SELECT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 11 Sep 2002

Vol. 1 No. 2

Presentation by Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Chairman

I welcome His Excellency Chief Elias Nathan, ambassador of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to our meeting. Ireland has enjoyed friendly relations with Nigeria for a long time and our connections are of long standing. We have had diplomatic relations since 1960. Members will also be aware that the European Union has strong ties with Nigeria through the Lomé and Cotonou agreements. The Cotonou partnership agreement covers a wide area of development co-operation, trade and political dialogue. Ireland has welcomed Nigeria's progress in democratisation but recognises the difficulties being faced by President Obasanjo, particularly in relation to economic decline and civil unrest within the country. I understand elections are due to take place in 2003. It is to be hoped the people of Nigeria will keep faith with democratic principles and know what is being worked for, through which the future development of the country will best be served. The European Union recognises these difficulties and has recommended funding for development under the country support strategy of the Cotonou agreement. The committee would strongly support such development.

I understand Nigeria has been beset with ethnic violence and religious tensions which during the years have claimed many lives. Ireland recognises the efforts made by the Obasanjo Government to bring a resolution to the conflict and investigate human rights violations. The establishment of the human rights steering and co-ordinating committees is seen as a positive step, both at an EU and Irish level, but you will be aware, ambassador, of the serious concerns expressed globally and recently by the EU Council of Ministers about the recent death sentence handed down, and affirmed on appeal, under Sharia law to a citizen of your country, Ms Amina Lawal. We understand the matter has now been referred to the Federal Supreme Court for adjudication and while I do not wish to comment on the right of any country to determine its own codes of law or morality, the sentence of death by stoning has shocked the world community.

There was a protest outside the Oireachtas yesterday about the question of female genital mutilation when some women made the case that they cannot return to Nigeria for fear of this. These are issues which genuinely concern parliamentarians. It is my sincere hope, therefore, the opportunity provided for you today to discuss the matter before the committee will allow you to report to your Government the deep concerns of the members of the committee and the Irish people. In this task I wish you every success.

We will be meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs under the new procedures for Oireachtas scrutiny in less than two weeks from now and may have the opportunity to speak to him before he attends the General Affairs Council, but I appreciate your attitude. As soon as you were invited, you agreed to come before the committee. That is a good step and I am delighted to have the opportunity to welcome you. I invite you to address the committee following which we can open up the meeting to questions from members.

Ambassador Nathan

Chairman and honourable members of the Select Committee on European Affairs, I take the opportunity to thank you for taking an interest in my country and inviting us to clarify some issues. It is true that a death sentence was passed on one Amina Lawal and that we have been receiving many letters from private citizens, organisations and even the Government itself.

I was very happy when I received your invitation to come before the committee and brief members on the true position of the case. As you are aware, we are operating a federal government in our country, just like the one in the United States. We also have states which enact their own laws as well as their own courts. We have state courts and also federal government courts. Therefore, if a case comes up in a state, it is tried in that state and if somebody is not satisfied with the outcome, he or she can appeal to the higher court, the Court of Appeal, within the same state. If he or she is not satisfied, he or she can also appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and if there is still no satisfaction, the case goes to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, where the final decision is taken.

In Nigeria we are operating under a 1999 constitution. In my brief introduction I will give some facts about the case and outline the position of the sentence under the constitution of Nigeria, following which you may know precisely the true position in regard to the case of Mrs. Amina Lawal.

Under Islamic law, Sharia, the commission of adultery or fornication, if proved, is punishable with death by stoning. The stand of proof is very high and takes one of two forms, that is, the presence of four competent eye witnesses - by "competent" I mean respectable, honest and true - who will be able to identify that this act was committed, which is a little difficult, or confession by the offender. If the offender confesses that they have committed adultery, that is another way the offender can be convicted.

In regard to the facts of the case, Mrs. Amina Lawal was married but divorced by her husband. More than nine months after she was divorced, she gave birth to a child. A member of the community to which she belongs reported the incident to the authorities and, as a result, she was arrested and taken before a Sharia court in Funtua, Katsina state, one of the states to which she belongs. At her trial she confessed to having sexual intercourse out of wedlock and, as a result, was found guilty by the Sharia court and sentenced to the only available punishment under Islamic law for the offence, death by stoning. She appealed against the conviction and sentence to the Sharia Court of Appeal of Katsina state but lost the appeal on the basis of her confession to the crime. The sentence of death passed by the Court of First Instance was, therefore, upheld by the Sharia Court of Appeal.

