Judge dismisses appeal against decree granting bail to Malian asylum seeker

A court dismissed the government’s appeal filed against a decree which was issued to grant bail to a Malian asylum seeker who was detained by authorities last November.

The case revolves around Namake Noumo, who had arrived in Malta in 2008 and was declared to be an illegal immigrant. The man was moved Italy where he was given residency permit.

In 2015, he had returned to Malta to find a job. He had managed to arrive on the island using a fake passport. Arrested for the felony, Mr Noumo was imprisoned for six months. An application he had filed to receive the refugee status was denied by the Refugee Appeals Board in a decision it took in March 2015.

In November last year, the police had rounded up a group of 33 immigrants who had been living in Malta illegally. They were held at the Safi detention centre for over a month.

His lawyer had filed an urgent request for the judicial review of the legality of the arrest. The court had upheld the request for bail and Noumo was released while the Attorney General had subsequently filed an appeal.

In a decision handed yesterday, Judge Edwina Grima ruled that the AG’s appeal be dismissed and spared the man from having bail revoked. In its sentence, the Judge ruled that the court of Magistrates was right in noting that the required evidence in question was not presented.

“There wasn’t the slightest evidence that the Immigration Officer had issued the decision for the repatriation of Mr Noumo,” it said. The only evidence that was presented was a removal order which was issued in 2008.

It appears that the latter was not reactivated and Judge Grima said that the court would go as far to say that in reality, the order had not been issued. She noted that the Commissioner had presented the evidence ‘unwisely’.

When appearing in court, Mr Noumo had told the court that the police had failed to provide any documentation. He had also made reference to a comment by the police – “all Malians have to go back.”

In dismissing the appeal, the Judge confirmed the decision taken by the Court of Magistrates and ruled that the freedom of an individual is sacred and that this basic right should not be removed without a valid reason.