Jailing of Algerian Parliamentarian Anwar Haddam in U.S. is Tragic Example of Misuse of “Secret Evidence”

By El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan

“If you don’t believe in conspiracy theories, when you get involved with a case like this you start to wonder.” So remarked Susan Akram, one of the two American lawyers for Algerian political leader Anwar Haddam to her colleague, Malea Kiblan, after their client’s petition for release after 31 months in a federal detention center was rejected for the second time June 20 in U.S. federal court.

The decision by U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis III in favor of the U.S. government in a case based solely on secret evidence which the judge hadn’t seen came as a shock to the many observers of the writ of habeas corpus proceedings in federal court.

The case, after months of oral and written arguments in which the government repeatedly failed to make its case against Anwar, had prompted Judge Ellis, in the final hearing for oral arguments, to admonish the government’s attorneys: “If it’s really a legitimate incarceration let’s get it out!”

In fact, before the decision when the writer asked attorney Kiblan why she thought the decision from Judge Ellis on her client’s petition was taking so long, Ms. Kiblan replied: “I have faith in this judge, I think he is a fair and just person. I think he knows the facts of this case very well. I think he is a very cautious judge, but I think there are two reasons for his caution. These are very turbulent waters: the whole issue of jurisdiction in immigration cases, and the whole issue of discretion in custody matters. And I think Ellis is being extremely careful in order to protect this decision against reversal by the Fourth Circuit.”

In response to my question of how her client’s case compares to other “secret evidence” cases, she replied: “Anwar Haddam’s case is the perfect case for legal litigation. Anwar Haddam is the perfect client from a lawyer’s perspective. Anwar Haddam meets the classic definition of a political refugee. Classic. Anwar Haddam has no bad circumstances in his past. In terms of criminal problems, he’s never even violated any immigration rule or regulation. He is a democratically elected member of his country’s parliament, overthrown in a violent coup d’tat. He’s clean. He is absolutely clean.”

But none of this seems to have helped Mr. Haddam, who as an Islamist candidate won election to Algeria’s parliament in December 1991. Unfortunately, a military coup in January 1992 prevented his taking a seat in parliament. Instead, he was forced to flee to Morocco and later asked for refugee status in the U.S. Instead of being granted such status however, he was jailed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which sought to deport him to Algeria, where he almost certainly would face a death sentence.

To better understand the ordeal of Anwar Haddam and his family, one must first review how this nightmare began. On June 12, 1991 his political party, the Front Islamique du Salut (Islamic Salvation Front—FIS) won the majority of mayoralty contests in Algeria’s nation-wide municipal elections, and when nation-wide parliamentary elections were held on Dec. 26, 1991, Anwar Haddam won one of the 231 seats in the first round, which indicated clearly that FIS would emerge with a clear majority from the second-round runoff parliamentary election. But when this became certain, Algeria’s ruling military clique canceled the second-stage runoff elections.

Since that military coup d’état of January 1992 there has been an on-going civil war in which provocateurs sometimes seemed to outnumber combatants. It resulted in disappearances, detentions, torture, political assassinations, and well over 100,000 dead.

As a successful Islamist elected to the now-suspended parliament, Anwar Haddam fled Algeria in March 1992 and entered the United States on a valid visitor’s visa in December of the same year.

America was a logical destination given the fact that he had spent many years in the U.S. as a student (he has a Masters Degree in Nuclear Physics from Iowa State University); three of his four children are American born; and before his personal nightmare began, he had thought of the U.S. as a nation of “justice for all.”

As president of the FIS Parliament in Exile, Anwar Haddam thought the U.S. would provide a secure environment from which to continue his political activities, which included participation in international conferences in pursuit of a peaceful and just resolution to the Algerian crisis. He was reportedly granted advance parole (permission) to exit and re-enter the U.S. on seven such occasions.

