By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

contempt arises in this context this is very far from saying that the Home Officecan escape serious criticism. On any view the judge was informed that the HomeOffice would seek to prevent M leaving the United Kingodm and I should havethought that it was inaplicity in this that, if this proved impossible any otherpracticable means of preventing his reaching Zaire would be adopted. This waswhy Mr Palmer left the court in order to telephone to the Home Office before theproceedings had been conducted. Given greater efficiency and determination. Ihave no doubt that M could probably have been prevented from leavingHeathrow and certainly he could have been returned to the United Kingdom fromParis. He was not unwilling and he was in the custody of the Home office or itsagents throughout the whole peiod ending with his arrival in Azire. (LordDonakisons emphasis).There is no reason for disagreeing with those criticisms. What does appear to meto be clear from the events which occurred on 1 and 2 May 1991 is that, if thereis no power in a court to make an order to prevent the Home Office moving aperson in any circumstances, this could be a highly unsatistactory situation. Thefacts of this case illinstrate that circumstances can occur where it is in theinterests both of a person who is subject to the pwers of government and of thegovernments itself that the courts should be in a position to make an orer whichclearly sets out either that should or what should not be done by the government.If the had been no confisuion in this case as to the extent of the court’s power, Ihave little doubt that Mr Baker would not find himself in his present positionwhere he has been found guilty of contempt.556