In regard to the next available step, under the 1999 constitution now operated in Nigeria, there is a chain of courts. The Sharia court in which Mrs. Amina Lawal was convicted is at the lower level. There is a right of appeal from that court to the Sharia Court of Appeal which had been exercised by her. There is a further right of appeal from the Sharia Court of Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Court of Nigeria, the final court. An appeal has already been lodged to the Court of Appeal by lawyers representing Mrs. Lawal. The outcome is awaited. If the appeal fails, there is a likelihood that there will be a final appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

In regard to the position of the sentence under the constitution, the Nigerian constitution recognises and allows the sentence. However, it is silent about the manner in which the death sentence is to be carried out. It is the criminal law, of which Sharia is one, that prescribes the manner of carrying out the death sentence.

The Nigerian constitution has entrenched the universal provisions of fundamental human rights. One such provision is that the dignity of all persons must be respected and that no one shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is one area in which the sentence of death by stoning, under the Sharia law, could be appealed, perhaps successfully. It is expected that the lawyers for Ms Amina Lawal will raise the constitutional point in the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, in the Supreme Court of Nigeria when the case is heard there. Apart from the remedy in court, there are provisions in the constitution which give the President of Nigeria and the governors of states the power to exercise the prerogative of mercy.

Accordingly, if all appeals to the courts have been exhausted and failed, an appeal can go to the governor of Katsina state urging him to exercise his prerogative of mercy to commute the sentence of death by stoning to something else - for example life imprisonment, imprisonment for a period or total reprieve. As the offence committed by Ms Lawal is a state offence only, the governor of Katsina state can grant a pardon. The offence is not a federal offence and the President has no power under the constitution to pardon her, Nigeria being a federation. That is the true position. I thought I should let the committee know the procedures and the possibility of this case being thrown out or upheld.

I also wish to remind you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, that there was an earlier case of this nature which did not even come to the federal appeal court. It was quashed at a lower court in the state. As far as we know, as far as we are concerned in the federal government, we can see a situation whereby, if this case comes up to the federal court, it will not succeed. In other words, the federal court may not uphold that case provided the lawyers raise the constitutional issue of fundamental human rights. I will be glad to deal with any questions.

Chairman

Thank you, Ambassador. A number of members have indicated their intention to speak. I put it to you that to impose a sentence of death on a woman, to be carried out after her baby has been weaned, is really beyond any concept of civilised society. Anybody concerned with human rights must find that abhorrent. I ask you to communicate that view to the Nigerian Government. I understand that in March 2002 the newly appointed Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Agabi, wrote to state governors in northern Nigeria warning that some judgments passed under Sharia law were discriminatory against Muslims and, therefore, contrary to the constitution. Is the position, therefore, as clear as you have said? Are these provisions not contrary to the constitution, as the Minister for Justice and Attorney General has said?

The ambassador also referred to another case. It is my understanding that Ms Husseni, who was sentenced to death by stoning in 2001 on a charge of adultery, won her appeal against her conviction in January 2001 at the level of the Sharia court. That is not what happened in the case of Ms Lawal, who lost her appeal in the Sharia court and has lodged an appeal with the federal courts.

In this whole situation, I know there are political and religious difficulties and that it is difficult for us to try to impose our concept of human rights standards on anybody else. However, the abhorrence which this case has raised is not only very damaging to human rights but also to the interests of Nigeria. It does not reflect well on that country. From my brief discussion with you, ambassador, I know something of the difficulties which exist but I ask you to communicate strongly to your government the concerns which have been raised already by the EU Council of Ministers. Perhaps you will make your response after Deputies have spoken.

Ms Sexton

In the context of this matter, I am trying to maintain my self-control and act with dignity. I take grave exception to the presence of the Nigerian ambassador at this committee meeting. I was not consulted about it nor was my opinion sought. I request an explanation from the Chairman for the presence of an apologist for Nigeria in the person of the ambassador at this meeting. We should not give this man or his regime a platform at this level. I have not been so affronted or angry in a long, long time and it takes all the strength in my body not to lose my temper or my dignity in this situation. I expect, Chairman, that this will never happen again.

