Why Ahmed Zaoui must be freed

This is a response from Ahmed Zaoui's lawyers to the Security Intelligence Service's summary of evidence against their client. The summary sets out the evidence against Mr Zaoui and the reasoning behind the security risk certificate that keeps him in prison even though he is an officially recognised refugee. The evidence was kept secret until the High Court ordered that it be released to Mr Zaoui's lawyers who, in turn, released it to the media last week. In their response they challenge every point raised by the SIS.

* * *

The High Court made it clear that Mr Zaoui was to be provided a summary of the allegations and the basis on which they are made. We have no choice but to accept on good faith that this is a complete summary.

1. FALSE PASSPORT

It is surprising to see this mentioned. The UN Refugee Convention stipulates that refugees cannot be penalised for using false papers.

2. VIDEOTAPE RECORDING OF TRAVEL IN THAILAND, LAOS AND VIETNAM

This is a bizarre allegation. It is obvious from a viewing of the video of Mr Zaoui's travels that he is neither an experienced nor a competent videographer.

The video camera used was a gift to Mr Zaoui from his eldest son shortly before he started his journey to New Zealand. It makes no sense to create a casing video on his way to seeking refugee status here, to then freely surrender it to officials upon arrival.

The SIS does not go as far as to say that the video is a casing video, just that it looks suspicious. Why Mr Zaoui would want to case the sites in question is never revealed by the Director.

The Director's reasoning about the video is also questionable. How can tourist buses and an internet cafe qualify as not obvious tourist sites, and yet be places frequented by westerners? The Summary attempts to cast aspersions on the fact that the videotape includes a 2 sec image of an oil company building. Yet when the tape is viewed in its (59 minute) entirety, it is obvious that Mr Zaoui is filming a variety of objects, buildings, landmarks and people, almost at random and as clumsily as any amateur. Six of the eight video images (bridge, satellite, internet cafe, ship, building and bus images) displayed by the Herald yesterday must be viewed in their proper context. These images were seconds each in length and were parts of a sequence of jolted, amateurish attempts by Mr Zaoui to pan the camera. The Embassy List shot was taken at a mosque where Mr Zaoui went to pray and listed the nights that each Embassy was putting on a Ramadan dinner at the mosque.

The video images that make up the bulk of Mr Zaoui's homemade video were: The islands of Hailong Bay (12 minutes), Mr Zaoui's canoe trip with a French backpacker (12 minutes), the video camera left accidentally running inside Mr Zaoui's bag whilst on the canoe (10 minutes), numerous street and river scenes (some 20 minutes), street-stalls, chickens, hens, an elephant, flower ladies, children, umbrellas, bulldozers, bicycles, rice paddies and ponds (at least 10 minutes), paintings, jewellery and souvenirs at a stop-off souvenir shop (4 minutes).

For the Director of Security to select - out of all of these images - tourist buses (when as the videotape shows, Mr Zaoui travelled by tourist bus and also by ferry, rowboat and canoe for that matter); an internet cafe in Laos (when these are commonplace in all areas of tourist resort); and a mosque in Hanoi (given that Mr Zaoui is a Muslim) - amongst all the other numerous subjects he clumsily videotaped, is in our view misleading.

The Summary does not clarify whether Mr Zaoui's mosque visit raises security concerns. We fail to see how it could do so. Mr Zaoui videotaped the mosque in Hanoi because that is where he went to pray.

We hold serious concerns about the joint Police and SIS interview of Mr Zaoui. The interview was conducted without him being advised of his right to a lawyer, and was secretly videotaped and tape recorded (last year the SIS advised that its videotape was missing an hour).

The interpreter was so inadequate he was sent home. The interviewing officer destroyed his handwritten notes.

The Director's reliance on the interview was based not on his viewing of the videotape or audiotape, but on typed up notes of the handwritten notes.

Access to all tapes of the interview has also been denied to us, other than on wholly unacceptable conditions that effectively prevent Mr Zaoui and his legal advisers from using the information on the tapes.

3. THE SIS INTERVIEW

Franz Kafka would be proud to claim ownership of this reasoning. It is claimed that Mr Zaoui gave an answer (which cannot be divulged) to a question (which cannot be divulged, giving rise to an alleged point of security concern which is not identified). It is not even asserted that his answer was untrue.

The interview of Mr Zaoui by a New Zealand SIS officer who had learned Arabic in Egypt, and at times communication broke down between them. The SIS officer simultaneously wrote Arabic answers in English, a feat which our best interpreters cannot accomplish.

4 5, 6. EUROPEAN CONVICTIONS

These allegations relate to France, Belgium and Switzerland and should be read together. They do no further than briefly identify particular judicial and administrative steps taken against Mr Zaoui by the Belgian, Swiss and French authorities. Each of these in turn was meticulously researched in detail, analysed and dismissed by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority as flawed.

There is nothing in these allegations that the RSAA has not already considered, comprehensively dealt with and disposed of. A copy of the RSAA decision can be obtained from www.humanrights.co.nz

7. DEFINITION OF SECURITY

What is significant about this paragraph is what it does not say. In relying only on the kinds of activities listed in (c) of the definition of security, the Director specifically rules out the risk of Mr Zaoui engaging in acts of espionage, sabotage, terrorism or subversion.

8. REASONING

When boiled down, the Director's reasoning is that Ahmed Zaoui should be deported (ultimately to face torture and death in Algeria) because, if he were allowed to stay, New Zealand could be considered a soft touch by other countries and other people. This reasoning overlooks the fact that this man's treatment in New Zealand - 15 months of imprisonment without charge 11 of those in solitary - could hardly be labelled a soft touch.

It also ignores New Zealand's already rigorous border controls and criminal legislation.

In totality, the Director's Summary when it is boiled down to its bare essentials - amounts to a fear of how New Zealand's overseas reputation could be affected. In our view, that is a wholly inadequate and baseless reason for detaining a man described by the RSAA as a passionate advocate for peace in Algeria.

In light of the wholly inadequate reasons for the issuing of the security risk certificate as stated in the Director's Summary, we have written to the Prime Minister as Minister in Charge of Security and Intelligence and to the Minister of Immigration requesting that reliance on the security risk certificate is withdrawn.

* * *

Herald Feature: Ahmed Zaoui, parliamentarian in prison

Related information and links