Catherine Wairi Mturi, is set to be the new Kenya Ports Authority boss. She holds a number of qualifications, including an MBA in Strategic Management from USIU, BSc in Finance and Accounting from USIU, CPA, CPS and a Certified SAP Consultant …read more…
Kaya elders are working on a formula to vet all political aspirants ahead of next year’s election, their chairman Abdallah Mnyenze has said.
He said most leaders who ascend to power fail to fulfill their promises once elected.
Speaking to the Star on the phone on Tuesday, Mnyenze said the Kaya Elders Council will marshal electorates from all the counties in the region to esure all aspirants are publicly scrutinised …read more…
March 4, was the official end of the transition period to the devolved system of government. It was marked by the exit of the Commission on the Implementation of the Constitution and the Transition Authority, two of county governments’ key allies in the implementation process.
Since inception, county governments have been on the defensive against the national government’s numerous efforts to usurp their powers through withholding of funds, hostile legislation and punitive administrative procedures, several of which have been declared unconstitutional by the courts …read more…
The Commission for Revenue Allocation proposed the 47 counties share Sh377 billion but Treasury cut the amount to Sh302 billion, including conditional grants…read more…
The Jumuiya ya Kaunti za Pwani economic bloc formed in 2015 seeks to bring together the six Coast counties – Mombasa, Kwale, Kilifi, Lamu, Taita Taveta and Tana River…read more…
Today I would like to observe that while the issue of judicial review on my application for asylum in 2009 required my sanity and full attention from the point I had filed application at the Federal Magistrates Court onwards, some other busybodies were invariably preoccupied with engaging in acts amounting to domestic violence. These hostile acts were extended to my daughter, son, and I to a point my underage daughter had to be admitted at the Canberra hospital for several days in 2008. It was at this point I felt I was left with no other option but to concurrently seek legal aid from Legal Aid ACT office to offer legal resources first towards issuance of Domestic Violence Orders to protect my children from suffering more psychological harm perpetrated by someone familiar.
Through a family support worker from Communities @ Work, I initially managed to secure tentative legal representation on the matter DV08/797 (refer to #preamble) from a law firm in Canberra. After the first appearance in Court accompanied by a legal practitioner, the court issued interim domestic violence orders against the respondent. I was indeed later disappointed when after this first success in seeking justice against hostile acts directly impacting on the psychological well-being of my children, I received communication from Legal Aid ACT in writing informing my request for legal resources to enable for further legal representation on this matter had been declined.
On making further enquiries, I was informed on phone Legal Aid ACT had received advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs And Trade that my two children and I are not supposed to be in Australia. Subsequent explicit communication from Legal Aid ACT stated that considering I would soon be departing Australia for good as reliably established, any positive court outcome on the issue would neither be useful to my two children nor to me. My further response to Legal Aid ACT to appeal for reconsideration of my application for legal aid, including formal intervention from the law firm were both declined. I was, therefore, forced to represent myself in court to obtain the requisite restraining orders against ex-partner. A soft copy of my letter of appeal to Legal Aid ACT is appended below:
6 March 2009
The Chief Executive Officer,
Legal Aid ACT,
4 Mort Street,
APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO REFUSE LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN THE MATTER OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE RESPONDENT
Your letter ref. 08F307101X of 16 February 2009 refers.
I hereby forward my submission on appeal for reconsideration of the decision to refuse me legal assistance to seek Final Orders against the Respondent in the matter of Domestic Violence pending before the Family Court.
I would be grateful if my appeal for reconsideration would be granted.
ELIJAH HIRIBAE MALIBE
Original hard copy correspondences written to the same institution by the law firm is a subject of the documents being withheld by Australian commonwealth officials in my yet to be returned suitcase and other personal items taken from me in 2013.
In my submission to Legal Aid ACT office, I pointed out a number of issues that made the securing of final domestic violence orders a priority. If only to stop the respondent from destabilizing my sanity given previous difficult conduct in collusion with unscrupulous Australian commonwealth government officials that has resulted to loss of my employment. If only to stop the respondent from engaging in unacceptable conduct that had adversely impacted on the psychological well-being of my children. If only to stop for good by association or otherwise, any further contact between respondent and my two children and I, whether here or anywhere else on this planet.
