Open Letter to Brigade of Gurkhas and Ministry of Defence regarding ILE through Howe & Co Solicitors in London

12 September 2007
Martin Howe
Howe & Co Solicitors
40 Uxbridge Road
Craven House
Eagling
W5 2BS
London
United Kingdom

Ref: Your letter of 17 August and e-mail note of 3 September 2007 -- Clarification.

Dear Messer,

As the President of Gurkha Army Ex-Servicemen's Organisation (GAESO), I am writing to clarify the concerns raised in your letter of 17 August 2007 and the subsequent e-mail note of 3 September 2007. We have noted that the main concern that the members of the MOD/Brigade of Gurkhas raised was about the funds that GAESO has been raising from its members and other interested Gurkhas to run its legal, human rights and public campaigns in Nepal and in the UK. Another concern seems to be about GAESO's involvement towards ensuring the right to settlement in the UK to all ex-British Gurkhas and their families, particularly those retired prior to 1 July 1997.

First of all, I would like to dismiss all the allegations made against GAESO, a practice that MOD/Brigade of Gurkhas indulges in as a matter of habit. In proof whereof please find attached, the photocopy of The Telegraph news of 8 October 2000 and one article published in SAGA Magazine in January 2001 and some malicious newspaper articles alleging improprieties on GAESO’s part in its peaceful and non-political fund-raising activities. As a legally registered non-profit organisation in Nepal, GAESO is fully eligible to raise funds or receive donations from any legal and genuine source and there has never been an instance of the organization applying any kind of coercion whatsoever. Most GAESO’s funds are raised from members and supporters. Sometimes non-member Gurkhas also make financial contributions to our campaigns upon our request. All our audited account reports are submitted to the local office of the Chief District Officer in Kathmandu and are open to public access.

Second, a figure of £400 has been cited as being the amount allegedly extracted for access to legal services. Ms Margaret Gilmore and her colleagues who are making this allegation or tend to believe in their source of information are wrong in their basic facts. It in fact is the actual Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILE) application fee collected for payment to the British Embassy or the Consular Offices. It is my understanding that this allegation of illegal fund collection through coercive means is a pure fabrication motivated by grudge and undertaken in a spirit of revenge merely because GAESO did not receive her well on her visit to Kathmandu and in Dharan in the east of Nepal during her so-called consultation trip in April 2007 regarding Gurkhas' grievances. Ms Gilmore’s presence in these two towns attracted a great deal of ire as she had come with the express intention of pacifying the anger that the Gurkha community had towards the MOD announcement of Gurkhas Terms and Conditions of Service (GTACOS) on 8 March 2007. For its part, GAESO had submitted its letter of concern over all outstanding grievances, had made it public through a press conference, made attempts to attend the meeting she had called in Kathmandu at the British Embassy, but failed as the venue was suddenly shifted without any notice or explanation. In Dharan, the city that hosted the Brigade of Gurkhas recruitment centre in the past, Ms Gilmore was bombarded with questions by angry GAESO members since the concerns and questions that she raised there were clearly as unfounded and ill-motivated as they have always been in the past.

As regards to Ms Gilmour's clarification note of 3 September 2007 and her new concern regarding us, it is not different in substance from her original criticism of GAESO implied in your letter of 17 September 2007. She has exposed her agenda repeatedly and they are now so familiar that there is no scope for any new misunderstanding to arise.  Her new insinuation that GAESO plays a role similar to that of a middleman in processing ILE applications before applicants are allowed to see British lawyers, is of a piece with the scurrilous fabrications she has circulated in the past about our organisation. It is indeed difficult to believe that Ms Gilmour actually entertains the patronizing view that a Nepali organisation like GAESO is so uninformed as to act in complete ignorance of UK immigration laws and that it is working autonomously without involving UK and Nepali lawyers in all its activities. If Ms Gilmour's concerns were genuine and motivated by sincere intent then she could quite easily have contacted GAESO, either in the UK or in Nepal, and, at best, sought clarifications, which is the proper course to follow before making defamatory allegations that are potentially actionable, or, at a minimum, voiced her criticisms and offered suggestions, which, though lacking in courtesy and a proper respect for evidence, would still have been more acceptable than the course of action she chose to pursue, whose utter lack of decorum need not detain us here. There is little to be gained in expecting civilised behaviour from a person who compulsively stoops to low conduct, of which her inappropriate conduct in Dharan, behind the back of GAESO, is but the latest instance. There is very clearly a pattern to her activities in Nepal and it is quite evident that part of her intention was to travel around the country and collect rumours and allegations about GAESO with a view to tarnishing our reputation and impeding our legitimate campaign for justice. GAESO has never engaged in giving immigration advice or processing any ILE document or application to anyone anywhere. It only facilitates the management part of it by providing ILE applicants with technical information and logistics to ensure easy access to designated UK lawyers.

