A High Court judge has directed a reconsideration of a refusal of protection for a young woman who fled South Africa because her tribal leader father was forcing her into an arranged marriage to an older local chief.
Ms Justice Tara Burns said the 22-year-old woman’s case must be reconsidered by the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Ipat).
The judge was satisfied the Ipat erred in its analysis of the 2015 International Protection Act covering circumstances where a person at risk of persecution in one part of a country could find sanctuary in another part of that country.
The woman arrived here in March 2018 when she applied for protection on the grounds she was a victim of gender-based violence and threats, arising from her efforts to avoid an arranged marriage.
Her father had arranged her marriage to the head of another family who was much older than her with the purpose of settling a dispute between the families.
She left South Africa to avoid the marriage and claimed she could not return as she would be subjected to severe punishment from her father for having run away. She had previously run away to avoid the proposed marriage.
Her application for protection was refused and she appealed to the Ipat which accepted she was chosen to take part in the arranged marriage.
It was also accepted she had been subjected to an examination to establish her virginity and to physical violence from her father when she said she did not want to get married to the other chief.
The Ipat found there was not adequate state protection in South Africa for her but she could be internally located in that country to avoid persecution.
Cape Town was suggested because it was argued she could be anonymous there and get a job. She argued her father would find her and she would find it difficult to get a job and end up on the streets and in prostitution.
The Ipat refused her protection claim and she brought High Court proceedings.
In her judgment, Ms Justice Burns found there was a failure by the Ipat to engage in any kind of analysis regarding State support for her.
The judge failed to see how it came to the conclusion she could stay in Cape Town having regard to her personal circumstances, including lack of family support, and the general conditions prevailing on the ground.
She said she would not quash the decision, as sought by the woman, but would remit the matter to the Ipat for re-consideration in line with the court’s findings.