Former diplomat says it’s not clear whether Ottawa asked Sudan to detain Canadian citizen

More than twenty years have passed since Abousfian Abdelrazik was imprisoned in Sudan, and the details surrounding his ordeal continue to raise questions. Scott Heatherington, a former diplomat who was involved in the case, testified recently in Abdelrazik’s $27 million lawsuit against the Canadian government. Despite his involvement in foreign intelligence at Foreign Affairs, Heatherington admitted that he still doesn’t know whether the Canadian government requested Abdelrazik’s detention in Sudan.

Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen of Sudanese descent, alleges that Ottawa not only orchestrated his arbitrary imprisonment but also hindered his return to Canada for several years. He was arrested during a trip to visit his mother in 2003 and was interrogated by Sudanese officials and Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents about alleged extremist ties. Abdelrazik has consistently denied any involvement in terrorist activities.

After a prolonged legal battle, Abdelrazik finally returned to Canada in 2009 when the Federal Court ruled that the government had violated his constitutional rights by refusing to issue him an emergency passport. Heatherington’s testimony revealed that Sudan’s security service claimed Abdelrazik was detained at Canada’s request, a revelation that came as a surprise to many.

The pivotal question in Abdelrazik’s case revolves around whether Canada played a role in his detention. Despite being pressed by a federal lawyer during his testimony, Heatherington admitted that he still doesn’t have a definitive answer to that question.

Heatherington also shed light on a period of frustration when Sudan refused to confirm Abdelrazik’s detention to Canadian officials. CSIS, which was investigating Abdelrazik as a potential threat, was informed of his imprisonment before Foreign Affairs personnel were notified. This led to CSIS being the first Canadian representatives to interview Abdelrazik.

While Heatherington expressed displeasure at the sequence of events, he acknowledged that allowing CSIS initial access was the only way to reach Abdelrazik. He emphasized that his department eventually gained consular access to Abdelrazik, albeit after CSIS had already questioned him.

Abdelrazik’s legal team has argued that CSIS obstructed consular efforts on his behalf. However, a former CSIS official denied these allegations during his testimony, stating that CSIS cannot prevent Foreign Affairs from providing consular services.

The ongoing trial has highlighted the contentious relationship between national security interests and diplomatic responsibilities. Abdelrazik’s lawyer has characterized him as a victim of the post-9/11 “war on terror,” while government lawyers have refuted claims of negligence in his treatment.

Heatherington’s testimony is a pivotal moment in Abdelrazik’s quest for justice, shedding light on the complex web of government actions that led to his prolonged detention. As the trial continues, the truth behind Abdelrazik’s ordeal slowly comes to light, challenging the boundaries of national security and individual rights.