Further, I would like to clarify to you in detail regarding the fund-raising activities that GAESO is engaged in:

1)   GAESO has been raising funds through voluntary contributions of £500 or more from its members and other interested Gurkhas since August 2006. This commenced before the involvement of Howe & Co Solicitors in the Gurkha’s immigration case. GAESO had urged for such a contribution to launch more intensive campaigns in the UK, including court cases on pension and other matters, particularly after the MOD decision to exclude the pre-1997 Gurkhas from the ministerial review of GTACOS was made public.

2)   As regards the question of whether this voluntary contribution is linked to the fees collected for ILE applications, £400 each for the British Embassy/Consular Offices in Nepal, Hong Kong and Macao, I would like to clarify that it is not linked to any ILE or immigration-related matters. GAESO is fully aware of the fact that it is not a client of Howe & Co Solicitors but only a facilitating organisation. GAESO has no right or capacity to render any advice on UK immigration matters. What GAESO has been doing is informing all the Gurkhas about the availability of UK lawyers, presently that is your law firm only, equipped with full legal aid, helping them in compiling their army and travel documents, providing them English language-assistance, and furnishing logistical help, such as arranging the day, time and venue for meeting with UK immigration lawyers in Nepal, the planning of their appointment on an orderly basis to regulate the huge crowds at all places and giving priority to elderly Gurkhas, World War II veterans and their widows as well as other Gurkhas in need of quick help due to their personal circumstances.

3)   As regards the question of whether the Gurkhas as ILE applicants are made to pay the "fee" of £500 is concerned, this again is not a true portrayal of the facts. First of all, as clarified above, this is not a fee for any purpose but a voluntary contribution to support GAESO campaigns from Nepal to the UK (entailing costs for the operation of offices, publications, remuneration, travel, accommodation, welfare and other support to needy Gurkhas, fees for solicitors and barristers in cases not funded by any legal aid etc.). What GAESO has done in consultations with Howe & Co Solicitors in Nepal, Hong Kong and Macao is that it has arranged two separate desks to facilitate a smooth process for seeing your team of lawyers with proper documents and proper ILE fees before they arrive to see you. So every ILE applicant is first asked to register for an appointment with proper documents. Then he or she is sent to the next desk to fill up the necessary forms and pay the ILE fees. Incidentally, this is also the time that they are reminded of GAESO's request to make a voluntary contribution of £500 (or more if they wish) as a donation to support all related logistics and campaigns as mentioned above. On completion of these procedures they are enabled to see the lawyers for their witness statements and the completion of all ILE and legal aid forms.

4) To elaborate further, what has happened on many occasions is that many Gurkhas living in Kathmandu or Pokhara have not been giving due importance to such necessary details as appointment registration. They are under the impression that that they can go and meet the lawyers in their hotels or work places whenever they want, unlike the economically poorer and physically more exhausted Gurkhas coming from rural areas. These rural Gurkhas are certainly given high priority as soon as they come and register. Despite this they have had to wait for 3-7 days to reach the end of the appointment queues. I myself have witnessed several Gurkhas coming to our offices or ILE application work places without prior appointment and trying to meet UK lawyers right away. When instituted procedures are explained to them they get angry, walk out and then allege that they were denied access to the UK lawyers because they have not paid fees to GAESO. Some of them have even gone to press to criticise me and GAESO for this. But these are just allegations made in anger by people whose attempts to circumvent fair and reasonable procedures have been thwarted.  There have been times and instances when we had occasion to doubt the integrity of such trouble-makers, whether their presence and actions are genuine or they have come with the express intention of creating situations that could lend a semblance of apparent credibility to their allegations to people like Ms Gilmore and others, who are predisposed to accept them in toto and purvey them to a wider audience with the sole objective of maligning GAESO. Such situations are not difficult to contrive and the scurrilous stories that circulate on these bases are, in fact, quite easy to orchestrate for people bereft of scruple. Anyone can manipulate the situation and some Gurkhas, particularly those who are not our active members, are unhappy with the way that we are managing these ILE application procedures and related logistics professionally and effectively as they belong to other groups or close to the Brigade and their local welfare offices in Nepal. It is not difficult even to obtain written complaints from a few such disgruntled individuals, which become the basis of insidious hints of the kind that is mentioned in your letter to us. Let me clarify once again that the purpose of the procedure established by us is to verify all documentation and sort out the ILE fees (only) before the applicants reach the UK lawyers' desks to complete their statements and other formalities.

