Court to hear controversial refugee claim

OTTAWA – The Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday it will hear the refugee appeal of Rachidi Ekanza Ezokola, a former diplomat from the Democratic Republic of Congo accused of complicity in war crimes.

The case could redefine how this country considers culpability for war crimes.

“It’s a big relief for us,” said Jared Will, the Toronto lawyer who represents Ezokola. “The scope of the definition of complicity has gone well beyond where it should be, and this gives us a chance to correct that.”

Whatever the Supreme Court’s ruling, it will clarify the rules for people claiming refugee status who have worked in governments accused of war crimes.

Will said that successive judicial decisions have broadened the original legislation laid out in the United Nations convention on refugees that Canada adopted into law in 2001. Now, Will said, the definition is too broad to be useful.

Ezokola was first denied refugee status by Canada’s immigration authorities after he arrived in 2008.

Concerned with his role in the government of war-torn DRC, the Immigration and Refugee Board denied Ezokola’s initial request as a person believed to be complicit in crimes against humanity perpetrated by the government of the sprawling African state.

The board acknowledged Ezokola did not personally commit violent acts against civilians, but found he knowingly enabled his government to perpetuate itself while doing nothing to disassociate himself from the acts.

But Will says Canada’s test for whether a refugee claimant is complicit in war crimes is more expansive than the definition used by other signatories to the UN convention.

Ezokola was the No. 2 DRC diplomat at the United Nations when he became embroiled in an argument with the ambassador about national affairs after Joseph Kabila was elected president in 2006.

He resigned in 2008 from what he claimed to the Canadian refugee board was “a hostile work environment” and drove his wife and their eight children to Canada. The family settled in Montreal.

Ezokola won his first appeal, but a unanimous Federal Court of Appeal ruling last year upheld the decision of the refugee board.

Those judges clarified the definition of which officials can be considered complicit in war crimes.

Justice Marc Noël wrote in the decision that wilful ignorance was no excuse, that any senior official who remained in their position without speaking when their government committed crimes was complicit in the crimes.