I have no doubt that the ambassador will use this platform to peddle his wares further on behalf of a country which cannot even respect the basic human rights of its citizens. I request an opportunity to make a further contribution later in the meeting when I have had time to collect my thoughts. I hope there will be an explanation from the Chairman, after the ambassador has left, as to why he was invited to appear before this committee without consultation with members.

Chairman

I will deal with that point first. The clerk to the committee contacted the offices of all committee members to inform them that the ambassador was being invited to attend this meeting.

Ms Sexton

To be informed is one thing, to be asked is another matter. As a committee member, I would have expected to be asked if I had any problem with the proposed arrangement. In any event, even if I did agree to it, I did not expect that the ambassador would be invited as an apologist for his government and for the outrageous sentence which was passed in this case. I am trying to retain my self control under these extraordinary circumstances and I do not wish to leave the meeting.

Chairman

I must point out to the Deputy that members were given the opportunity to express any objection they might have to the ambassador being invited. We could have dealt with any such objections if they had been raised. I suggest it is best that the ambassador has the opportunity to hear the strength of our concern and to communicate it back to his government. Everything said here is duly recorded.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I join with our Chairman in asking the Nigerian ambassador to convey to his government the strength of feeling which exists in Ireland concerning the sentence of death by stoning which was passed on the unfortunate woman concerned. I believe this sentence would be condemned universally. It has been met with feelings of shock and horror. Those sometimes clichéd words apply in their full strength to the reaction which I have seen in relation to this case. It is important that the ambassador should make the government and people of Nigeria aware of that reaction. One may ask what difference it makes. There has been a long association between Ireland and Nigeria through missionaries and otherwise. We have had diplomatic relations almost from the establishment of Nigerian independence. We speak as a friendly country, not as an enemy. For that reason I believe we can speak fully, freely and frankly.

This sentence is absolutely and totally unacceptable in today's civilised world. It could be asked what right this committee has to pass comment on a court decision in another country. However, we are talking about basic human rights. There is the question of the death sentence itself. The view of Ireland and the European Union is that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. That view has been made known to Nigeria. Despite that, I understand a sentence was carried out by hanging last January. This case goes even beyond that.

It seems utterly discriminatory as far as the women is concerned. I did not hear of any sentence being imposed on the man and it takes two to make a baby. Worse than that, the manner in which the court proceedings and the penalty was dealt with are not acceptable. In my view, that procedure is entirely contrary to the universal declaration of human rights. That is why we feel entitled to express our views. Article 5 of the universal declaration of human rights prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. I cannot think of any case which more aptly falls under the aegis of that article.

I would like the ambassador to make those strong views known to his government. I ask that whatever has to be done, legally, constitutionally, judicially or otherwise, will be done to ensure this dreadful sentence is lifted from this unfortunate woman so that she may return to her village and look after her baby.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I too agree with what the other Deputies have said. The regime in Nigeria is objectionable. The failure to fully investigate human rights abuses and the failure to prevent further human rights violations by state or state-sponsored forces is objectionable. The Members who have spoken before me have expressed our abhorrence at the death sentence by stoning. I concur with them.

I would like to raise some other matters with the ambassador as only some incidents on a long list of human rights violations.

Chairman

We join the House now in standing in silence on the anniversary of 11 September 2001.

Members rose.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

When can we expect the Nigerian government to publicly condemn or prosecute the soldiers responsible for the extra-judicial executions of more than 200 civilians in Benue state last October? What action is the federal state going to take against the state governors who not only give impunity, but explicit state backing to paramilitary groups such as the Bakassi Boys in Anambra state? These groups have been responsible for unlawful detention, torture and many executions. Why do some former military heads of state refuse to respond to summonses issued by the human rights violation investigating commission, the Oputa Panel, in its attempt to investigate high profile cases of state or state-sponsored execution, such as that of Ogoni activist Ken Saro Wiwa? When can we expect the government to compel these people to be witnesses or to answer the summonses.

In June 2000 the president told an Amnesty International delegation that he would not hold an independent or open inquiry into a series of reported killings by the government security forces since 1999. Is that still the government's position? If so, the statements made by me and other Deputies that the regime in Nigeria is objectionable, especially in the area of human rights, stand.

