THE STATE has told the Supreme Court that it has evidence which, if true, means the lengthy legal bid by Nigerian mother Pamela Izevbekhai to prevent deportation proceeded on “a lie . . . so fundamental” that her case should be dismissed as an abuse of court process.
The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to admit that material, contained in four affidavits, but adjourned the State’s follow-up application to have Ms Izevbekhai’s action struck out as an abuse of court process and also adjourned an application by her lawyers to cease representing her.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice John Murray, sitting with Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan and Mrs Justice Fidelma Macken, said it would deal with both those matters on a date to be fixed in the next legal term, which opens on April 20th.
Having been told Ms Izevbekhai was seeking new lawyers, the court also directed that any replying affidavits from her to the State’s affidavits should be filed within two weeks.
Sligo-based Ms Izevbekhai had in 2006 initiated her legal action to prevent the deportation of herself and her two young daughters Naomi (7) and Jemima (6) on the grounds that they would be subjected to female genital mutilation.
Last weekend, Ms Izevbekhai acknowledged some documents supplied to the court in support of her action were forged but stood over her claim that she had had a baby daughter, Elizabeth, who died from blood loss as a result of female genital mutilation.
She said her husband, who is in Nigeria, had admitted to her that he obtained fake documents after the doctor who had treated Elizabeth demanded a substantial payment in exchange for the genuine papers.
Ms Izevbekhai was responding to media reports quoting a Nigerian obstetrician and gynaecologist denying earlier claims that he had delivered Elizabeth or had treated her again when she died.
The Sunday Timesalso reported that the doctor had refused to answer detailed questions unless he was paid €5,000.
The admission of bogus documents has led to the application by her solicitor Gabriel Toolan and her existing counsel to cease acting for her in her Supreme Court appeal against a High Court rejection of her case. The proceedings were before the Supreme Court yesterday via a motion by the State to have the four affidavits admitted in the appeal.
At the outset, Mel Christle SC, for Ms Izevbekhai, asked for an adjournment, but Hugh Mohan SC, for the State, objected to any adjournment.
Mr Mohan said that if the court agreed to admit the affidavits, it should draw inferences from the material in those that this was a fraudulent case and strike out the appeal.
The matter has been before the High Court 22 times and, if the content of one of the affidavits was true, it had proceeded on “a lie that is so fundamental” the case should be struck out, he said. Mr Christle said he wanted an adjournment because his solicitor wished to come off record and it appeared Ms Izevbekhai was seeking new lawyers. While it had been intended to apply to come off record now, his solicitor, following a consultation with Ms Izevbekhai just before the court sat, wanted an opportunity to elaborate on matters in his affidavit grounding the application to come off record.
Ms Izevbekhai was objecting to the admission of the State’s affidavits and wanted the application to admit that adjourned so she could deal with it through her new solicitors, counsel added.
In reply to the judges, counsel said they wished to come off record due to “conflicting instructions”. Asked what he meant, he said the conflict involved “goes to the root of the case”.
He added that he appreciated the duty incumbent on lawyers, under the Bar Council’s code of conduct, to inform the court but his side had not been directly informed of “the specific wrongdoing”.
Because of the situation, he was not in a position to deal with the State’s motion.
The Chief Justice said the court would allow in the State’s affidavits de bene esse (for the present), allow Ms Izevebkhai two weeks to reply to those and then, on a date to be fixed, deal both with the State’s application to dismiss and the motion to come off record. He listed the case for mention only on April 30th to update the court.
Mr Mohan said, if the material in the affidavit was correct, the courts had been fundamentally misled.
The Chief Justice said nothing further was to be said at this stage.
Mr Mohan said he just wished to say he could not overemphasise the seriousness with which the State viewed the matter and its anxiety that it be brought to an early conclusion. Mr Christle said his side accepted what Mr Mohan said as, he added, was their duty to the court.
