34

Deporting Cindor Reeves “morally questionable”: IRB tribunal officer


 

The tribunal officer assigned by the Immigration and Refugee Board to the case of Cindor Reeves, former brother-in-law of Liberian warlord Charles Taylor, judged him to be a credible witness whose exclusion from refugee protection in Canada would be “morally questionable.”

A tribunal officer is an IRB employee whose role “is not to oppose, or to support, the refugee claim, but to help ensure that all relevant information is before the member to decide the claim.” In his written observations of the case, Richard Henderson argued against excluding Reeves from refugee protection because of his alleged involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity:

“A restrictive or narrow interpretation of the exclusion clauses is particularly warranted in this case, not just because, as I will suggest in the next section, Mr. Reeves would be in extreme danger should he return to Liberia, but also because it is precisely Mr. Reeves’ involuntary and minor involvement in the weapons for diamonds trade that allowed him to gather the kind of ‘high value’ intelligence that played a key role in ultimately bringing down Charles Taylor. To exclude him because of this involvement would seem to be both morally questionable, a sentiment expressed in the Maclean’s articles, and inconsistent with the intent of the exclusion clauses, i.e. they were surely not meant to exclude individuals who were, in effect, acting as double agent.”

Reeves’ refugee case is different than most because the Canadian government — through the minister for public safety — intervened to argue against his appeal for refugee protection.

The written submission by Brenda Lloyd, counsel for the minister, is flawed. Notably she casts doubts on Reeves’ claim that he met with a U.S. embassy official in Burkina Faso in 1997 because this detail does not appear in media reports about Reeves. Lloyd does not know what Reeves told journalists; she knows what has been published. There is no evidence Lloyd attempted to contact the official herself to ask him.

Lloyd argues that Reeves distanced himself from Taylor only after Reeves’ safety was at risk — in other words, she says his motives were not altruistic. In fact, what is most remarkable about Reeves’ actions are that he remained close to Taylor when it was most risky for him to do so, pretending to reconcile with Taylor in 2001 so that he could gather information for MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence branch.

Despite this, and despite the role Reeves’ played in brining to justice one of recent history’s most blood stained tyrants, Joanne Sajtos, panel member for the IRB, ruled against Reeves, setting the stage for his deportation to Liberia, where he risks being murdered by those still loyal to the dictator he helped depose.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney reappointed Sajtos to a four-year term on the IRB last February. Reeves is appealing her decision at the Federal Court.

 


 

Deporting Cindor Reeves “morally questionable”: IRB tribunal officer

  1. "morally questionable" – ya think?

  2. "morally questionable" – ya think?

  3. It's not only 'morally questionable', it's very short-sighted in a practical sense.

    How are we ever going to gain 'inside information' if we don't have defectors? And if, after gaining that information, we throw the defector to the wolves….our sources will dry up very rapidly.

    Then we won't learn anything about Liberia, or Gadaffi's regime, or the Taliban or….

    Thank you for pursuing this….obviously you've made a difference.

  4. It's not only 'morally questionable', it's very short-sighted in a practical sense.

    How are we ever going to gain 'inside information' if we don't have defectors? And if, after gaining that information, we throw the defector to the wolves….our sources will dry up very rapidly.

    Then we won't learn anything about Liberia, or Gadaffi's regime, or the Taliban or….

    Thank you for pursuing this….obviously you've made a difference.

    • There are defectors and "defectors". If he spied for MI5, why does he not ask for assylum in the UK? Is it because the scrutiny in Canada is more benevolent?

      • Because he asked for it here.

        And if you were following the news you'd know there is no scrutiny in the UK

        • Then , probably, he should have asked in the UK, considering his questionable past.

          • Or perhaps we could stop being as*holes.

  5. "Reeves' refugee case is different than most because the Canadian government — through the minister for public safety — intervened to argue against his appeal for refugee protection."

    I'm a little confused MP. You stated elsewhere that you believed there had been no political inference in this case[ or none you were aware of] Has something changed, or am i being denser then i normally am?

    "The written submission by Brenda Lloyd, counsel for the minister, is flawed. Notably she casts doubts on Reeves' claim that he met with a U.S. embassy official in Burkina Faso in 1997 because this detail does not appear in media reports about Reeves"

    So now it seems you can get turned away on what the ministers rep can be bothered to glean from the media. With this level of rigorous fact finding why bother at all with a tribunal – just draw straws – short one means you may get to die.

  6. "Reeves' refugee case is different than most because the Canadian government — through the minister for public safety — intervened to argue against his appeal for refugee protection."

    I'm a little confused MP. You stated elsewhere that you believed there had been no political inference in this case[ or none you were aware of] Has something changed, or am i being denser then i normally am?

