It is remarkable, the convolutions that politicians find themselves engaging in. It isn’t long since the Irish Minister for Justice, John O’Donoghue, signed a treaty with the government of Nigeria, which would facilitate the repatriation of asylum seekers from that country, whose applications had been turned down by the authorities here.

I remember reading the story at the time and wondering had we taken leave of our senses entirely – or had John O’Donoghue done it on our behalf. Now, you don’t have to be particularly politically literate to know that a military dictatorship held sway in Nigeria until just a couple of years ago. Nor is it a closely guarded secret that the transition to ‘democracy’, since the collapse of the government of Sani Abacha, has been far from trouble-free. In fact, the nature of the regime in the Northern part of the country is arguably even less amenable now, than what had been in place in the bad old days.

A comparison with Afghanistan is instructive. It is commonplace now for Western leaders to condemn the Taliban, and the intolerant and barbaric regime which they ran from Kabul, and to bemoan especially the systematic oppression of women of which the Mullahs were guilty. Presumably it would be wrong, then, to send asylum seekers back to Afghanistan, forcing them to live under that regime, if it were still in place? And would it not be equally wrong to send an asylum seeker back to live under a similarly oppressive regime, one that discriminates in a similar way against women in particular?

The uncomfortable truth is that this is precisely what we are doing, in deporting failed asylum seekers to Nigeria. This has been brought home in a particularly grim way, over the past week, as the news about the death sentence imposed by the State of Sokoto, on the 35 year-old Ms Safiya Husseini, surfaced in the media here.

Safiya Husseini is the mother of three children, the youngest an eleven month-old baby girl, Adama. She says that Adama was conceived following three incidents of forced sex, involving a man who already has two wives, Yakubu Abubakar. Whatever about Sokoto, in this part of the world, forced sex is called rape.

Having first acknowledged fathership, according to Ms Husseini, Abubakar subsequently denied everything and he later absconded, leaving her to the mercy of the local courts.

Accused of what? You might well ask. Sokoto, like eight other of the thirty-six states that comprise Nigeria, is governed by Sharia law. This is an extreme form of Islamic law, which, in its treatment of women, is a close relative of the form of Islam which was promulgated by the Taliban, and supported by Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network. It provides that a woman found guilty of adultery can be sentenced to death by stoning. This is the sentence that was imposed on Safiya Husseini, after the courts decided that she had indeed been guilty of this heinous crime.

At the time of writing, Safiya Husseini has appealed the sentence, and the result of that appeal is not known. It is desperately to be hoped that clemency, if that is the right word in the circumstances, will be forthcoming. Because if that is not the case, the prospect which is in store for Safiya, is too appalling to contemplate.

The method of her execution is up to the judge, according to the local equivalent of Michael McDowell, the Sokoto Attorney General, Aliyu Abubakar Sanyinna. The first option to be considered by the judge is digging a pit, out of which it is impossible for the ‘convict’ to escape – and in which perfect environment she can be duly stoned to death. The alternative is that she would be tied up against a tree or a pillar, following which the stoning can commence. Choices, choices! How hard must it be for the poor magistrate to make the call, between the pillar, the pit and the tree.

It is not just the imposition of barbaric laws, in parts of the country, that makes the decision of the Irish government to enter into a treaty with the Nigerian administration regarding the repatriation of asylum seekers so clearly inappropriate. The north of the country is in a state of some turmoil, with clashes between Muslims and Christians that have so far claimed an estimated 4,000-plus lives. It is a situation that is quite likely to escalate, with the risk of increasing casualties. The only conclusion that we can come to is that there is an ongoing danger to people who either are or have been politically involved in Nigeria.

Knowing what we now know, it is simply not good enough for the immigration authorities here to continue to send people back to Nigeria, against their will. But it is unlikely that we will see any change in the policy that has been agreed. Indeed, the likelihood is that we will see even greater efforts being made by the authorities to frustrate those who have sought asylum here.

Already, the State has initiated a number of legal actions, the point of which is to deny parents of Irish children, who are themselves illegal immigrants, the right to stay here – a right granted by the Supreme Court in 1990 in the Fajujonu case, which acknowledged that a child born in Ireland to illegal immigrants had the right to the ‘company’ of its parents.

One case that is generating considerable controversy involves a Nigerian woman, who is currently pregnant. Having been served with a deportation order, a case is now being taken by – or on behalf of – the unborn child, currently resident in her womb. In a remarkable, and it has to be said bizarre twist, the nub of the case being pursued on her behalf is that the unborn is a person under Irish law.

The Attorney General has been put in the extraordinary position of having to counter-claim, on behalf of the State, that this is not the case – a view with which many would undoubtedly agree, but which certainly seems to go against the spirit of the provisions of the 1983 Amendment to the Constitution which was specifically designed to safeguard the right to life of the unborn.

Which brings us back to where we came in. It is indeed remarkable the convolutions that politicians find themselves engaging in. We claim to protect the right to life of the unborn,

and yet we assert that the unborn is not a person. We are willing to send a pregnant woman back to a country, in at least part of which she could be stoned to death for engaging in an act of so-called adultery. And at the same time, we happily sit in the audience and clap as the U.S. bombs the shit out of large tracts of Afghanistan.

Looking at all of which, you can only conclude that we’re some bloody bunch of hypocrites. But then I guess we knew that already.