By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

counsel with whem a conference took place at 5:15 pm. At the conferencecounsel advised that as the liberty to apply granted by the judge (although spent)itself indicated, the Home Office should have an opportunity to challenge theorder made late the might before but that the Home Office should take thatopportunity at the earliest practicable time; in the meantime the Home Officemight reasonably hold its hand. As a result the booking for M’s return flight wascancelled and arrangements were made for an application to be made to GarlandI at 9 am on the following meaning. 3 May. In the meantime M was seen atKinsbasha airport by officials and informed that there was no turgent need forhim to attend court proceedings in the United Kingdom. He was asked to remainin touch with the embassy. He wrote down two addresses, which he gave to theofficials as to where he could be contacted. Nothing was done to protect him inthe meantime.In accordance with the arrangements which had been made, on 3 May theapplication was made to Garland I to discharge the order that he had madethough that application was opposed, Garland I came to the conclusion that hehad had no jurisdiction to make the order, but indicated that he had made theorder.On the basis not that I was granting a mandatory injunction against the Crown,which clearly I could not do, on authority, but that I was seeking to compelobedience an undertaking freely given to the court and which he had given. Hedid eventually contact his solicitors from Nigeria and, although arrangements553