“The Secretary Said You’re Not Welcome Here”: Five Years of Abandonment, Then Assault

Why This Violates U.S. Law and Treaty Obligations

The conduct of U.S. Embassy Lomé toward Sgt. Kelvin Blas violates multiple legal frameworks that govern how U.S. embassies must treat American citizens abroad. This is not a matter of discretion or policy interpretation. These are binding legal obligations that the embassy has systematically violated over five years.

Let’s examine each violation in detail.

Violation #1: Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is an international treaty that the United States ratified in 1969. It establishes the fundamental obligations of consular officers to assist their own citizens abroad.

The United States takes the Vienna Convention very seriously—when Americans are arrested or detained abroad, the State Department routinely invokes Article 36 of the Convention to demand consular access. The U.S. has filed diplomatic protests, brought cases to international courts, and condemned other countries when they deny consular access to American citizens.

Yet U.S. Embassy Lomé has spent five years denying consular assistance to one of its own citizens.

The hypocrisy is stark: the U.S. demands that other countries honor their Vienna Convention obligations to American citizens, while U.S. embassies violate those same obligations when dealing with Americans who need help.

Violation #2: Foreign Affairs Manual – Consular Services

The Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) is the State Department’s comprehensive guide to how embassies and consulates should operate. Section 7 FAM covers consular affairs—the protection and assistance of U.S. citizens abroad.

The relevant sections establish clear obligations:

• 7 FAM 012.1: “The protection of U.S. citizens abroad is one of the primary responsibilities of U.S. diplomatic and consular officers.”
• 7 FAM 012.2: Officers must provide assistance to citizens who are “destitute, ill, injured, or otherwise in distress.”
• 7 FAM 013: When a citizen’s passport has been confiscated by foreign authorities, consular officers should advocate for its return and issue emergency travel documents if necessary.
• 7 FAM 014: Provides procedures for emergency financial assistance and repatriation loans.

Sgt. Blas fits every category of a citizen requiring consular protection:

• Destitute (by November 11, hadn’t eaten in three days)
• In distress (stranded for five years without ability to return home)
• Passport confiscated by foreign authorities (exactly what 7 FAM 013 addresses)
• Seeking emergency assistance (which 7 FAM 014 provides procedures for)

Yet embassy staff not only failed to provide the assistance required by the FAM—they physically assaulted him and threatened him with arrest for seeking that assistance.

Violation #3: Diplomatic Security Protocols

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security maintains strict protocols for when and how security personnel at embassies may use force. These protocols exist to protect both embassy staff and visitors—including U.S. citizens seeking consular services.

Key requirements from 12 FAM 315:

• Proportionality: Force must be proportional to the threat. A non-violent citizen seeking consular services presents no threat requiring physical force.
• Necessity: Force should only be used when verbal de-escalation has failed and there is imminent danger. Sgt. Blas waited peacefully for over an hour.
• Documentation: Any use of force must be immediately documented, with incident reports filed to RSO and DS headquarters.
• Witness statements: When incidents occur with witnesses present, witness statements must be collected.

The November 11 incident violated every one of these requirements:

• Force was not proportional (non-violent citizen was physically shoved)
• Force was not necessary (citizen was not threatening, was simply waiting for response)
• No documentation appears to have been filed (despite six witnesses)
• No witness statements were collected (despite civilian objections to the use of force)

The failure to document the incident is particularly concerning. When a security incident occurs with six witnesses—including embassy staff—and no reports are filed, that suggests deliberate suppression rather than oversight.

Violation #4: Federal Records Act

The Federal Records Act requires government agencies to document their activities. This isn’t bureaucratic paperwork—it’s the foundation of government accountability. Without documentation, there can be no oversight, no accountability, and no way to verify whether agencies are following the law.

Embassies are required to document:

• Consular cases and services provided (or denied)
• Security incidents, especially those involving use of force
• Communications with U.S. citizens seeking assistance
• Decisions by embassy leadership regarding case handling

In Sgt. Blas’s case, multiple categories of documentation should exist:

• Consular case file: Records of his 15 attempts to seek assistance, reasons for denial, any communications with Togolese authorities about his passport
• Security incident reports: Documentation of the November 11 use of force, witness statements, guard’s report, RSO review
• Leadership communications: The Ambassador’s Secretary’s decision that “Kelvin is not welcome here” should be documented
• Internal discussions: Embassy staff’s awareness of “online tarnishing” and decision to threaten arrest should be documented

True Signal Media has filed comprehensive FOIA requests for all of these documents. If they don’t exist—if the embassy failed to document five years of denials and a six-witness assault—that itself is a violation of federal records requirements.

Specific Legal Problems with Embassy Staff Statements

Beyond the general violations outlined above, several specific statements and actions by embassy staff raise serious legal concerns.

Problem #1: “He Will Be Arrested or Sack”

Embassy staff member Mr. Agawu Raymond stated: “From today onward, if Kelvin ever comes to the embassy without holding his American passport in his own hands, he will be arrested or sack.”

This statement is legally false and constitutes either:

• Deliberate misrepresentation of law to intimidate a U.S. citizen, or
• Shocking ignorance of consular responsibilities by embassy staff

Here’s why the statement is false:

The fact that embassy staff are threatening arrest based on this false legal claim is deeply concerning. It suggests either:

• Staff genuinely don’t understand consular law (training failure)
• Staff are deliberately misrepresenting the law to intimidate Sgt. Blas (abuse of authority)
• Embassy leadership has instructed staff to make this false claim (systematic misconduct)

None of these possibilities is acceptable.

Problem #2: “The Secretary Said You’re Not Welcome Here”

According to guard Majeed, the Ambassador’s Secretary stated that Kelvin Blas is “not welcome” at the U.S. Embassy.

This statement raises several legal problems:

First, U.S. embassies cannot declare U.S. citizens “not welcome” when they are seeking consular services. Citizens have a right to consular access under both U.S. law and international treaty. An embassy cannot simply declare a citizen unwelcome and refuse services.

Second, if there is a legitimate reason to deny Sgt. Blas access to the embassy (security threat, court order, etc.), that reason must be documented and legally justified. “Not welcome” is not a legal standard.

Third, the statement came from the Ambassador’s Secretary—a senior embassy official. This indicates leadership-level authorization of the denial and physical force that followed. This is not a confused security guard; this is embassy policy.

Problem #3: Failure to Document Security Incident

Six witnesses observed guard Majeed physically push Sgt. Blas. A civilian witness verbally objected. Embassy staff member Mr. Agawu Raymond watched from inside the building. The incident lasted over an hour.

Yet there is no indication that mandatory security incident reports were filed.

This apparent failure to document raises several possibilities:

• Reports were filed and will be produced in response to FOIA – Best case scenario, though it doesn’t explain why embassy staff later threatened escalation rather than addressing the documented incident.
• Reports were not filed due to oversight – This would indicate serious management failures in embassy security operations.
• Reports were deliberately not filed to avoid accountability – This would constitute obstruction and records destruction.
• Reports were filed and subsequently destroyed – This would be an even more serious violation of federal records law.

True Signal Media has requested all security incident reports via FOIA. The embassy’s response—whether they produce reports or claim none exist—will clarify which scenario applies.

The Cumulative Effect

Individually, each of these violations is serious. Cumulatively, they demonstrate systematic failure:

This is not “bureaucratic discretion.” This is not “embassy autonomy in case management.” This is systematic violation of binding legal obligations, authorized at a leadership level, sustained over five years, and culminating in physical violence against a U.S. veteran.

These violations demand investigation, accountability, and consequences for the embassy officials responsible.