By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

were made for his return from Nigeria, by the time those arrangements weremade contact had been lost again and his whereabouts are now unknown.On 7 May 1991 proceedings were commenced on behalf of M seeking to havethe Home Office fined and Mr Peter Lioyd MP committed to prison or fined forcontempt of court in failing to comply with the order made on 2 May. The noticeof motion was subsequently amended, in include a number of other claimsincluding a claim against Mr. Baker. At the commencement of the hearing beforeSimon Brown I on 9 July, the only changes which wee maintained wre thoseagainst the Home Office and Mr Baker Simon Brown I came to the conclusionthat he had no power to make a finding that either the Home Office or the Homesecrtary were guilty of contempt. He indicarted that, if he had had such power hewould have found the Home Office in contempt in failing to prevent M being puton the plane in Paris when they had had notice that an undertaking had beengiven to the court and of its terms. With regard to Mr Baker, Simon Brown I said (1992) 4 All ER 97 at 120):Not without considerable hesitation, I have finally come to accept Mr Laws’ssubmission that jurisdicition aprt, it would be wrung to find the Secretary of Statein contempt in the particular cincumstances of this case. It is just not provedbeyond reasonable doubt that he had a reasonable opportunity to decide to seekand then in fact w seek, discharge prior to 9 :00 am on 3 May. It is not sufficientfor the applicant to establish merely that in an idial world things would have beenordered differently. A respondent to contempt proceedings is enttled to a554