Federal Court Decisions

Date: 200508122

Docket: IMM-5808-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1117

Ottawa, Ontario, August 22, 2005

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

BETWEEN:

OMOTAYO AKINMAYOWA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]    Mr. Omotayo Akinmayowa chose not to become High Chief of his Yoruba tribe in Nigeria. He was told, though, that his blood was required as a sacrifice to appease the Oracle that would choose someone else. He fled Nigeria and sought refugee protection in Canada.

[2]    A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed Mr. Akinmayowa's claim because his description of his tribe's practices was not borne out by experts on Yoruba culture. Mr. Akinmayowa argues that the Board misunderstood the essence of his claim and asks for a new hearing. I can find no basis for overturning the Board's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.

I.         Issue

[3]    Did the Board fail to understand the real basis for Mr. Akinmayowa's claim for refugee protection?

II.      Analysis

[4]    Mr. Akinmayowa points to three areas of the Board's decision that display its lack of understanding of his claim. First, he says the Board did not appreciate the significance of a newspaper article about the alleged poisoning of another Chief. Second, he says the Board failed to address his fear about his blood being required for the appointment of a different High Chief. Third, he disputes the Board's interpretation of the expert evidence on Yoruba culture.

(i)       The Newspaper Article

[5]    On the day of the hearing, Mr. Akinmayowa's counsel filed with the Board a newspaper article entitled "Who poisoned the King". It describes the death of a traditional chief by toxic gastroenteritis. Mr. Akinmayowa contends that the article was submitted for the purpose of showing an absence of state protection in Nigeria. The article refers to the fact that no police investigation was underway. The Board did refer to this article in its reasons, but not in relation to the issue of state protection. It noted that the article referred to the issuance of a death certificate for the deceased, which contradicted Mr. Akinmayowa's testimony that no death certificate had been issued for his father, who had also died under mysterious circumstances.

[6]    The article is really not very helpful in relation to the issue of state protection. It does state that no police investigation was being conducted into the king's death. However, it also says that the police had received the opinion of a medical expert who said that the death could have been the result of bad food, an allergic reaction, or an overdose of a traditional concoction, perhaps prepared under unsanitary conditions. The Board's treatment of the article was not improper.

(i)       The Core of the Claim

[7]    Mr. Akinmayowa argues that the Board misconstrued his claim. He says that he was fearful that his blood was being sought for ritual purposes, not that he would be punished for refusing to become High Chief.

[8]    The Board characterized Mr. Akinmayowa's claim as follows: "He was told that if he did not accept the position his blood would have to be spilled to satisfy the Oracle who would have to choose someone else". I cannot see any difference between Mr. Akinmayowa's version of his claim and the Board's.

(iii)          The Expert Evidence

[9]    The Board considered a research paper on the subject of the consequences of refusing the Chieftancy of the Yoruba. The paper contains the opinions of three experts. One said that a person who refused would probably not be punished. Another said that if a person refused the title, there would be many others interested in it. A third said that he doubted a refusal would result in any sanctions. However, he acknowledged that there could be exceptions in certain areas.

[10]                        Mr. Akinmayowa argues that none of this contradicts his testimony. He insists that his blood was not being sought as punishment for his refusal to become Chief. It was needed for purposes of selecting a different candidate.

[11]                        The Board drew a number of conclusions from the experts' opinions:

1.                   Candidates for traditional positions are chosen by their families, not the Oracle or the Kingmakers;

2.                In the Yoruba society, every individual is free to make his choice;

3.                If a title is refused there are plenty of other candidates interested in it - it is not, as the claimant alleged, left vacant until the Oracle is mollified with the blood of the candidate;

4.                There are no penalties or sanctions associated with a candidate's refusal to accept the position.

[12]                        Mr. Akinmayowa notes that not all of these conclusions flow directly from the experts' opinions. In particular, the experts said nothing that contradicted Mr. Akinmayowa's testimony about mollifying the Oracle with blood. Further, they did not definitively state that there were no penalties or sanctions. One said he did not know of any. Another said he doubted there would be any punishment, but conceded that exceptions were possible.

[13]                        I agree that the Board's summary of the experts' opinions is less nuanced than the opinions themselves. But I would not agree that the Board's summary shows that it seriously misunderstood Mr. Akinmayowa's claim. Mr. Akinmayowa was adamant that the demand for his blood was not punishment for his refusal to become High Chief. He would have to concede, however, that it is certainly an adverse consequence. The experts were clear that they were unaware of "punishments" or "sanctions" for refusing the chieftancy. However, within that context, I think it is unlikely they would have failed to mention a person's loss of life through ritual blood-letting, even if it was only for purposes of sacrifice and not for punishment.

[14]                        Mr. Akinmayowa also argues that the Board should have accepted that his tribe was one of the exceptions to the general rule that no adverse consequences flow from refusing the chieftancy. However, given that the prevailing view was that no sanctions were imposed on recalcitrant candidates, it was open to the Board to doubt that an exception so dramatically out of keeping with Yoruba society generally, in which freedom of individual choice is respected, might exist. I cannot see any error on the Board's part in relying on the experts' opinions when it concluded there was no more than a mere possibility that Mr. Akinmayowa was at risk of persecution.

[15]                        I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.

JUDGMENT

This court's judgment is that:

1.       The application for judicial review is dismissed;

2.       No question of general importance is stated.

"James W. O'Reilly"