Secondly. When I first arrived in Canberra with my family on 4 August 2006 up to the time I was unfairly dismissed from the High Commission in June 2008, the Kenyan government had not concluded any arrangement with the Australian government to employ spouses of diplomats posted to host country. This was in line with attendant Conventions governing diplomatic and Consular relations. Since Kenya did not accord spouses of Australian diplomats a similar opportunity while serving in Kenya, it was obvious reciprocity would have to be the rule of thumb. I had briefed respondent about this position and informed her to halt her plans to seek gainful employment until the matter was mutually settled. Respondent, however, defied my advice and unilaterally started looking for employment, possibly under the impression I simply did not want her to work. It was when the respondent had secured an appointment for an interview [at a popular department store] and was headed to attend that interview that I decided to report the matter to the High Commissioner so as to avoid getting into trouble with Australian government authorities.
The High Commissioner summoned respondent to his office and personally took her through the Australian Protocol Guide. The Guide was explicit respondent could not engage in gainful employment without the express permission of DFAT. Her compliance to this provision was widely meant to safeguard our household without causing undue harassment and irreparable damage. Compliance to this scenario was also meant to protect the image of the High Commission and by extension, the image of Kenya government as relates to adherence by diplomatic staff and members of their household in host country to requisite diplomatic etiquette.
As though the briefing by the High Commissioner was not convincing, respondent unilaterally sought an appointment with the Chief of Protocol at the Department of Foreign Affairs And Trade in 2007, which the department granted without first contacting the Kenyan High Commission about the matter. Or so I was made to believe at the time. Respondent then went ahead to hold discussions with the Chief of Protocol at the Protocol Directorate of DFAT. As the principal member of our household, I wasn’t made aware of such contact either by DFAT or by the High Commission. Neither was I made aware of the content of the discussions that transpired between ex-partner and Australian commonwealth government officials. I was simply rendered helpless as respondent ignored all counsel to extent of confidently telling me she cared less about the consequences of her actions and that I should leave her alone. This renewed attitude, zeal, and determination from ex-partner following her appointment with the Chief of Protocol at DFAT demoralized me as it obviously put my career on a collision course with my superiors in Nairobi. Respondent persisted with her resolve to defy any useful advice from me and went ahead to secure two gainful employments much as obtaining a tax file number issued by Australian commonwealth government officials. Serving diplomats do not have tax file numbers since serving diplomats do not remit taxes to host country. She had also claimed that the High Commissioner, Amb. John Lepi Lanyasunya, was aware of her employment. Not to mention how much this attitude offended me, Nairobi was made aware of this situation by the same High Commissioner, Amb. John Lepi Lanyasunya. My career was from that point onwards deliberately put on the spotlight as I was unfairly considered an embarrassment to the High Commission as well as to the government of Kenya. This is ostensibly for failing to reign in on a member of my household much more for presumed failure by a member of my household to abide by diplomatic etiquette while I served in Australia. Surprisingly though, the very efficient officials stationed at DFAT, who were invariably able to monitor and pursue me at every other turn I made in the region, never raised any alarm with either the High Commission or with me regarding issue of obtaining a tax file number by ex-spouse which subsequently enabled her to secure gainful employment considering her status prior to June 2008.
Thirdly. The children and I started December 2008 with high expectations due to fact that my daughter was scheduled to graduate on 16 December 2008 from primary education. Although we did not have money at the time, the management of the school had agreed to exempt us from any payments towards the event, if only to provide an opportunity for my children and I to attend the occasion. On Sunday 14 December 2008 I took the children to the kids’ park where we had some fun together. Being the week that my daughter would be graduating, we were all upbeat for the occasion. Come Monday 15 December 2008, I prepared the kids in the morning for school. Both of them came back from school at around 4.30p.m. I had already prepared dinner. I served the boy while the girl said she would eat later. I then went to my backyard for some physical workouts at a humbling personal home gym. At that point, I saw my daughter come out of the house with garbage in a paper bag. She threw that in the garbage bin. The girl then went back to the house and after a few minutes came out again with a plastic paper bag, which I assumed was more rubbish she was taking to the garbage bin. However, after my gym session around 5.00 p.m., I realized the girl was missing and asked the boy whether he had an idea where her sister was. I took son with me to go and look for the sister in the neighbourhood but could not trace her.
