52 ANNUAL REPORT 2015 But other or more general limits to a minister’s ‘right to make statements’ also apply. This is because a Government minister is the head of an administrative authority (the relevant ministry). A minister is therefore subject to the – partly unwritten – rules which apply to administrative authorities. A minister must, for instance, respect the general principles of objective administration. A minister must not interfere in issues which according to statute are placed under independent authorities. And a minister must not in advance make such a strong statement about a case within his or her field of competence that it incurs disqualification. At the same time, a minister is more than a head of administration. For instance, a minister is also a member of Government, and in this capacity he or she formulates political visions for the Government. Usually, a minister is also a prominent member of a political party and may have important tasks within the party. And, finally, a minister is of course also ‘himself or herself ’, a private person. So a minister has several ‘hats’ and will often be wearing all of them in the course of a day. In the morning, the minister may participate in a Government meeting. In the afternoon, the minister will be making administrative decisions within the meaning of the law. In the evening, the minister will be discussing internal party issues in his constituency. And in whatever time is left, the minister will, hopefully, also have time to be a private person. These different hats come with some very different legal boundaries. It is therefore important to know which hat you are wearing at any given time. Not least when you have to decide how far you can go in your statements. THE ERITREA CASE – POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN THE PROCESSING OF ASYLUM CASES? The influx of Eritrean asylum seekers rose during the course of 2014. The Immigration Service initiated a so-called fact-finding mission to Eritrea. The mission resulted in a report which formed the basis for a decision to tighten the asylum practice, but the tightening was quickly abandoned. A number of serious allegations were raised against the immigration authorities. One question was whether the then Minister of Justice had illegitimately interfered in the case. For instance, was it in actual fact the minister who had