    "The written submission by Brenda Lloyd, counsel for the minister, is flawed. Notably she casts doubts on Reeves' claim that he met with a U.S. embassy official in Burkina Faso in 1997 because this detail does not appear in media reports about Reeves"

    So now it seems you can get turned away on what the ministers rep can be bothered to glean from the media. With this level of rigorous fact finding why bother at all with a tribunal – just draw straws – short one means you may get to die.

    • Fact finding in general at any sort of refugee hearing is going to be a hit and miss affair at best. You're talking about events which by their very nature happen thousands of miles away, are seldom documented and if they are the claimant is rarely in a position to demand such documentation. Often the more legitimate a claim, the less information is available to prove its legitimacy!

      • I can see that'spossible and reasonable. But when the error is pointed out in the minister's intervention, shouldn't it be acknowledged?

        • I erred in not earlier reporting that their had been a minister's intervention. Mea culpa.

          • You mean this bizarre ruling emanates from an intervention in the process by Vic Toews? That explains everything!

          • That's ok MP. Being a liberal partisan of sorts i was way ahead of you anyway. :)

      • All the more reason to be as diligent as possible. There are known witnesses – the reporters – who could have been contacted for more information, but weren't, as has been documented on this site in the past.

  7. Fact finding in general at any sort of refugee hearing is going to be a hit and miss affair at best. You're talking about events which by their very nature happen thousands of miles away, are seldom documented and if they are the claimant is rarely in a position to demand such documentation. Often the more legitimate a claim, the less information is available to prove its legitimacy!

  8. I can see that'spossible and reasonable. But when the error is pointed out in the minister's intervention, shouldn't it be acknowledged?

  9. I erred in not earlier reporting that their had been a minister's intervention. Mea culpa.

  10. You mean this bizarre ruling emanates from an intervention in the process by Vic Toews? That explains everything!

  11. That's ok MP. Being a liberal partisan of sorts i was way ahead of you anyway. :)

  12. This Cindor Reeves guy is taking you all for a ride. He is a big fraudster who is not even Charles Taylor's brother in law. I ask the question again. If Mr. Reeves was so instrumental in gathering evidence against Charles Taylor, then how come he was never called as a prosecution witness in Mr. Taylor's trial ?

  13. This Cindor Reeves guy is taking you all for a ride. He is a big fraudster who is not even Charles Taylor's brother in law. I ask the question again. If Mr. Reeves was so instrumental in gathering evidence against Charles Taylor, then how come he was never called as a prosecution witness in Mr. Taylor's trial ?

    • I answer the question again: Reeves' assistance to the Special Court was judged to be invaluable by those most closely involved in building the case against Charles Taylor. This is all clearly documented in my earlier stories. But please, Aki, if you have evidence that Reeves is a fraudster who was never Charles Taylor's brother-in-law, contact me directly and share it. If you can't back up your accusations with evidence, I'd ask that you refrain from slinging them about.

      • Are you trying to say, that using this pretext, any international criminal snitch should be allowed to come and stay in Canada?

  14. All the more reason to be as diligent as possible. There are known witnesses – the reporters – who could have been contacted for more information, but weren't, as has been documented on this site in the past.

  15. I answer the question again: Reeves' assistance to the Special Court was judged to be invaluable by those most closely involved in building the case against Charles Taylor. This is all clearly documented in my earlier stories. But please, Aki, if you have evidence that Reeves is a fraudster who was never Charles Taylor's brother-in-law, contact me directly and share it. If you can't back up your accusations with evidence, I'd ask that you refrain from slinging them about.

  16. From all that I have read about this case I suspect that Mr. Reeves is an opportunist who saw the writing on the wall early enough to make the jump to the other side. However, I could be wrong. What matters to me is this: did he ever engage in the practice, or order anyone else to engage in the practise of amputating the limbs of civilians, an abhorrent yet common situation in that war. If he did, he deserves no protection from Canada or any other country and should, in fact, be tried for crimes against humanity.

  17. From all that I have read about this case I suspect that Mr. Reeves is an opportunist who saw the writing on the wall early enough to make the jump to the other side. However, I could be wrong. What matters to me is this: did he ever engage in the practice, or order anyone else to engage in the practise of amputating the limbs of civilians, an abhorrent yet common situation in that war. If he did, he deserves no protection from Canada or any other country and should, in fact, be tried for crimes against humanity.

  18. There are defectors and "defectors". If he spied for MI5, why does he not ask for assylum in the UK? Is it because the scrutiny in Canada is more benevolent?

  19. Because he asked for it here.

    And if you were following the news you'd know there is no scrutiny in the UK

  20. Then , probably, he should have asked in the UK, considering his questionable past.

  21. Or perhaps we could stop being as*holes.

  22. Are you trying to say, that using this pretext, any international criminal snitch should be allowed to come and stay in Canada?

Sign in to comment.