5)   It is my conviction that MOD and the Brigade of Gurkhas officials have concocted a piece of gossip and conveyed it to you as a fact implying that an ILE applicant is not allowed to have access to UK lawyers without the payment of the £400 ILE fee, and the £500 GAESO campaign contribution, which, I emphasize again, is not a fee but a voluntary contribution.

6)   Furthermore, I would like to clarify that not all ILE applicants are requested to make this £500 donation. Such requests are not made to those who GAESO knows are not in a position to make such a contribution, namely those who have no pension or poor veterans and widows, unless it is known that these categories have family incomes that merit such a request. For example, some of them have their sons in the British Army and/or some have income from other business and they are willing and can afford to contribute. It is non-fee-non-ILE/immigration voluntary contribution to GAESO to enable the organization to defray operational costs. GAESO members and other contributing Gurkhas are fully aware of the costs that GAESO incurs and will continue to incur till their fight for equal pension and the right of settlement for all Gurkhas has been won. For your information, the monthly cost of GAESO's operations and activities in Nepal and the UK is above £7,000 excluding all other legal costs (see the details attached).

7)   It is very important to note that not all ILE applicants have made this £500 contribution to GAESO because some were unwilling and some could not afford it. According to our records, of an estimated 2,000 ILE applicants only 800 ILE applicants and other Gurkhas have made this contribution. It is equally important to note that this contribution has been made not only by some ILE applicants, but also by all GAESO members and other interested Gurkhas since February 2005 (please visit our website at www.gaeso.org.np and/or www.gaeso.org.uk for details), and it will continue to be so even after Howe & Co Solicitors or any other UK immigration lawyer completes their work. This is an on-going campaign which is not limited to ILE alone and GAESO members have given full mandate to do all that is necessary to triumph in the fight for the equality of all Gurkhas with their UK counterparts.

8)   In the context of MOD and Brigade of Gurkhas officials constantly looking for underhand opportunities to find some Gurkhas and manipulate them and use undue influence to orchestrate abuse against GAESO, I would like to mention that the funds collected from this £500 contribution is also used to pay for ILE fees and in-country travel for those who have no income to afford these costs. There are already over 40 Gurkhas assisted by GAESO to pay their ILE fees. This includes the ILE fees paid by GAESO to Tul Bahadur Pun VC and his families of five, and some other widows and veterans as well. We anticipate that there will be more such cases in future ILE applications as well.

