War Criminal favoured by UK Establishment

Accused of War Crimes, would struggle to become a Taxi driver in the USA, UK and Europe, under sanctions in the U.K.

Yet the U.K., Home Office (HO) which is a ministerial department of Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom, responsible for immigration, security and law and order. As such it is responsible for policing in England and Wales, fire and rescue services in England, and visas and immigration and the Security Service (MI5). 

The same HO is happy to parley with the one called "The Crocodile".  The new leader and hard man dictator of Zimbabwe.  The HO is putting into his "protection", people who have expressed ill feeling towards the Crocodile and his Cronies.

On 19th July 2018 We petitioned the UK Government

"Oh, he is not that bad," the HO says.  "He can be responsible for people's lives.  Simple reassurance is enough."  The same type of reassurances that were sought from the former leader of Libya (Gaddafi) or the infamous current leader of Syria (Assad). 

One might forgive some of the politicians as they could sometimes change portfolios and Ministerial briefs within a short space of time (The Right Honourable Amber Rudd).  However sometimes they do stay within the same ministry for half a decade or more, thus they get to know and understand the laws, historical contexts of the implementation of the laws, the impact on people's lives of laws passed and the actual implications on the wider public of the decisions not made and made.

The same politicians cannot be taken to task individually nor severally for decisions made whilst in office no matter the consequences even if there is loss of life as a direct result of actions or inactions, directly or indirectly.

One can excuse the politicians sometimes, however, the civil servants who work for the HO are meant to be professionals in the know.  They are meant to have teams, that actually have team meetings to discuss certain matters (legal or otherwise) and cases, to ensure that their departments are always acting within the bounds of the law, even when taking instructions from politicians, but especially when dealing with states that have been described as human rights free zones by members from all political parties and independents, who sit both in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The return of people who are clearly against ZANU PF and it's proxies to Zimbabwe, via the interviews held jointly by the HO and the Zimbabwean Embassy, on failed asylum seekers or those without leave to remain, to meet the numbers for targets set by politicians, leaves one asking the question, do lives matter more than targets or, do targets matter more than lives?

The numbers who have disappeared when deported to just Libya, Syria, Sudan and Iraq are astonishing, yet today, the same civil servants and the same department of HO insists the assurances are credible.

Are there any repercussions on their actions if somehow someone disappears, gets tortured, raped or killed in a country that has to this day not ratified UN treaties and covenants against torture and disappearances? 

If former UK Armed Forces service men, acting in a volatile theatre, dodging actual bullets, can face the courts for their actions, in the heat of the moment or not, then the question of whether or not Civil Servants can, or should also face the law, for their actions or inactions has to be debated fully.

The public good protection is an argument set out in cases, including at Den Haag.  Light as it my be for someone who has not committed a crime for over 10 years or ever, one wonders what crime they would be committing if they refused to comply with the Zimbabwean Authorities whilst they are in the UK and failed on their Asylum claim. 

Considering the fact that as recently as the week of the Royal baby Prince Charlie's birth, reports from whistle blowers in the HO were leaked to the tabloid press.  The reports suggested that some people were being trained on how to refuse claims, or being given responsibility of people's futures after less than 1 weeks training, by an individual who also had been with the HO for less than 2 months. 

Will this lack of cooperation be used as an excuse for immediate  detention and eventual deportation/removal without the right to a fair trial and an appeal, where the HO will be represented by a trained Barrister and QC, but the defendant will be on their own and without time to collect evidence?

To be known for being able to deport the likes of Abu Hamza and other terrorists is commendable, however to be known for being able to deport those fleeing the brutality of a dictator who is under UK Sanctions, one might say is more than legally and morally questionable.

Written by a ZHRO Member