Radio-Canada is reporting that Harper government officials determined that Suaad Hagi Mohamud was an impostor and threw her to the Kenyan authorities as early as May 28. This is contrary to the story they previously stated to the media.
The 280 pages of documents the journalist obtained shows in e-mails that consular staff in Nairobi wondered if the burden of proving that she was the individual to whom the government had issued the passport was hers. Then a decision was made to give the passport to the Kenyans, tell them she was an impostor, and let them deal with her.
In fact, one of the consular staff speculated that Mohamud would have to challenge the Kenyan government and if she tried to sue Canada for "négligence, préjudices, etc. Mais la cour kenyane n'a aucune autorité sur nos frontière". In other words, the consular staff and other Harper government officials were counting on Kenya to charge her with identify theft and to keep her in prison.
Previous posts and background regarding how Suaad Hagi Mohamud was treated by officials of her country - Canada.
6 comments:
Sadly, the Harpercrites have their malevolent acolytes and sycophants spreading hatred and more lies through their rightwing neocon blogs and comments.
If all else fails, they can count on Jonathan Kay at the NP for a character assassination whack job.
But, just to err on the side of caution, isn't much of this story (certainly not all) already public record?
The three interviews took place within one week of her initial detention at the airport. That was really the basis for what followed.
Mohamud got out of the Kenyan jail on May 28, was declared an impostor on that date by the High Commission, and was formally charged by the Kenyans.
All that being said, the R-C article is interesting because it reveals just how much backroom spinning was going on at the time. And the government's position just doesn't hold water.
What the government is attempting to do is not to prove that there was an actual impostor at all, I believe, but to establish the good faith of its officials. Jamieson, the interviewer, was conveniently re-posted to SA in late June, and the record does not state whether he believes that the Suaad who is now in Canada was the one he interviewed.
But that's a fairly important missing detail if there really is a case being built for a double switcheroo of some kind. And even if no such case is being advanced, there were other High Commission personnel present during at least one of the interviews: what are they saying? The gummint isn't telling us. Jamieson himself took no notes.
The other thing that doesn't make sense is this: if Suaad was indeed palming off her passport to a younger sister, as some are alleging, how did she intend to get back to Canada herself? While her "sister" swans through the Nairobi airport onto the plane,using Suaad's name and leaving an electronic trail as she goes, how did Suaad herself propose to explain her continued presence in Kenya when she herself had to pass through the same checkpoints later on?
That part of the current fevered speculation makes no sense whatever. As I say, I think that the government's case will be based upon good faith arguments. And good luck with that.
I was disinclined to approve that comment. But I thought some might want to play with troll. Illiterate as they always are. And Anonymous. Also.
Hateful little prick, isn't he?
I think he hails from Woodstock and works for a company that I am scrutinizing to see if it's a common practice to hire illiterate, racist, gynophobic rightwing supposiTories there.
Care to elaborate on just where and how she lied, Anonymous Asshat? Because I'm damn curious to know. Use reliable sources now--wouldn't want to damage what little credibility you've already got!
BTW, what's a "giv"?
(crickets)
Ahem. I bet this scumbag was just googling her name, looking for every place he could possibly piss on it. Trolls are funny that way.
"Lieberal", LOL.
You from FD, anon?
Post a Comment