9)   In addition to and as clarification of her earlier allegations, Ms Gilmour in her communication to Howe & Co of 3 September 2007 makes the meaningless argument that GAESO is encouraging all Gurkhas to apply for ILE. She has gone so far as to suggest that these Gurkhas have no right to apply for ILE and that such advice could easily be obtained by contacting the UK embassies in Kathmandu or anywhere else. Apparently it has now become GAESO's job to also instruct Ms Gilmour in the necessary rudiments of logical thinking for which she displays an obvious lack of aptitude. We would like you to draw her attention to the fact that this view articulated by her on behalf of MOD is not a commandment given by the God and written in stone but merely the untenable official position of the government of the UK. As this attitude clearly violates all principles of human rights, GAESO was compelled to seek the legal of assistance of Howe & Co to overturn it, and in pursuit of which end a remarkable victory has been won through the British public campaign by overturning the UK government's previous decision in the case of Pun VC. His credentials and entitlement to residence in the UK was questioned by MOD and the UK Embassy in Kathmandu on the ground that he could not demonstrate his sufficient link with the UK. Perhaps it has already slipped Ms Gilmour mind that she in her official uniform was part of the British Guard of Honour that escorted Pun VC from the airport to the grand welcoming reception at Hotel Renaissance when his claim to live in the UK was accepted by the government against the same preposterous argument that Ms Gilmour now makes. GAESO is most categorically not a mouthpiece of the MOD as Ms Gilmour so patently is and if she believes that Gurkhas who GAESO has been technically assisting to apply for ILE are not entitled to live in the UK then she can always dispute this matter in British courts. However, given the decision made in favour of GAESO's position in the Pun case, it is entirely understandable that she would prefer to avoid that course of action, fraught as it is with grave risks, and confine herself to the trite assertion that Gurkha's are not eligible for the right to apply for ILE and therefore GAESO should desist from encouraging them to apply.  This is precisely the substance of the dispute between GAESO's stand and that of the British government, including her offices. Mrs Gilmour must surely know by now that GAESO has been conducting a campaign against the position taken by the MOD, the Home Office and the Brigade of Gurkhas Headquarters for over a decade. They have been anxious from the time that GAESO was established, particularly after its organisational expansion, its fund-raising drive, its campaigns and protests in Nepal, and the various law suits in the UK in the past 10 years and more. In this context, it would be appropriate for her to familiarise herself with the UK and other European and international human rights law, applicable also to the Gurkhas as well as to recognise all the legal and political victories that GAESO has won against the adamant stand of the British government. We know that Gurkhas are declared ineligible to apply for the ILE or ILR by the MOD and Home Office as advised by your own offices and this is where the core issue of our legal and political fight continues to lie. The fact that it is being contested because it is discriminatory has obviously escaped Ms Gilmour. We intend to continue to fight this discrimination legally and politically despite Ms Gilmour odd complaints.

10) Regarding Mrs Gilmour's concern previously expressed in Dharan that GAESO and its members have no right to collect donations or membership fees, it is possible that she may have forgotten that Nepal is an independent and sovereign country and that the Gurkhas are not the subjects of the MoD or her office. Although, they served as an integral part of the British Army, they are Nepali citizens, they face forced retirement or virtual expulsion to Nepal in the most insulting and humiliated manner after a life-time service to the British people. It is, therefore, inappropriate for her to go around in Nepal offering unsolicited advice to GAESO and its members about what to do and what not to do. To put the matter bluntly, this does not fall within the purview of her official functions. All that GAESO and its members are doing confirm to the laws and regulations and relevant international human rights applicable in Nepal. However, GAESO would like to thank Mrs Glimour for her efforts and concern but would also like to inform her that when advice is required from her it will then be solicited! We will in the meanwhile continue to function as per our original mandate, which is to fight the British government and people like Ms Gilmour to the end till all Gurkhas are settled in the UK as their legal right without any discrimination on the basis of race, nationality and without being debarred on the basis of arbitrary cut off dates that have been instituted by the UK government. To make it amply clear, I reiterate once more that GAESO and its members never claim that they are doing immigration work in Nepal and charge service fees from the ILE applicants. There may sometimes be problems of language and communications at the lower committee levels and general membership but this is a matter to be verified with the GAESO central committee and its top leadership whenever such issues or concerns arise.

With the above clarification to hand, I completely and unhesitatingly refute the allegations made to you or through you to GAESO regarding the handling of ILE application processes, collection of ILE fees for the respective embassies, and GAESO's own collection of voluntary contributions. GAESO will be happy to stay out of the ILE applications processes with Howe & Co Solicitors if that is more helpful than the current arrangement. GAESO will not have to look for any external links or connections to raise funds to finance its campaigns and future court actions. All Gurkhas are willing to contribute for their common cause. I am confident that all such allegations regarding financial and political improprieties, labelled by the MOD and the Brigade of Gurkhas and purveyed to the British Embassy in Kathmandu are now gone. They did all they could to damage and destroy GAESO but despite their devious attempts it has grown stronger and stronger day by day.

As GAESO is fully transparent in all of its activities and finances, I will be pleased to provide any further documents and proof of those who have contributed £500 and those who have been assisted by GAESO as well as any other information that you wish us to furnish. We understand that this is a very serious matter and further that this is a very serious allegation against GAESO by MOD and the Brigade of Gurkhas officials, and we are prepared to deal with it legally in the most transparent and justifiable manner.

Finally, I would like to make it absolutely clear that whenever GAESO is asked by any Gurkha and his family members about where they can get immigration legal advice, GAESO does not request any financial contribution or payment of any fees or moneys as a pre-condition for giving such advice. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us for further information or clarification.

Sincerely,

Padam Bahadur Gurung
President

Cc
To all GAESO committee members and affiliates in Nepal and abroad