A Nigerian woman who had claimed in the High Court that she faced death by stoning if returned to her native country was yesterday facing immediate deportation.
Mr Justice Lavan refused Ms Nimota Bamidele (33) leave to challenge the Minister for Justice's deportation order directing that she be returned to Nigeria.
Mr Justice Lavan held she had failed to show the court there was "a substantial question" to be determined at a full trial. He refused leave for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Mr Proinsias Ó Maolchaláin, counsel for Ms Bamidele, told the court that the deportation order had been issued by the Department of Justice and she had twice been directed to attend at the Garda National Immigration Bureau. She had faced immediate deportation until the High Court had granted an injunction which had been continued until yesterday.
"My client faces a death sentence under Sharia laws in the part of Nigeria in which she lived," Mr Ó Maolchaláin said.
In a campaign to overturn her deportation, Ms Bamidele's supporters had claimed, in a petition to the Minister for Justice, that she could be stoned to death under Sharia laws because she had three children outside marriage with a Christian man.
The campaign organisers claimed she had been sentenced to death in August 2002 but had escaped from prison and had fled to Ireland seeking asylum. Her application had been turned down by the Minister.
Ms Emily Farrell, for the State, said it was only the constitutionality of the decision of the Minister to deport Ms Bamidele which had been challenged and said she had failed to establish substantial grounds for granting leave for judicial review by the court of the Minister's order.
Mr Justice Lavan said Ms Bamidele's legal team had to satisfy the court it had raised a substantial ground for argument before leave to take judicial review proceedings could be granted.
Ms Bamidele had not challenged procedures applied by the various tribunals which considered her application and which had been refused. She was now out of time in challenging those matters and this time had challenged only the Minister's decision.
"She does so on the basis she is claiming that provisions of Section 5 of the Refugee Act is ultra vires, arbitrary and unreasonable and contrary to constitutional and natural justice," Mr Justice Lavan said.
"I am satisfied on the matters before me that a substantial question has not been raised. I accept the applicant cannot go behind the findings of the various tribunals to date because they have not been challenged and the court must accept that."
Mr Justice Lavan refused an adjournment to facilitate consideration of an appeal to the Supreme Court and refused leave to appeal to the higher court. He awarded costs against Ms Bamidele.