RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

This case involves the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s review of four consolidated appeals. Four citizens of Zimbabwe (plaintiffs) sought asylum in the United Kingdom because they would face persecution if returned to Zimbabwe for their lack of political beliefs—more specifically, for their inability to demonstrate support for the ruling regime, Zanu-PF. After the March 2008 elections, the regime implemented nationwide persecution not only of supporters of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) but of any person who could not demonstrate loyalty to the regime. The regime did not use state forces but rather used undisciplined militias to unleash killings, rape, destruction, and displacement of its own citizens. The militias operated by setting up roadblocks at which citizens had to establish their loyalty to the regime either by presenting a Zanu-PF card or by singing Zanu-PF’s newest campaign songs. Failure to do either of these things was not only evidence of disloyalty to Zanu-PF but proof of support for the MDC. Zanu-PF sought to destroy any support for the MDC so that MDC would not be able to challenge the regime’s continued authority. Thus, the regime abandoned any attempt to single out or target specific MDC supporters. Rather, the regime persecuted any person not supportive of Zanu-PF. The appeals of all four applicants were initially dismissed below for reasons such as that the applicants could simply lie and conceal their neutrality in feigning support for the regime. In the lower courts, three applications were ultimately granted, and one was denied because the applicant did not prove that he would be unable to show loyalty to Zanu-PF. The secretary of state for the Home Department (defendant) appealed the grants of asylum. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether its ruling in a prior opinion, HJ (Iran), that asylum could not be denied to a gay man on the ground that he could simply conceal his sexual orientation to avoid persecution was applicable to the context of neutrality in which a person would be forced to conceal political neutrality and feign support for a regime to escape persecution. The secretary accepted that political neutrality is a protected right under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the convention) but asserted that protection extends only to those who were politically neutral via commitment rather than politically neutral via indifference.