Mr. Kirk

The presence of the ambassador is an opportunity for this committee to register its incredulity at the proposed sentence on this unfortunate lady in Nigeria. It is incredible that state-sponsored brutality on this level still exists in 2002. The sentiments already expressed by Members, and I am sure there are more to come, is a reflection of the level of revulsion that exists in Ireland at the proposed sentence in this case. Whether the sentence is at state, federal or other level, it is simply intolerable and unacceptable in a civilised society. While I am sure Nigeria has its own internal problems with a large populations and a whole range of religions that are not always compatible within the state, a basic level of human rights must be respected. The sentence for the offence alleged is simply unacceptable. This committee asks that the ambassador immediately report back to the authorities in Nigeria informing them of what it has said and ask that this sentence be immediately re-examined and commuted.

Mr. Haughey

I wish to be associated with the remarks of the Chairman and other Members and register my protest in that regard. I would like to examine the issue of the number of Nigerians coming to this country and claiming asylum. Does the Nigerian government have a view on that? Does it encourage its citizens to come to this country and claim asylum? Is the government doing anything to prevent it? It is a big issue for this country and I would welcome the ambassador's overall views.

Mr. Andrews

I have been to Africa on three separate occasions in a private capacity. I have visited Nairobi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. I have never been to Nigeria but I like to think that I have an idea of the scale of the problems that are experienced in African countries. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this today but I feel that the ambassador's reference to the Nigerian constitution as some kind of bulwark against human rights offences does not stand up.

I know from my research on this issue that on 3 January 2002 a man was executed under Sharia law for murder in the province of Katsina, as was referred to earlier. He had no legal representation during his trial; he tried to defend himself. He subsequently pleaded guilty and there was no appeal. In January 2001 a teenage girl was whipped by officials of Zamfara state. The girl was in her early teens and in this country would have been considered the victim of rape. In Nigeria she received 100 lashes, reduced from a sentence of 180 lashes, for having sex outside marriage. In a European context, consensual sex does not attract any penalties, but in Nigeria it does.

I understand the contexts of ethnic and religious diversity in that country and I understand the context of poverty and all the difficulty that creates, but I must add my voice to those who have spoken in objecting, in the strongest possible terms, to this sentence. I am concerned about the ambassador's argument that the constitution will somehow defend these people, because it stood for nothing when all these other Sharia sentences were carried out under the criminal code.

The agenda does not refer to anything specific, but I did intend to bring up the issue of human trafficking, which is a serious problem in the context of human rights in Nigeria. I add to Deputy Haughey's comments the fact that the arrival of so many illegal immigrants to this country from Nigeria is, in some cases, but not all, based on false documentation originating in Lagos and other points of departure. I would like to know what the ambassador's Government has to say about that issue.

Ms Harkin

I would also like to add my voice to those who have expressed their outrage at the passing of this sentence. I concur fully with the strong views expressed by all members so far. As a human being, as a woman and as a public representative I am appalled by this decision and, like Deputy Sexton, I am finding it difficult to restrain my anger. I must register in the strongest possible terms my outright opposition to this sentence. I have two brief questions for the ambassador. First, as mentioned by Deputy O'Keeffe, I would like to know what is happening to the other person involved in this. Second, my documentation states that, in the past two years, Sharia law has been extended to a number of states. What steps, if any, have been, or will be, taken by the Nigerian President to improve this situation?

Chairman

Ambassador, I am sure you would like to respond to the strength of feeling that has been expressed.

Ambassador Nathan

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the other members for expressing your concerns. I wish to say, without any fear of contradiction, that I think we are even more worried than you. Nigeria is a country of 120 million people and there are a lot of different religions whose members are allowed to practise their religions freely. I am Christian, he is a Muslim and she is a Christian.

We have over 1,000 ethnic groups in Nigeria. We have just started a democracy in that country. For the past 25 years or more we have been under military rule. We have now started to democratise. For that reason everybody has a right to say or do what he or she wants, but we are also worried about the question of Sharia. The Federal Government is not lying low as our Minister for Justice, Mr. Agabi, has rejected in their totality the Sharia cases that have come up. A lot has been said, but I want to say that the Federal Government does not accept Sharia cases in the states. The states have the right to establish their own laws. We oppose it in the Federal Government also. The only way our Government will come in is, of course, in the case of an appeal.

