Keypoints:
- Tribunal orders fresh hearing in Kenyan asylum case
- Woman says witchcraft accusations put her at risk
- Similar accusations have triggered killings in Kenya
THE Kenyan woman who says she risks persecution after being accused of witchcraft has secured a fresh asylum hearing in Britain after an immigration tribunal found that crucial evidence explaining her delayed disclosure was not properly considered.
The ruling does not mean that the woman, identified only as JB, has been granted asylum. Instead, the Upper Tribunal found that an earlier judge made a material legal error when assessing her credibility, meaning her claim must now be reconsidered from the beginning.
The unusual case raises a wider question for British asylum law: whether being branded a witch can expose someone to a genuine risk of violence or persecution when such accusations have been associated with attacks and killings in parts of Kenya.
Tribunal finds legal error
JB, born on December 31, 1963, arrived in Britain in 2014 but did not claim asylum until 2023.
The Home Office refused her asylum claim on May 3, 2024, and her subsequent appeal was dismissed by the First-tier Tribunal.
According to the Upper Tribunal judgment, British authorities had accepted that JB had experienced an abusive marriage in Kenya and had eventually been forced from the marital home.
Her case, however, became complicated because she did not initially tell immigration officials that relatives and members of her community considered her to be a witch.
The First-tier Tribunal treated that omission as damaging to her credibility and concluded that the witchcraft allegation appeared to have emerged later as part of her asylum case.
Upper Tribunal Judge Joanna McWilliam found that assessment was flawed.
JB had explained in written evidence that shame, trauma and nervousness made it difficult for her to disclose the allegation during her initial asylum interview.
The Upper Tribunal found that the earlier judge had failed to properly engage with those explanations, concluding that the error went to the heart of the assessment of JB’s credibility.
Her appeal must now be heard again from the beginning.
Accusation lies at heart of claim
JB says her difficulties developed against the background of an unhappy polygamous marriage and deaths within the family.
Her case is that members of her family and local community came to believe she was responsible for misfortune through witchcraft and that she would face danger if returned to Kenya.
The Upper Tribunal did not rule that her account was true.
Nor did it make any finding about whether witchcraft itself exists.
The legal question is narrower: whether JB received a fair assessment of her evidence and whether being accused of witchcraft could expose her to serious harm.
The Times, which reported on the case, described the decision as a reprieve for the Kenyan woman. More precisely, the ruling gives JB another opportunity to establish that she faces a real risk of persecution if returned to Kenya.
Kenyan violence adds context
The claimed danger is not without wider context.
Kenyan human-rights organisations and researchers have documented cases in which people accused of witchcraft have been assaulted or killed, particularly older people in counties including Kilifi and Kisii.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights has investigated killings involving elderly people suspected of practising witchcraft in Kilifi, gathering testimony from local residents, officials and other stakeholders.
Kenya’s National Crime Research Centre has also identified witchcraft accusations as a factor in some homicide cases, highlighting the vulnerability of elderly men and women to mob violence.
The danger remains contemporary. In June 2026, Kenyan media reported that a 53-year-old man was killed by a mob in Kilifi County after allegations of witchcraft were made against him. Police subsequently arrested suspects in connection with the killing.
Such cases do not prove JB’s individual claim, but they provide country context that a fresh tribunal may have to consider when deciding whether her fear is well founded.
Protection remains key question
The rehearing will have to determine whether JB’s account is credible and whether she would face a real and continuing threat if returned to Kenya.
It will also have to consider whether Kenyan authorities could reasonably protect her or whether she could safely relocate elsewhere in the country.
JB has argued that internal relocation would not necessarily eliminate the danger and referred in her evidence to Kenya’s Nyumba Kumi neighbourhood policing system.
The Upper Tribunal found that the earlier decision had not adequately dealt with that element of her case either.
The case comes as Britain continues to debate asylum, removals and its wider migration policies involving African countries. Africa Briefing has previously reported on the return of migrants from Britain to Nigeria and Ghana, alongside the diplomatic and legal fallout from the collapse of the UK-Rwanda migration agreement.
For JB, however, the next stage turns on a deeply personal question.
The tribunal must decide not whether witchcraft is real, but whether the consequences of being labelled a witch could place her life or safety at genuine risk.
Related stories
