The lawyers for Grace Road President Daniel Kim today disputed the State’s reliance on four ouster clauses to prevent judicial review of deportation decisions.

This includes section 13(2)(g) and section 58(8) of the Immigration Act 2003, along with section 173(4)(d) of the Constitution and common law provisions regarding immigration and national security.

However, the defense argued these clauses are not applicable and do not preclude judicial review of the Permanent Secretary’s decisions.

They highlight that the Immigration Act was passed without specific protection for the ouster clause and contend that the 1997 Constitution allows for reviews of executive decisions.

The defense seeks judicial review of the Minister’s actions leading to the deportation orders, including allegations of procedural violations by the Permanent Secretary.

Additionally, they are requesting a mandamus to address the Minister’s inaction on pending applications for permit extensions and citizenship submitted prior to the deportation orders.

The defense’s judicial review application seeks to examine several critical issues, including, steps and procedures the Minister allegedly overlooked before declaring the Applicants as Prohibited Immigrants.

This was part of their submissions in court today and the state will respond tomorrow.