The Fast Track Court presided over by Mrs Justice Agnes Dordzie, a High Court Judge, on Monday dismissed an application brought before it by Albert Hamid Odinga, who claims to be a Belize national, for unlawful arrest and detention.

Odinga, also known as Wilhelm Harrison Buller and Hamid Hamad Haidara, filed the application against his arrest and detention on June 9, last year by the Bureau of National Investigation (BNI). He was arrested on suspicion that he was engaged in activities, which were incompatible with the security of the state.

Ruling on the motion, Mrs Justice Dordzie said she found the arrest and detention of the applicant lawful. She said the explanation offered by the BNI for keeping him was reasonable. "I, however, find the period he had been kept without effecting the deportation order rather long," she stressed.

She explained that the BNI claimed that they were finding it difficult to ascertain the nationality of the applicant. "This situation, I think, is the applicants own creation," the Judge added.

Mrs Dordzie noted that Odinga had several identities and under the circumstances, did not deem it fit to order his release. However, it would be unfair for him to be detained indefinitely.

She, therefore, ordered that after one month from Monday February 2002 if the BNI found it impracticable, it should make supervision order under Section 40 of the Immigration Act in respect of the applicant.

Arguing on the motion, attorney for the applicant, Mrs Akua Hayfrom-Benjamin, said on June 21, last year, the Minister of the Interior passed an Executive Instrument (EI), deporting her client from Ghana. However, the order had not been carried out and her client was still detained by the BNI, she said.

The application order was brought under the Habeas Corpus Act, 1964 (Act 244) praying for Odinga's release. Mrs Hayfrom-Benjamin submitted that the continuous detention of the applicant was unlawful.

She said upon the arrest of the applicant, he was charged under section 185 of the criminal code (criminal libel), but that the section of the criminal code had been replaced and, therefore, it was unlawful to continue to detain him.

Another ground for his detention, according to the counsel, was that her client was alleged to be an illegal immigrant. In that case it would be the Director of Immigration that could detain him with a repatriation order.

In respect of the deportation order, Mrs Hayfrom-Benjamin submitted that the Minister of the Interior alone had the power to detain a person in respect of whom he had made a deportation order.

She said it was unlawful for the Director of BNI to detain the applicant. The Counsel further argued that even if there was a valid deportation order pending against the applicant, there had been unreasonable delay in effecting it.

In replying, Mr Eric Agboloso, Chief State Attorney, who is the attorney for the respondents - the Minister of the Interior and the BNI, stated that the applicant was arrested because the security agencies had information that he was indulging in activities which were incompatible with the state and that he was deported from the country in 1980 for the same offence.

"He illegally re-entered the country in 1989 and had lived in the country since then, without any valid resident permit." He said Odinga was detained awaiting his deportation.

Mr Agboloso conceded that there had been delay in effecting the deportation, but explained that this was because the applicant had not been truthful about his identity.

He said the applicant used different names at different times. He claimed to be a Belize national, but the Belize authorities were yet to identify him as their national, the State Attorney said.

Mr Agboloso told the court that there was an exercise going on involving the United States and Britain to ascertain Odinga's true nationality and when completed, Odinga would be sent to his country of origin.