As I wondered whether to call police and report a missing child, a phone call came from Child Care and Protection Services. The official informed me my daughter was at the police station. The official confirmed she was headed there and would contact me with further details. I was later contacted and told that my daughter had indicated to authorities she wanted to go and spend time with now ex-stepmother. I was also told that if her request was not granted, the girl had said she would harm herself. This was so unlike her. This matter got so serious at the time to the point the girl had to be taken to Canberra hospital, where she was admitted for observation for about 8 days.
My son and I went to visit the girl at the hospital in the morning of 16 December 2008, the day of her graduation. While at the hospital, I received a phone call from the School asking about the whereabout of the girl as she had not reported to school. After I explained what had happened the previous evening, I was informed the girl had on 15 December 2008, been upbeat during the morning session. That in the afternoon of 15 December 2008, respondent had visited the school and had had a lengthy discussion with the girl. The school further informed that after respondent left, school authorities noticed the girl had become moody to worrying levels to teachers and staff.
First, respondent did not have any form of permission to visit my daughter at school. This is because respondent had informed Australian authorities she did not want any form of association with my family when she left household in September 2008. The school regretted respondent was allowed to see my daughter unaware she would cause the girl distress. I do not blame the school for what happened. I never anticipated respondent would visit my daughter at school or have secret phone contact with her during school time in view of fact that respondent has moved on with her life. In addition, respondent had told me she did not want my children to call her mum. She had personally given the boy similar instructions, to the disbelief of the child who was only five. Besides, I had not given the school interim directives relating to respondent to not contact my children at school because it never occurred to me she would.
Indeed, respondent was aware my daughter would be graduating from Year 6 on the 16 December 2008. To the best of my knowledge, therefore, respondent deliberately schemed her visit to the school to coincide with the eve of the graduation ceremony. As established from disclosure from the school as well as from the girl, it was clear respondent engaged in such conduct with the sole purpose of poisoning my daughter’s mind against me. Respondent had also asked the girl to pack her staff when she gets back to the house so she could go live with respondent. It is certainly respondent’s visitation of my daughter at school that influenced the girl to go to the police station against her wish. Apparently, respondent then refused to accept my daughter’s imposed quest to live with her as promised. Respondent had been contacted by authorities regarding the girl’s request but respondent apparently declined. This apparent betrayal to the girl again caused her more anguish. This is because the girl could not accept from ACT police the proposition respondent had been contacted and had indicated she did not want the girl at her new residential address.
Surprisingly, respondent capitalized on this scenario during conferencing on issue of domestic violence orders at the Magistrates Court. She asserted I was the cause of my daughter’s hospitalisation. The part that hurts most is fact that respondent caused daughter, son and I psychological stress when we could not attend the girl’s graduation ceremony on 16 December 2008. Considering all the effort, rehearsals at school, and preparation at home for the occasion. Not to mention how the girl’s absence from the event impacted on her friends and on family friends at the school. This was a day we had all anticipated to attend. Due to respondent’s unrestrained manipulation and lack of restraining orders, she had certainly added more injury to the trauma the family was already going through. The three of us missed out on a very special occasion that only comes once in the lifetime of every child’s school calendar.
Suffices to state there is no bigger offending behaviour amongst couples than for now ex-partner to have deliberately contemplated the sacking and loss of my source of livelihood as the breadwinner in the family. She remorselessly abandoned the children to move on at a very challenging moment for the family. There certainly is no bigger offending behaviour in a union of two than for respondent to have abandoned the children in the manner she did. We have certainly suffered harsh living conditions facilitated by her manipulative character and failure to honour her word of mouth undertaking relating to family finances.
