By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

Mr Baker was arranged for 4 pm that afternoon which having regard to his othercommitments. Was the earliest opportunity. At the beginning of the meeting MrBaker knew nothing about the case. What happened at the meeting is set out ina note which was taken by Mr Baker’s private secretary for which public interestimmunity was exceptionally waived. The meeing was attended by the minister anassistant under secretary of the Immigration Department a member of the LegalDepartment of the Home Office and the respective private secretaries. The notedescribes what happened as follows:The Home Secretary discussed the case of (M) with Mr Lioyd, Mr Osborne andMs Spencer this afternoon. 2 Having read the facts of the case, as set out in yourbriefing note of 2 May, the Home Secretary asked the grounds on which officialsproposed that the court order should be opposed Mr. Osborne explained that MrJustice Garland had exceeded his powers in making an Order that (M) should bereturned directly from Zaire: it was a Treasury solicitors were expected to confirmlater this afternoon that the Home Office should appeal against the Order andthat (M) would require a visa or some form of entry clearance to re-enter Britain,it would be extremely difficult to remove him if, as expected, we won the case. MrLloyd was confident that the reasons for (M’s) removal still held good. Thepolitical difficult was that the Home Office could be accused of having beenHowever, the undertaking had been that we would do our best” to delay (Ms)removal, and the chronology of events clearly demonstrated that we had fulfilledthis undertaking. 3 The Home Secretary fully supported the action taken and551