Nigeria is a signatory to many human rights instruments and we accept everything as far as human rights are concerned. As of today, no one in that part of the country has been executed under Sharia law. I wish to clarify the point raised about somebody in Katsina who did not appeal. It is true that he did not appeal but the appeal has now come up. When he and his girlfriend were caught the sentence was passed and he did not appeal, but the appeal has now come up. He has not been executed. Nobody has been executed as far as Sharia law is concerned.

I wish to address the issue of asylum seekers. When I first came here in 1998 I think there were only about 220 people who came to this country to seek asylum. There was no reason for such asylum seeking. There has not been one political detainee in Nigeria. Therefore, there is no reason for anybody to seek asylum because one has to be prosecuted or otherwise before one runs away.

We do not support people who come here to seek asylum. I do not believe they are asylum seekers - they are economic migrants just like the citizens of any other country who seek asylum in many countries when their economy is not buoyant. I have no doubt that citizens of countries all over the world have done so. Nigerians are coming here because they have discovered that Ireland's economy is buoyant and they feel there is something they can offer. They are not asylum seekers. Some of them are what we call "economic migrants".

Some of those who come here to seek asylum tell many lies. Chairman, you spoke about genital mutilation. I do not know of anywhere in the country where this is still practised. Some of them say this sort of thing. Some of them say people want to put tribal marks or whatever on them and that is why they run away. Some of them say: "I am being persecuted because I am a Christian from a particular state." Some of them say there was a problem in Kaduna between Christians and Muslims and that is why they ran away. I want to make it clear that 98% of the people who have come here to seek asylum are from one particular area of the country, the south west, so they have to say something to be accepted as asylum seekers. I said this when I was interviewed in the Metro newspaper.

When the president came to Dublin he met members of the Nigerian community in my residence and he told them clearly that they had no reason to come to Ireland as asylum seekers. He said that no one was persecuting them, no one resented them and that they should come home. On the question of asylum seekers, it takes two to tango. If the Irish Government did not allow people to come into the country, they would not come in. There is no way any of them will say they are coming in because they are being persecuted. I would like to see one person who could prove that he was being persecuted back home and that that was why he left.

People come into our embassy to get visas for their children to visit Nigeria because when they come to this country and have children, those children are automatically Irish. Most of these people are not even asylum seekers, they come here to deliver a baby so they can remain in Dublin.

We have noted your concerns and they are genuine. We are also concerned about Sharia law. The Federal Government of Nigeria does not support Sharia but the states have the right to make their own laws, just like in America. When the current US President was Governor of Texas, many people were executed because that is the law of that state. The Federal Government of Nigeria, however, does not support this.

The Nigerian Government has established a committee on human trafficking under the wife of the vice president who is working very hard to stop it. Some people are taking young children from one part of the country to another to use them as labour. We are aware of that but it has been reduced considerably because the government has tightened up the borders with our neighbours.

I may have forgotten some of the questions I was asked but my colleagues have taken note and my government will clarify anything necessary and communicate the replies to the committee.

Mr. Andrews

I raised the issue that the constitution does not prevent the imposition of previous Sharia sentences. Mr. Nathan contradicted me saying that there were no executions. There have, however, been amputations. Have there been stonings in the past? Have any sentences been carried out under the criminal code using Sharia law?

Ms Sexton

I have grave concerns that the ambassador, as a representative of the Federal Government of Nigeria, is refusing, in the face of all expert opinion, to acknowledge that there are human rights problems in Nigeria. It leaves me in no doubt that he has no intention of acting upon the report that was presented to the government. The government was supposedly intent on working on the recommendations of that report which included the development of a democratic culture. If the ambassador, as the representative of his government, does not acknowledge those problems, there is a poor outlook for the country.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The ambassador said that no sentences had been carried out under Sharia law. In January last, Sani Yabuku Rodi was executed under Sharia law. At least two amputations have been carried out and numerous floggings have taken place under Sharia law. Such sentences are entirely contrary to the UN Convention on Human Rights and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would be anxious to see an acknowledgement from the Government of Nigeria that this is so. Was this execution carried out under Sharia law in January? Were these amputations and floggings carried out? I would like an answer and I would like to hear the ambassador accept that these actions are contrary to the UN Convention on Human Rights.

