Zaoui's cell door remains shut

By CATHERINE MASTERS and MARTIN BRIGHT

Ahmed Zaoui is in no-man's land, jailed without charge with no end in sight. The Algerian has been cleared as a legitimate refugee but imprisoned because of a security-risk certificate issued on the basis of secret information held by the SIS.

He has not been told what he is supposed to have done or why he is deemed such a risk, but public and media speculation has been rife. Talkback radio goes through periods of hot debate. People talk about him, his lawyers talk for him and the media write about him - but are banned from talking to him.

After 21 months in jail, his case is still winding its way through the system. The Court of Appeal is yet to rule if his human rights should be taken into account in a review of the security certificate which claims he is a threat to New Zealand's national security.

Surely it is time he was able to tell his story to reporters? Corrections Department officials continue to say no, and a High Court judgment has refused TVNZ access.

Both reason there has been plenty of publicity already in the media, that he can talk through his lawyers and that an interview with him could affect the integrity of the legal process under way.

Commentators and others keeping close watch on his case disagree. At issue is a denial of human rights and freedom of speech to a man who is imprisoned but has not been charged with a crime.

"The media is a key protection of human rights," says Ced Simpson, the New Zealand director of Amnesty International. "In any democratic society, an independent judiciary is one protection, a free media probing, asking the right questions, looking into the stories of individuals who may be subject to injustice is another."

Constitutional law expert Dr Andrew Ladley said it might be reasonable to refuse access in the first month or so when security issues needed to be examined.

"But a year or two down the track, when there has been extensive publicity out of this, it seems to me entirely contradictory to say that the person has already had media scrutiny and therefore you can deny media access again."

Ten months ago the Herald almost had an interview with Mr Zaoui in the bag but the Corrections Department did an about-turn and the cell door slammed shut. The TVNZ judgment seems to have sealed it further.

Zaoui's situation is different from anything New Zealand has encountered. He was locked in solitary confinement without charge after arriving on false documents. He was an Islamist, a democratically elected politician in his own country.

His party was ousted in a bloody military coup, he had a death threat on his head. He had been kicked out of Switzerland and had fled from country to country with allegations of terrorist links trailing him.

In New Zealand, he was granted refugee status in an exhaustive decision from the Refugee Status Appeal Authority which declared him not just a genuine refugee but "a man of peace".

Still he was not set free. The SIS held shadowy information on him, information so secret they would not tell even him what it was and the country's first Security Risk Certificate was imposed.

When security was relaxed and he was moved from Paremoremo to the Auckland Central Remand Prison last year, the Weekend Herald again requested an interview.

The remand prison had no objections - it could be managed, they said. Zaoui had no objections, his lawyers had no objections, the Herald had a date. But the Corrections Department's communication's team swung into action and so began a slow process of consultation with other departments, with ministers, with the police. It dragged on, then Corrections said no.

The Herald has gleaned information about the process from papers and emails released under the OIA. Such as the fact that the Police, the Immigration Department and even the SIS, at least on paper, had no objection to an interview.

Well, perhaps the SIS had just the one concern: "If Mr Zaoui gives an interview to the Herald and/or to other media, he will undoubtedly give his side of the story," said Richard Woods, head of the spy agency in an email to the head of the Corrections Department's communications office last November.

"That said, the Service is not aware of security or legal grounds on which to object to his giving an interview," Woods went on.

In July, TVNZ argued in court that a refusal to interview Zaoui was inconsistent with freedom of expression contained in the Bill of Rights, but Judge Ronald Young disagreed. He said the security review process was vulnerable to one-sided publicity and Zaoui had had a number of opportunities to publicise his case.

The case was similar to that of a remand prisoner and it was reasonable for prison authorities to prevent a remand prisoner from speaking to the media about his upcoming trial.

Last month, in the same week as the court judgment, Corrections finally released to the Herald a brief summary of explanations for its continued refusal to this newspaper. It referred to a case in Britain, where a ban on journalists visiting prisoners and writing about their cases was lifted on the basis it interfered with free speech.

Unlike the man in that case, Zaoui had not exhausted all his legal avenues, it said. It did not point out that the man in the British case was a convicted murderer and that Zaoui has not been charged with a crime.

It did say that while an interview would be of human interest "it would also be likely to be used, or perceived to be used, as a means of influencing public opinion".

Former Corrections Minister Matt Robson finds this insulting. "Here is an unknown official at the instruction of others saying what is and isn't best for the public.

"He is not held on a charge, he had a decision in his favour and he has a raft of allegations around him, swirling around him. In fact, if the public interest is being considered we the public have a right to listen to this man."

Journalism lecturer Jim Tully said, in the interest of freedom of speech, it seemed fair and reasonable for the media to talk to someone in Zaoui's situation.

Many talkback hosts were critical of Zaoui but the public had no way of getting Zaoui's point of view directly, unmediated by his lawyers.

"There is no shortage of reasons we should be actively discussing the Zaoui case. The missing ingredient is his perspective in this unmediated way."

Herald Feature: Ahmed Zaoui, parliamentarian in prison

Related information and links