It is much more offending behaviour amongst couples for one partner to peddle rumours and unfounded allegations simultaneously and constantly misleading the neighbourhood. To misinform the children on crucial matters of life with a view to causing disharmony between them and I in pursuit of personal interest is simply unbearable. I certainly considered such dispensation to have no bearing whatsoever on the provision of care and protection of basic rights and interests of children. Indeed, respondent didn’t have to take me for a ride in order to facilitate the lose of my employment. For her to involve my daughter in our adult issues by telling her half-truths meant to manipulate and cause the girl to distrust me is conduct no affected parent would ever allow to occur again.
Indeed, the proposition by respondent that she has had the welfare of the children at heart while her selfish acts have depleted the family’s financial resources while leaving her personal fortune back in Kenya secured is certainly unacceptable conduct. This simply is conduct which has exposed the children to an abrupt and inconvenient change of lifestyle. Obviously I have had to contend with this change of lifestyle as a single parent without gainful employment. In addition, I struggle to reassure the kids of a brighter future ahead once these matters are sorted out, now a decade down the line. Our situation has definitely left the children more confused as I figure out how to start afresh in the middle of extended ruthless betrayal even after these matters are finally resolved if they ever would.
It is also instrumental at this point to appreciate fact that while respondent had been granted legal aid to defend her character against issuance of final restraining orders, I, the applicant on the other hand had been denied the same facility to protect the children from the respondent’s exploitative and opportunistic tendencies. Thus, considering respondent’s propensity for making false promises then conveniently turning around to capitalize on the upshot of such disposition as a means to achieving her egocentric ends, it is unlikely respondent would not continue to exhibit these traits to my family in the near future if not restrained by court orders from doing so.
I have certainly been deeply concerned with respondent’s penchant for taking every available opportunity to poison my daughter’s mind to revolt against me. This inclination, if allowed to continue unchecked, was bound to end up reversing the gains so far made by way of counselling to address the impact of years of a manipulative and a vicious cycle of abuse, particularly to my unsuspecting underage daughter. Thus, the benefits of Final Orders to the children and I far outweighed any other considerations respondent and those behind her motivation may have had in mind when it was impressed upon Legal Aid ACT that any positive court outcome on the issue would neither be useful to my two children nor to me.
It is no secret Australian commonwealth government officials at DFAT have explicitly claimed there was no outcome on the matter DV08/797 alleging I had withdrawn the matter from the magistrates court. What a disgrace to openly jeopardise the welfare and protection of children under the scenario that prevailed at the time I had sought legal resources to protect children against harm. Such careless allegation made behind my back to a decision making entity is in this day and age such a low act, no sane person would rationalize. Indeed, it is now clear officials from the Australian Federal Police are using this issue to continue to deny my daughter and I any work rights in Australia as a form of punishment and blackmail for not towing their line. This is because while they claim on one hand resolution of my ‘status‘ in Australia is still pending with them, the same officials have on the other hand impressed upon me of a ‘wife’ and another ‘son’ living elsewhere within Australia long after the circumstances described herein have made any form of relationship with respondent untenable. This is harassment, which should stop forthwith. Because of this scenario, it is clear there technically would be no way forward on this issue of ‘my status’ in Australia. This is due to fact that the same woman my detractors want to force upon me as a ‘wife’ when all everyone else sees is a non-existent marital status, is the same person I have vowed to neither have a relationship with again nor allow anywhere near my children given her past record with my family as described herein. This is the stalemate in this matter – a decade down the line. Of course, notwithstanding the numerous federal court decisions, including decision from Australia’s highest court to refer the matter of my 2009 as well as 2013 applications for asylum respectively to the department of immigration for reconsideration. I am indeed a single parent with a daughter and one son in Australia, both living with me under the same roof.
Lastly. Indication is now rife the Protective Service of the Australian Federal Police intends to impose on me matters surrounding a different immigration file dating back to 2010. This is based on variation of details first without having adequately notified me of a meeting/interview and subsequent change of file prior to soliciting my signature when I last turned up for an appointment explicitly scheduled on 5 February 2016 under the guise of fortnight reporting to compliance officers at DIAC. Neither have these officials made me aware prior to changing the file to one of 2010 on 5 February 2016 of fact that issues surrounding immigration file for 2013 may actually have been concluded a while ago. Explicit indication by these officials that I ‘voluntarily presented to them as a BVE holder’ on 5 February 2016 when they had actually passed me printouts of previous visa documentation issued in 2013 (as though I had asked for such documentation) when I went to report on 5 February 2016 as required is truly unbelievable much as it is fraudulent. Why these officers keep playing around with my mind while wasting my time in the process as though they own me, certainly is a matter that’s not only degrading but hateful as well.
