Mr Zaoui on his arrival in the country and without Mr Zaoui
being advised of his right to have a lawyer present.
When
the existence of the videotape was eventually discovered, the SIS made the
preposterous claim that the picture was of poor quality and a large segment of
the audio track was missing. It is incredible that an agency that went out of
its way to arrange an interview at a time and place of its choosing with
somebody it had been told from an overseas Intelligence agency (probably
France) was a serious security risk, would mess up something as basic as
recording and storing a videotape. In fact, it would have been astounding if
the SIS had not immediately copied the tape and sent it to the agency that
originally gave it the dirt on Mr Zaoui.
The
missing sound story drew scorn from many people and even provoked a rebuke from
the Prime Minister, which led within hours to the miraculous rediscovery of all
of the sound. But the sound sideshow should not draw attention from three more
serious issues.
The
first of these is the making of the tape in the first place. When the SIS
eventually admitted breaking into Mr Choudry’s house (in 1996), their defence
was that they thought they were legally entitled to do so. However, they could
not possibly claim that they thought they were allowed to secretly record the
interview with Mr Zaoui. This incident confirms what critics of the SIS have
long argued; that the SIS acts as though it is above the law that it does
whatever it thinks it can get away with regardless of the law.
The
second is that the SIS is still refusing to release the tape to Mr Zaoui’s
lawyers on the grounds that it is classified information. It is absurd and
unreasonable to deny the tape on these grounds to the person who was
(obviously) present at the interview itself. It also further confirms the low
threshold the SIS uses to give something the status of classified information.
The
other serious concern about the tape is that the Inspector-General did not even
know of its existence. The person who is the only avenue of appeal against the
SIS is being kept in the dark about relevant aspects of its operation.
As
with most things involving the SIS, the more that is discovered about the Zaoui
case, the more disturbing the picture that emerges. The Police fear the Mr
Zaoui could find legal means to stay in New Zealand may yet be realised. And
they were right to worry that his plight might attract the support of New
Zealanders. On humanitarian grounds alone, Mr Zaoui is worthy of support. This
case is also a clear demonstration of so much that is wrong with the murky
world of “intelligence” and “security”. It shows that the new laws are a
travesty of justice, that the agencies responsible for applying them are not to
be trusted, and that avenues for appeal are worthless.
-------------------------------
|
previous article |
|
|
|