Derek Achong
Lawyers representing a group of T&T nationals and their children who were left stranded in refugee camps following the collapse of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have threatened to file yet another lawsuit over the failure of the State to facilitate their repatriations.
The latest legal threat came in a pre-action protocol letter sent to National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds late last week by lawyers for Raheema Khan, who is acting as coordinator for the families of the refugees.
It comes as three groups of the refugees are currently appealing the dismissal of similar lawsuits over the issue.
In the correspondence, obtained by Guardian Media, Khan’s legal team sought to describe the living conditions at the Al-Hawl refugee camp in Syria where many of the refugees are housed.
“The camp has been reported as highly unsafe for both women and children. Gunfire and malnutrition are commonplace,” they said.
They claimed that the Ministry of National Security and Ministry of Foreign and Caricom Affairs could easily facilitate their repatriations using diplomacy.
“The Republic of T&T has diplomatic relations with Turkey and Syria. In addition, T&T has diplomatic links with other members of the United States of America (USA)-led coalition forces that still support the Syrian Democratic Force’s existence in Syria,” they said.
They noted that in August 2018, former national security minister and current Energy Minister Stuart Young appointed a multidisciplinary and multi-agency team dubbed the “Nightingale Team”, to consider the possible repatriation and reintegration of the refugees.
However, they said that the Government, through the team, is yet to define the nature of the risk posed by the refugees, who they described as internally displaced persons (IDPs).
“The suspicion that the IDPs, being national women and children, on their return may pose a risk to T&T is saved by any consideration or information that suggests that coercion or recruitment may have been present in action,” they said.
“It cannot be that citizens are being denied their right to due process based on general or ‘desktop’ research that has no context to T&T data,” they added.
They noted that in February 2016, the Government facilitated the repatriation of several women and children from Syrian territories based on a 1969 Cabinet note entitled “Repatriation Policy.”
They noted that there was no evidence of those families posing a risk to T&T almost six years after their return and it should be applied to them.
“As a service, it must be equally applied to all citizens. As citizens of T&T, they would like equal access to this service provision,” they said.
They also requested the disclosure of any evidence the ministry may have which could prove that they went to Syria to engage in terrorist activities.
“We contend there is no evidence identifying why any of the applicants went to Syria, and there is no evidence before any Court as to what any of them did there,” they said.
They claimed that their clients’ constitutional right to freedom of movement was being infringed.
“It is a ‘foundational’ right because without the ability to enter one’s country of citizenship, the ‘right to have rights’ cannot be fully exercised. The right to freedom of movement is a ‘fundamental right associated with citizenship,’” they said.
They gave Hinds 30 days in which to respond to the proposed lawsuit before filing it.
In April 2021, High Court Judge Joan Charles dismissed a lawsuit from relatives of two with eight children and two orphans of a former ISIS Trinidadian fighter.
Justice Charles ruled that she did not have the jurisdiction to order the ministry to approve their repatriation.
She also noted that the relatives appealed to the ministry to repatriate their families but failed to apply for travel exemptions then ongoing public health regulations for the COVID-19 pandemic.
“There has been no failure by the Minister to make a decision with respect to entry of the family members of the Intended Claimants in light of the failure by such family members and their relatives on their behalf to apply for an exemption,” Justice Charles said.
She also noted that aspects of this country’s constitution relied on by the group could not be enforced in a foreign state.
“This court cannot pronounce on matters that clearly fall within the domain of the policy imperatives of the Executive and Legislative arms of Government,” she said.
The group is being represented by Criston J Williams, Celeste St Louis, Jade Martinez, and Blaine Sobrian.