Indeed continued denial of work rights in Australia from deliberate failure to resolve the amorphous issue of ‘status’ certainly contravenes article 7 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), because the work restrictions imposed on me since June 2008 to date combined with the minimal services’ support has resulted in destitution. For heaven’s sake, I had a salary, allowances, a career, and other remunerations when I first arrived in Australia lawfully.
Which leads me to ask concerned members from the Protective Service of the Australian Federal Police as well as the other senior commonwealth government officials at DFAT. What on earth makes you believe you reserve an unfettered right to bump into my life anytime you feel like. What really makes you believe you are above Australian law to engage in deliberate acts that infringe on my dignity as an individual. If not hate and petty jealousies as reflected by issues captured in the aide memoir compiled after a series of meetings of a collusive ‘tripartite committee’ comprising Amb. John Lepi Lanyasunya, DFAT, and Nairobi. Notwithstanding fact that I am from a third world country, which I appreciate just as much. Rules of natural justice certainly shouldn’t discriminate. Even when you can successfully argue the case that Australia is your country so I either play by your game (as previously asked to ‘help’ so I can be ‘helped’) or I continue dancing to my own African tune on foreign land. Indeed, I can’t stop you from playing your mind games no matter my personal views. This dispensation certainly is distasteful as much as it appears to give these officials some form of pleasure to the extent I do not see any conclusion in the near future to this predicament. Among other controversies, I simply can’t ‘help’ you explain the circumstances under which an Australian diplomatic visa was issued on an ordinary Kenyan passport as explained in #preamble of my previous posts when the original request from sending country was for issuance of a dependent’s visa. Talk of a ‘miracle visa’ appending itself where it doesn’t belong.
Otherwise I really can’t imagine of any other reason at this time to exhaustively explain this experience apart from the certainty of fact that racism and arrogance are surely two sides of the same coin. Indeed, I personally believe many more civilised individuals from within and without would share my disappointment at the sheer level of impunity and shamelessness that government officials from a first world economy would pursue egocentric inclinations of the magnitude described so far in #preamble, #part1, #part2, #part3 and herein. I wonder whether someone really appreciates the implication of failure to safeguard a country’s image as a public servant while engaging in such crudity and stereotyping for an extended period of time on a victim as unsuspecting as I. I held so much trust and hope when I first arrived in Australia.
I think I’d have to restrain myself and stop here for now. What I am experiencing in Australia from this super class of officials can’t be described as fate but rather a way of life which is so much indifferent, it’s so hard to rationally comprehend using contemporary social parameters. Period.
Definitely, should I live to see another day, I would certainly continue on this journey.
Racism and arrogance are surely two sides of the same coin; are they really? Probably my guess on the outcome from a toss of an unbiased coin is as good as yours considering rules of basic probability and statistics, especially one relating to mutually exclusive events; right? Well, ” kom with me, me kugoo posta … to discover where johnny is…” – Yemi Alade’s video clip in Johnny.
In this episode, it should be recalled that during this period of my tribulation in the hands of unscrupulous Australian commonwealth officials, Kevin Rudd was the Prime Minister of the Australian government. I understand Kevin Rudd also had served abroad as a diplomat as well as an Ambassador at some point in his career.
Just a brief refreshing from previous episodes. During the first interview with the delegate of the Minister for DIAC as reflected in Part 1 of my earlier posts, it turned out some critical documentary evidence wasn’t dispatched to the Minister’s delegate by Australian commonwealth officers as required. A situation that was clearly beyond my control. Nonetheless, my two children and I had to bear the brunt of someone’s deliberate failure to act appropriately under the circumstances. And surely we bore it.
