Publications
A report released by the Forced Migration Studies Programme (FMSP) at Wits University titled “Protection and Pragmatism: Addressing Administrative Failures in South Africa’s Refugee Status Determination Decisions” identifies serious flaws in South Africa’s refugee status determination process.
The review of 324 negative status determination decisions from all of the country’s permanent Refugee Reception Offices shows that these offices are unable to perform their primary function—investigating the validity of asylum claims and distinguishing those individuals who need protection as refugees from those who do not. The quality of status determination decisions has been severely affected by efforts to process hundreds of asylum applications daily. As a result, individuals with valid asylum claims are being returned to life threatening situations, in violation of South African and international law. In one instance, a woman who fled civil war in the DRC after being kidnapped and brutally raped by rebel forces was told that she suffered no harm.
According to Roni Amit, a researcher with FMSP and author of the report, “The problems are leading to significant human rights violations. Individuals are being denied refugee status without having their asylum claims properly considered, which is what the system is set up to do, and what it is required to do by law. Apart from the rights violations, taxpayer money is being devoted to a system that is not carrying out its core function.”
The decision letters failed to correctly apply provisions of both refugee and administrative law. According to Amit, “In many instances, status determination officials are simply getting the law wrong.” The research also found widespread reliance on outdated and inaccurate country information and cut and pasted decisions, resulting in identical decisions being issued to different claimants, as well as decisions with information on the wrong claimant or the wrong country.
While better training of staff is essential, the report highlights that the problems also stem from the tremendous demand placed on the asylum system because South Africa does not provide alternative paths to migration. Resolving these problems therefore requires more than an administrative solution. According to Amit, “Staff at refugee reception offices are being asked to do the impossible. Reforms at the administrative level will only achieve limited results until immigration policy is changed to regulate migration flows, enabling the asylum system to service those truly in need of protection.”
The research findings were presented to members of the Department of Home Affairs last Friday (9 April 2010). The Department acknowledged the problems with the asylum seeker system, but emphasized that its focus was on reforming migration management to ease demand on the system.
“We welcome the Department’s efforts to reform,” said Amit. “But the current situation regarding refugee status determination, which contravenes the law, violates human rights, and wastes money should not be allowed to continue in the meantime.”
The report recommends several measures that can be implemented immediately, while broader immigration policy reforms are being developed.
For the full report, please see: www.migration.org.za
For more information, contact
Dr. Roni Amit, Researcher, Forced Migration Studies Programme
Cell: 076 779 2118
roniamit [at] gmail [dot] com (roniamit [at] gmail [dot] com)
The purpose of this booklet is to provide an overview of LHR’s litigation activities and our role in public interest litigation in South Africa. The booklet has been designed thematically and looks at past LHR cases with a view of planning for future projects and activities to develop human rights jurisprudence in South Africa.
The exodus of Zimbabweans into neighbouring countries is one of the greatest challenges and opportunities for the region, yet Southern African countries are struggling to respond appropriately. A new study by the Forced Migration Studies Programme (FMSP) at the University of the Witwatersrand finds that the humanitarian nature of Zimbabwean migration blurs the traditional distinctions between refugees and economic migrants. However, official responses to Zimbabwean migration in Botswana, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique are still premised on this distinction and so are failing to protect both Zimbabweans and the citizens of neighbouring countries.
This legal review looks at strategic interventions for upholding the constitutional rights to water and sanitation and a better use of the law in improving the delivery of water services. Of course, use of law is not the only way of reaching such goals. The review therefore also looks at interventions that use public participation and social mobilisation to ensure that communities are actively involved in asserting their rights inside and outside the legal environment.The use of the law however when properly used, enables poor and marginalised communities to achieve impact and success where other efforts have failed. This requires a closer look at available legal interventions and a strategic analysis of how these interventions can have the greatest possible impact on the delivery of water services.
This report highlights serious human rights concerns in South Africa's immigration detention facilities, in particular the private operated facility at Lindela in Krugersdorp and the detention centre operated by the SAPS in Musina. The report reveals that despite South Africa's obligations in domestic and international law to comply with basic minimum standards of detention, there are serious violations of these most basic rights ranging from lack of access to drinking water to the most serious violations of torture in detention, which occur with little oversight or legal recourse. The report also raises concerns about the unlawful detention and deportation of bona fide asylum seekers and refugees, and their lack of access to the legal protections guaranteed to them in law.
Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), together with several interested organisations commissioned a survey of Zimbabwean asylum seekers and refugees living in South Africa. The aim of the study was to make a submission to the Minister of Home Affairs to provide a platform for meaningful engagement with the DHA and national institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission, in order to raise critical awareness and make practical recommendations on specific human rights problems faced by the asylum and the refugee community in South Africa.
On 26 - 27 February 2008 Lawyers for Human Rights, in collaboration with Aim for Human Rights, hosted a conference on the newly adopted UN Convention for the Protection of All Person from Enforced Disappearances. The conference sought to facilitate an initial dialgue between the SA government and civil society organisations from SA and the region. This report gives a detailed account of the conference's proceedings.
This background paper is intended to contribute to the discussion by presenting a summary of key issues and response options, on the basis of expert analysis of international experiences. Without prescribing a specific governmental response, this document argues that some kind of coherent response is necessary at this point in time, and sets out a framework for evaluating the appropriateness and potential impacts of different responses.
Issued annually in commemoration of World Refugee Day (20 June), this report represents research by members of the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA), a national network of service providers and research bodies. The findings have been compiled over a six-month period using surveys, in-depth interviews and a review of relevant documents, legislation and policies. In-person and telephone interviews were also conducted with officials and service providers in Johannesburg , Pretoria , Durban , Cape Town , and Port Elizabeth , and in border areas near Mozambique and Zimbabwe
The 2008 CoRMSA report is dedicated to promote the rights of foreigners in SA. The findings of the report have been compiled over a six month period using surveys, in-depth interviews and a review of relevant documents and policies.