The applicant, a Nigerian immigrant, was arrested on 6 February 2012 by Immigration officers in Zimbabwe. On 14 February 2012, he filed an urgent chamber application seeking his release from detention. The applicant claimed he was arrested and detained on undisclosed allegations without reasonable suspicion, making his detention unlawful under section 8(1) of the Immigration Act [Cap 4:02]. The first respondent opposed the application, revealing that the applicant had been invited for an interview, during which it was discovered he was out of status with no valid permit, PRN, or Foreign Investor Licence. Crucially, immigration records showed the applicant had previously been deported from Zimbabwe on 15 June 2005, making him a prohibited person. The applicant had lied under oath on his residence permit application by stating he had only entered Zimbabwe for the first time in 2006, concealing his prior deportation.
The application was dismissed with costs.
1. An applicant for a residence permit bears the statutory onus under section 15(2) of the Immigration Regulations, 1998 to satisfy the Chief Immigration Officer that he is of good character and is not a prohibited person. 2. A person who has been previously deported from Zimbabwe becomes a prohibited person under section 14(1)(i) of the Immigration Act and cannot be readmitted without an exemption certificate from the Minister under section 16 of the Act. 3. The Chief Immigration Officer has reasonable suspicion to arrest and detain under section 8(1) of the Immigration Act where an applicant has made false declarations under oath in a permit application, particularly by concealing a prior deportation. 4. Immigration authorities may withdraw permits and remove persons from Zimbabwe under section 4 of the Immigration Act even where initial entry and permits were granted by error or oversight, if the person is subsequently found to be a prohibited person. 5. There is no legal requirement that a person be notified in writing that he is a prohibited person before detention and removal proceedings are initiated.
The court made observations about the procedural aspects of the case, noting that the applicant's explanation for the seven-day delay in filing the urgent application (that he was trying to engage the first respondent) did not assist his case. The court also commented on the fairness of allowing the supplementary affidavit to correct the number of prior deportations, noting that the correction could only benefit rather than prejudice the applicant. The court observed that counsel for the applicant failed to make submissions challenging key legal propositions advanced by the respondents, particularly regarding the requirements for readmission after deportation and the absence of a requirement for written notification of prohibited person status.
This case clarifies the powers of immigration authorities in Zimbabwe to detain and deport persons who are prohibited persons under the Immigration Act. It establishes that a previous deportation creates prohibited person status requiring ministerial exemption for readmission, and that immigration authorities can act on reasonable suspicion based on false declarations in permit applications. The case reinforces that the statutory onus lies on the applicant to satisfy immigration authorities that they are not a prohibited person, and that permits obtained by concealment of material facts (such as prior deportation) can be withdrawn. It also confirms that there is no requirement for written notification of prohibited person status before detention and removal proceedings can be initiated.