With his wife, Dr. Nassima Haddam, and their one daughter not born in the U.S., Anwar Haddam applied for asylum in the United States in April 1993. Although the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the Immigration Judge, and the State Department all agreed that he would be persecuted and probably killed if he returned to Algeria, and that he met the burden of proof with regard to his eligibility for asylum, he nevertheless was denied asylum in October 1996. Then in December 1996 he was detained by the INS, which initiated exclusion proceedings, despite the fact that his status in the U.S. was valid through February 16, 1997.

At his deportation hearing the first immigration judge (IJ) refused to examine secret evidence proffered by the INS; but nonetheless determined Anwar Haddam to be a “persecutor of others,” and thus, statutorily ineligible for asylum. In October 1998, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected the IJ’s finding and remanded the case back to the Immigration Court, directing the IJ to consider the secret evidence. The IJ (John Milo Bryant) then excused himself from the case, and was replaced by a new IJ (Joan Churchill) who took the BIA’s remand. While Churchill was reportedly instructed to complete her review within 15 days, months passed without a decision.

Within days of Judge Ellis’ shocking June 23 decision, the immigration court released its own long overdue decision. Not surprisingly, the IJ also denied Haddam’s petition for release.

Ironically, while the INS has continued to list Anwar Haddam as “an excludable alien,” it recently informed his wife and daughter that the INS has recommended them for asylum.

“Anwar Haddam meets the classic definition of a political refugee.”

The case against Anwar Haddam reportedly is based on “secret evidence” gleaned from his telephone communications that supports the U.S. government’s claim that he has been a “persecutor of others.”

The stated reasons for the immigration court’s decision, and the federal court’s support of that decision, are essentially three: (1) there is “risk of absconding”); (2) he is a “national security threat”; and (3) there is “no public interest” in his release.

Of the three reasons, the allegation that he is a “national security threat” is the most serious by far. It is based upon three considerations. The first is his conviction in absentia and subsequent death sentence in Algeria in 1998 for “gun-running.” The second consideration is based upon INTERPOL warrants for his arrest in connection with “alleged violent activity, including murder and terrorism.” The third consideration is his travel to two “terrorist nations” (Syria and Sudan), and his travel to South Africa, allegedly sponsored by a “radical anti-American organization” known as Qibla.

In his response to these allegations, Anwar Haddam points to Amnesty International reports that Algeria’s in absentia proceedings fall short of international standards for fair trials. He further points to the January 27, 1997 Department of State letter stating that, “Algerian officials have not offered any evidence to support the allegations” in the INTERPOL warrants.

Mr. Haddam maintains also that the INS knew that he was traveling to Syria and did not object; and that he went to Sudan because the location of a meeting with the French government for which he was granted advance parole by the INS was changed by the French from Turkey to the Sudan, after he had left the United States!

The “risk of absconding” allegation is based solely on Anwar Haddam’s having the means to travel without having any “visible means of support.” The “no public interest” issue seems ridiculous on its face because, prior to revoking his parole, each time the Algerian parliamentarian was allowed to travel out of the country and return to the United States, the INS had determined that it was “in the public interest” for him to carry on his political activities as spokesperson for the FIS.

Haddam also points to a December 1996 Department of State letter to the INS which states: “The prolonged detention of this highly visible Algerian political figure could also fuel hostility to American interests.”

However the real issue is what possible “public interest” could there be in the United States, of all countries, placing any human being in open-ended detention unjustifiably?

In imprisoning Anwar Haddam for the past 31 months, the U.S. government has demonstrated all too clearly its support of another “rogue government” in Algeria itself, and the hypocrisy of its claim to support democracy abroad. As Dr. Graham Fuller, former vice-chair of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, observed recently, “I think this is one of the most shameful moments of U.S. or Western policy….It is scandalous that he [Anwar Haddam] is still in prison....There has not been an adequate case made against him.”

The assessment made last year by the Acting Regional Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), still rings true: “We conclude that grounds for applying the exclusion clauses of the 1951 Convention have not been established in Mr. Haddam’s case.”

It is a tragedy that Anwar Haddam has been separated from his family for two and a half years on the basis of “secret evidence.” It is equally a tragedy for America’s good name in the world.

El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan is a Washington, DC-based human rights activist, and executive director of the Peace and Justice Foundation.