Ambassador Nathan

I maintain that there have been no executions in Nigeria since Sharia law was established. No one has been executed. If anyone has been executed since Sharia was implemented, I will resign my appointment in the next 48 hours.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is Mr. Sani Yabuku Rodi still alive?

Ambassador Nathan

Which state was this? Katsina? He is still alive. If anyone says he has been executed, it is a lie.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Were these floggings and amputations carried out?

Ambassador Nathan

I am talking about executions. No one has been executed. The incident in Katsina involved a man and a woman and the sentence has not been carried out. The man refused to appeal because he is insane. His brother is now appealing and he has not been executed. I have just read on the Internet about the case in Jigawa involving Mallam AdoBaranda, 54 years old. He is still alive. That is in Jigawa state. The newspaper states that a Sharia court has set his appeal for tomorrow. This blue paper was published on 4 September 2002, so they have not been executed.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I can only say that the information available to me is different - Sani Yakubu Rodi died last January as a result of being executed.

Ambassador Nathan

Nobody has been killed since Sharia——

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

What about the floggings and the amputations? Have they gone ahead?

Ambassador Nathan

A flogging is a very good——

Chairman

When you have dealt with that issue, will you address the other questions that have been put to you?

Ambassador Nathan

Yes. That is why I want to tell the Deputy about the floggings. Even in Saudi Arabia, floggings are carried out under Sharia on a daily basis. Floggings have been carried out in Nigeria. That is a daily issue everywhere there is Sharia.

Mr. Andrews

Why is the constitution not invoked to protect people who are sentenced to floggings and amputations? In other words, what confidence can we have that the constitution will be invoked to prevent executions if it is not invoked to prevent other punishments?

Ambassador Nathan

Our position is very clear. We are using the 1999 constitution in Nigeria. It is very clear. I assure you that if this case goes to the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, it will be thrown out. I can assure you of this because I am able to contact the highest authority in Nigeria, especially the judiciary at federal level. As far as I am concerned and as far as I have been told, if this case goes to the Supreme Court, it will be thrown out.

Chairman

I wish to make a few concluding points. I want the ambassador to be in absolutely no doubt about the concern of the Irish public that a young mother should be sentenced to death in this way. That is totally and absolutely unacceptable. If anything happens to her, the sort of reaction he experienced here today will be nothing compared to what will happen here, throughout the rest of Europe and elsewhere. This does not serve anybody's interest. This is an issue of major concern and that should be communicated to his Government.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs will attend a meeting in two weeks' time before he goes to the General Affairs Council and it is my intention to raise that issue with him. He has already raised it there and the European General Affairs Council has already pronounced on this issue. This is an issue of the gravest importance. It is not often that we invite an ambassador here to talk about issues of this kind. I ask that you communicate this message to your government. When you have done that, you might respond to the committee in writing regarding the outcome of your communication.

Ms Sexton

There is not only the issue of the sentence that has been imposed on the young mother but it has emerged that one has also been imposed on her partner. That is totally unacceptable.

We should ensure that this meeting is not used in any way by the ambassador or his Government to flog whatever story they wish following this meeting. I want to ensure that this committee issues a press release and that the ambassador is under no illusion when leaving this meeting that such a press release will wholly condemn the human rights abuses that are taking place at this time. We ask that the human rights violations investigation panel's recommendations be invoked in his country.

Chairman

The ambassador is aware of the feelings of the committee on this issue. I take it he will communicate with us when he has brought our views to the attention of his Government. I thank him for coming here and I hope that the strength of feeling of our members has been communicated to him.

Ambassador Nathan

I thank the committee. If there is any information you require, we are at your service and can supply all the information you need. Meanwhile, I am aware that there are some questions I have not answered fully. I will make sure that I ask my Government to pass on all the information to this honourable committee. I thank you for inviting us here.

Chairman

I want to return to the comments made by Deputy Sexton at the start of the meeting.

Ms Sexton

Before the Chairman addresses my comments——

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to wait until the ambassador leaves.

The witness withdrew.