Under the Australian migration act, the fact that a delegate decision had been made to the effect ‘Australia does not owe my two children and I any protection’ under the circumstances as understood from relevant convention, the decision meant I had to challenge the matter at an independent review tribunal. Thus, after receiving the necessary referrals from some reputable institutions, I was able to secure the services of a migration agent, a Mr Peter Steele.
During my first appointment with Mr Steele, he briefed me he had prior to his private practice as a Migration Agent worked at the Department of Foreign And Trade. That he had also served abroad at Australian foreign missions in addition to having had a brief stint at the then Department of Immigration And Citizenship (DIAC) later in life. I trusted the fact that I had secured the services of one of the most experienced Migration Agent around. Mr Steele offered to attend to my case without prior payment of the requisite fees. This was on the understanding I would settle the bill with him once my circumstances improved and the case finalized. What a considerate individual he was, I thought. I had no reason to not trust him to represent me as my immigration advisor considering his vast experience with the attendant issues of my application for asylum.
After I had presented details of my case to him as well as filled in all necessary documentation and other relevant paperwork relating to the nomination, Mr Peter Steele took over the case as my representative. What transpired afterwards during this process is a piece of history best narrated from a soft copy of record of events as appended below:
RECORD OF EVENTS FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ON THE DECISION OF THE RRT
- I received a phone call from my Case Officer at the Australian Red Cross informing me of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). She went ahead to inform that benefits from the Australian Red Cross to my family and I have henceforth been stopped.
- A few minutes later, my Case Officer at DIAC (Ms Lisa Minami), Canberra phoned to enquire on whether I was aware of the decision from RRT w.r.t. my application for review. I informed her that I was not aware of that decision, as my Migration Agent, Mr Peter Steele of Peter Steel Migration Services, has not communicated it to me. She informed that this decision was faxed to my Migration Agent on 09/01/09.
- I informed my Case Officer that my numerous attempts to contact my Migration Agent by phone during the period December 2008/January 2009 had proved futile as no one picked up the phone or called back in response to my voicemail messages.
- She briefed me of the attendant procedure involving the IOM and informed that my Bridging Visa would be expiring on 06/02/2009.
- Subsequently, I informed my Family Support Worker from Communities @ Work, who had provided me with family support and assistance, of the events at 1 and 2 above. She then tried to contact my Migration Agent on 15/01/09 but only managed to get his Assistant. She briefed me of this success and informed that the Assistant would get in touch with me shortly. She did. Jennifer informed me that she could not trace my file and that Peter Steele was out of town. She informed she would get him to contact me when he reports to work on 20/01/09.
- On 20/01/09, I waited for a good part of the morning for Mr Peter Steele to contact me w.r.t. the communication of the decision from RRT.
- I later in the afternoon phoned him, where he informed me that “just like any other person” he was away on holiday during the festive season. He then asked me whether I had received the decision on my application from the RRT, which I had expected to reach me through him.
- I asked him whether he had dispatched to the RRT the additional information and documents I had sent him in Nov./Dec. 2008. He answered in the affirmative and said that he was going to send me the decision of the RRT by post. He also informed that for more information on options available to me, I should directly contact DIAC as he no longer intended to represent me in the matter.
- Later that afternoon, I received a phone call from my Case Officer at DIAC. She informed that she wanted to schedule a meeting at my residence to inform me on matters regarding my situation. She later came to my residence and interrogated me on various issues including accommodation arrangement vis-à-vis rent payment. In the circumstances, I was unable to discuss much with her on issues relating to the decision of the RRT.
- I then showed the Case Officer a letter dated 15/01/09 from DIAC, Melbourne captioned “Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) Post Decision Fee”. The letter had given two options that may be available to me following the decision of the RRT. The Case Officer discussed these options with me and undertook to contact my Migration Agent w.r.t. the communication of the decision of the RRT the following day.
- The Case Officer from DIAC called me around 1400Hrs and asked whether I had received the decision from my Migration Agent. She informed that she had tried to contact him during the day but was unsuccessful. She then asked me what I had decided as my next course of action w.r.t. the options available to me. I informed her that although I had still not received copy of the decision, I had opted to write to the Minister to seek Ministerial Intervention on the matter.
- The Case Officer informed me that chances for me to get approval from the Minister were near zero and that ultimately I would, nevertheless, have to prepare to leave the country.
