Why wasn’t terrorist subject to sections 163 & 164?

The Prime Minister and the Immigration Minister need to answer as to why the terrorist Ahamed Aathill Mohamed Samsudeen was not able to be deported based on sections 163 and 164 of the Immigration Act 2009, Leader of the Opposition Judith Collins says.

“Immigration Law in New Zealand provides that the Minister of Immigration can certify that a person constitutes a threat or risk to security and, with Cabinet’s approval, the Governor General can order that person be deported. There are limitations in regards to using this section to deport refugees, however, section 164 of the Act provides that;

A refugee or claimant for recognition as a refugee may be deported but only if Article 32.1 or 33 of the Refugee Convention allows for the deportation of that person.

“It appears evident that the terrorist was considered a serious threat given the surveillance he was placed under and so would meet the criteria of Article 32.1 of the Refugee Convention which states that;

The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

“Jacinda Ardern has said her Government pulled every lever possible in order to protect New Zealanders from a man who presented an imminent threat. Now, she must be upfront about what legal advice she sought and received and whether it included using sections 163 and 164 of the Immigration Act 2009.

“If she and her advisors were willing to look to the Mental Health Act as an avenue for detaining him, surely they will have checked the exemptions that would allow for him to be deported without appeal?

“It is vital that Jacinda Ardern and the Government make public this information so that we can learn from this terrible situation. Inevitably there will be people seeking to terrorise New Zealand in the future and we need to ensure our law and systems are up to scratch.”