(CRIMINAL REVISION)

                                     SUDAN GOVERNMENT v. SAHANEISH MOHANNA ANGRASH

                                                                         AC-CP-REV-537-1967

Principles

  Passports and Permits—Deportation—-Passports and Immigration Act (1960 No. 40) Amended (1961 Act

         According to the Passports and Immigration Act (1960 No. 40) Amended (1961 Act No. 3), S. 30 (2), the court is bound, on conviction, to order deportation and
not to recommend it. The order of deportation is from the Sudan, but thisdoes not necessarily mean deportation to the country of the Convict.

Judgment

          M. E. Mobarak J. December 4, 1967: —The applicant was, on September 25, 1967, convicted by a second class magistrate at Omdurman under the Passports and Immigration Act, ss. 11, 15 and 42, and sentenced to imprisonment for ten days and recommended for expulsion.

          In his sentence the magistrate (at page 8) recommended that the accused be deported to her home country, the Passports and Immigration Act (1960 No. 40), S. 30 (2), as amended by 1961 Act No. 31, reads:

“30…..(2) Any alien who:

(a) enters the Sudan without permission; and

(b) remans in the Sudan after such permission has expired or has been cancelled,

     Shall on conviction arising therefrom, and in addition to any other penalty to which he may be liable under this Act, be ordered to be deported from the Sudan by the Court trying him.”

     It is to be noted that the trial court is bound to order deportation and not to recommend it. It is also to be noted that the court orders deportation from the Sudan. This does not necessarily mean that it should be to the country of the convict. The law does not say that the deportation must be to the country of the person convicted. A person convicted under the Act may not wish to go back to his country. All that our courts are interested in is to send him out of the Sudan.

      On application by the accused to the Judge of the High Court, Khartoum (Sayed Gassouma), he, on September 26, 1967, confirmed the finding and altered sentence to a fine of £S. and in default of payment to imprisonment for seven days. He ordered the stay of the execution of the order of deportation for two months. The order of stay is of very doubtful legality. I note that the “Warrant of Commitment of Person on Alteration of Sentence” (Judicial Form B. 14) was issued by Police Magis trate, Omdurman. It ought to have been issued and signed by the Judge of the High Court himself. There is nothing on record to show that the fine has been paid.

      The accused is now applying to us for a further extension. As I see it, there is not any good for our intervention. We are all accustomed to these dilatory tactics, which make a farce of the law. The accused must be expelled forthwith.

      Galal Ali Lutif J. December 9, 1 agree.

     Abdel Magid Hassan J. December ro, 1967: —I agree.

    ORDER: M. E. Mobarak 1. December 11, 1967: —On application by accused we see no reason to intervene. She must be expelled forthwith.