The Court of Appeal has overturned an appeals board decision to dismiss a request for asylum by a Congolese man who claimed to have worked as a guard with President Mobutu Sese Seko.

Mr Washimba had not been formally interviewed in accordance with the law

The court sent the case back to the Refugees’ Appeals Board for a new decision.

Paul Washimba told the court he had fled Congo in 1997 after President Laurent Kabila took power because he was afraid he would be victimised.

He was granted asylum in Nigeria but left, claiming his safety was threatened owing to the presence of Congolese security officers.

Mr Washimba then went to Libya where he was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR. However, as he was not granted sufficient protection he made his way to Malta where he arrived in June 2006 and requested asylum.

His request was dismissed by the Refugees’ Commission on the basis he had failed to give sufficient evidence that he had worked with the former Mobutu regime.

In August 2007, the appeals board dismissed Mr Washimba’s appeal on the basis that his request for asylum was inadmissible.

He then filed a suit before the First Hall of the Civil Court asking it to declare this decision null and void because it was based upon a wrong interpretation of the law.

In June 2009 the court dismissed Mr Washimba’s case and he took it to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Raymond C. Pace and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia. The appeals court has now ruled that the question of admissibility or otherwise of an application for asylum was up to the immigration officer who interviewed the applicant and then up to the Refugees’ Commission that would give a final ruling.

The appeals board was not competent to decide whether an application for asylum was admissible or not, for it could only decide upon the merits of an application and not on procedural aspects.

Mr Washimba, the court found, had not been formally interviewed in accordance with the law. There was no written report about his application for asylum being inadmissible and the appeals board was only supposed to decide upon the merits of his application.

Mr Washimba’s appeal was therefore upheld, with the court ruling that the appeals board had exceeded its powers at law.

It revoked the board’s decision and remitted the case back for a decision on the merits of the case.

Lawyers Katrine Camilleri and Michael Camilleri represented Mr Washimba.