- The Case Officer went on to inform me of the merits and demerits of leaving the country willingly or being removed forcefully vis-à-vis the impact on future applications for entry visa to Australia; that in view of the financial hardship I was experiencing vis-à-vis the fact that I have no work rights – in addition to the fact that the Minister’s Intervention would take long to be approved – it would be “to my best interest” to return to Kenya “in good time”. True, I don’t have the means to hire a Solicitor to represent me in Court.
- At that point, I informed the Case Officer that my fear of returning back to Kenya was real and that I would rather pursue Ministerial Intervention than expose my family and myself to anticipated harm on returning to Kenya. However, on second thoughts arising from the emphatic tone of my Case Officer at DIAC and on further advice from legal humanitarian organizations that I could as well represent myself in court, I changed my mind and personally filed an application at the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia to seek judicial review.
After this event, I made a formal complaint to the department of immigration via my case manager vide appended soft copy below:
RRT file number: 0807641
23 January 2009
Department of Immigration and Citizenship,
GPO Box 717 Canberra ACT 2601,
3 Lonsdale Street,
Fax No.: (02) 6247 3309
(Attn: Lisa Minami, Case Manager)
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT ON THE CONDUCT OF STEELE MIGRATION SERVICES
I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the unprofessional conduct of STEELE MIGRATION SERVICES, which has led to disenfranchising me of a chance to be heard in an interview at the Refugee Review Tribunal.
I formally nominated Mr Peter Steele of the Steele Migration Services to represent me as my ADVISER on 9 November 2008 as indicated on a copy of enclosed Section C of document “Application for Review R1”. After forwarding of my application to the RRT for review of DIAC’s decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa, Mr Peter Steele sent me by post RRT’s acknowledgement of receipt of my application. I immediately dispatched to him additional information and documents, which he was supposed to forward to the RRT just in case the outcome of the review of DIAC’s file on the matter called for this course of action.
I learnt in the evening of 21/01/2009 after receiving on this date from Mr Peter Steele a copy of the RRT decision on my case that he had not forwarded the extra information and documents as agreed and as demanded by the RRT. In addition, I learnt from RRT’s decision that I was supposed to appear for an interview on 05/01/2009 at the RRT, which Mr Peter Steele had not informed me about. My numerous phone calls to Mr Peter Steele’s Office during the period December 2008 – 19 January 2009 for follow-up went unanswered and my voicemail messages unattended. These actions have created the wrong impression by portraying me as a person who did not care or bother to respond to RRT’s correspondences as well as attend the scheduled interview. Subsequently, my right and chance to fair treatment and hearing in this matter was gravely jeopardized.
I also came to learn on the 23/01/2009 that materials faxed to my ADVISER as early as 01/12/2008 by the RRT had not been forwarded to me for my necessary action. This was after I went to Mr Peter Steele’s Office to collect my documents after he had indicated to me by phone on 20/01/2009 that he did not intend to represent me any longer and that for further queries I should directly contact DIAC. These materials included a brochure – “What is a hearing” and a form – “Response to Hearing Invitation”. On this same day, Mr Peter Steele could not produce or explain what had happened to my draft-working document, which contained information that was to be presented to the RRT together with the additional documents on finalization.
I trusted and relied on an Australian for advice. Mr Peter Steele had earlier informed me he had 40 years experience as a public servant and therefore understood well the attendant regulations. Consequently, errors of omission and commission by STEELE MIGRATION SERVICES in the handling of my case should certainly not condemn my children and I to death as they are neither of my own making nor imagination.
I, therefore, request that my file at the RRT be opened to accord me a hearing as well as enable for fairness and justice to prevail.
Elijah Hiribae Malibe
c.c.: The Refugee Review Tribunal
GPO Box 1333
SYDNEY, NSW 2001
Fax No.: (02) 9276 5599
From this point onwards, my journey to the public library to study the Australian Migration Act had commenced in earnest. My trust of individuals I interacted with also took a heavy beating. Such are the challenges of life.
To this end, once again should I live to see another day, I surely would continue from here. Today is my son’s birthday.