A Malawian man who claimed his sister was murdered due to having albinism has for the second time won a High Court challenge over being refused subsidiary protection.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan directed a fresh hearing of the application after finding the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ipat) fell into error in how it came to a conclusion based on incomplete information.
Ipat has refused the man’s appeal for subsidiary protection twice already, having been directed by the High Court in 2020 to rehear the case.
The man’s claims centre on there being a significant market in his home country for body parts from people with albinism for use in witchcraft rituals.
The applicant, who is in his mid-20s, said his twin sister, who had albinism, was killed and her body was discovered with some parts removed.
Although the man does not show albinistic characteristics, he alleged he was subsequently attacked at home and he believes the attackers thought he had albinism due to his sister’s genetic condition, according to Mr Justice Meenan’s ruling, which was given in August and published on Monday.
The man came to Ireland in 2016, claiming he is afraid to return to Malawi as he believes the attackers are still looking for him.
He had submitted a 2016 Amnesty International report which states that almost every person with albinism in Malawi lives in fear of being killed or harmed and “by extension, this sense is also felt by other family members”.
Ipat concluded that this statement does not mean other family members are in fear of being killed themselves “but rather that they empathise with the fear being suffered by the albino member of their family”, the judge said.
The applicant had referred to a statement by then-president of Malawi president Peter Mutharika which, he said, called on police to arrest perpetrators and protect people with albinism and their families at risk of attack.
Ipat said it had not seen the full statement and concluded it was “impossible to know” exactly what the president was referring to. It was “not prepared to hazard a guess at what he meant”, and, on the balance of probabilities, Ipat did not accept that family members of albinos are targeted.
Mr Justice Meenan said Ipat fell into error by putting a construction on the president’s words against the case made by the applicant.
“In a sense, [Ipat] was doing what it said it would not do and proceeded to ‘hazard a guess’ on what it accepted to be ‘incomplete’ information,” the judge said.
