Justice

Letter to the Prime Minister

By MikeM / 7 August 2003

This is a letter sent by the Pakeha Social Justice Commission as part of their campaign.

118 Constable Street

Newtown
Wellington

Thursday, 7 August 2003

Dear Prime Minister,

I am a resident of Newtown Wellington, and I work as a researcher and educator for the Anglican Social Justice Commission. Before this I completed a Masters degree at Victoria University of Wellington. I have a strong interest in politics, international and local, and have a broad awareness of the political developments in Algeria over the last two decades. I am writing out of concern for the current situation involving Ahmed Zaoui, and the security risk certificate that has been issued against him here in New Zealand.

I am particularly concerned with your recent comments that the decision reached by Refugee Status Appeal Authority were limited as they lacked access to confidential SIS information, and moreover that this decision might be superseded on this basis. If there is indeed information of the nature that it “cannot and should not be made public”, then the authenticity of this information must be carefully weighed against the extensive and verifiable public information available on Mr Zaoui, his allegiances, and his activities over the last decade.

I have read the many of the reports and affidavits that were submitted in support of Mr Zaoui’s appeal to the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, and, on the basis of these, am not at all surprised at the Authority’s decision. Mr Zaoui’s case was extremely strong, and many prominent experts on Algeria hi-lighted and outlined aspects of Algeria’s complex political situation. As I am sure you are aware, such reports indicate that it is likely that Mr Zaoui’s has been tagged a terrorist by the Algerian regime (and consequently countries with close economic and political links to Algeria) as part of a wider move to quell even the most moderate political dissent. I urge you to remain fully aware of the Algerian Government’s manipulation of the war of terrorism for its own ends, and must not simply accept information originating from here (even if now untraceable to these origins) as authentic.

The authenticity of such confidential SIS evidence must also be weighed against Mr Zaoui’s many public activities promoting non-violent political solutions for Algeria. His work alongside the Sant’ Egidio community in setting up the dialogue processes in Rome in 1996, and thereby bringing together Algeria’s major political opposition groups, not only sits in contrast the activities of terrorists, but actually works directly against them. Terrorism lives and thrives in situations of instability, and gains its recruits and adherents from those with real or imagined grievances (of course acknowledging this in no way condones the terrorist resort to violence). Terrorism is far less likely to thrive in an environment where there are forums for addressing and resolving grievance. Such colloquiums as that inaugurated and supported by Mr Zaoui actively reduces international terrorism by providing a viable alternative for the expression of political opposition. The work of Mr Zaoui in promoting peace and discussion are of such a level and extent that they can not be merely disregarded as a front or cover, beneath which terrorists activities and agendas operate. Such activities in and of themselves are a strong refutation of any accusation of terrorist activities or connections. For this reason any supposedly terrorist activities of associations are extremely unlikely.

When Mr Zaoui first arrived in New Zealand I understand that he immediately stated who he was and petitioned for amnesty. These are not the actions of a terrorist, but rather seem the actions of someone confident enough of his own innocence that he is willing to throw himself at the mercy of the New Zealand’s democratic and legal systems. The normal procedure has granted Mr Zaoui refugee status, and thus found him innocent of any terrorist activities or associations. While legal mechanisms are in place, and have been invoked, for superseding this decision, I urge you to think carefully before pursuing them.

Central to the moral foundation that legitimises the legal system, both in New Zealand and international law, is the belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. If Mr Zaoui is extradited without trial (or actually in spite of winning his trial), then I urge you to allow him some opportunity to respond to the evidence that is being brought against him. I urge you to make the nature of the evidence being brought against Mr Zaoui, if not the detail, available to himself and to his legal counsel. Even if there are indeed legitimate reasons why this evidence must be kept from the public, there must be a process of some kind that allows it to verified and responded too. It must be available to at least some mechanisms independent of the SIS and international intelligence networks. I mean this as no slur against the SIS, and I would presume that they have thorough authentication processes in place, but such must also be weighed the quality and authenticity of the processes and submissions of the Refugee Status Appeal Board. The information that has been used to establish Mr Zaoui’s eligibility for refugee status can be publicly tested and is verifiable by any individual or organisation. The confidential SIS information on which Mr Zaoui’s fate now resides cannot. As democracies are by their very nature founded and maintained on the openness of bureaucratic processes and decisions (and insofar as they seek to allow citizens access to such they become totalitarian) I urge you to think carefully before removing the fate of Mr Zaoui from any form of democratic process whatsoever.

Finally, and as Mohamed-Larbi Zitout indicates in his report to the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, if Mr Zaoui is extradited and returned to Algeria (or to another country that will not guarantee his protection) then we, as a country, will be responsible for fate. As you are well aware many political opponents of the Algerian regime been tortured and killed (or at best only “disappeared”). If Mr Zaoui were to be extradited from New Zealand on the basis of confidential information obtained via international intelligence agencies, then it is likely that this too would be his fate.

I urge caution. The move of extraditing Mr Zaoui without giving due consideration to the overwhelming evidence in favour of his innocence would irrevocably compromise New Zealand’s reputation as a just and reasoning democracy.

Regards,
Mike Mawson.