Home › News ›

Deportation and prosecution of refugees in conflict with SA's legal obligations

Yesterday, a group of refugees was remanded in custody until next week for a minor traffic violation following a police crackdown on their makeshift camp on the R28 Highway.  This camp was created as asylum seekers and refugees were gradually released from the Lindela Holding Facility following their arrest and removal from the Glenanda protection camp.    Each of the men had been charged under the regulations to the Road Traffic Act for allegedly obstructing traffic on that highway, but were denied the opportunity to pay a fine or be released on bail despite the minor offence involved. The women and children in the group were moved to a local shelter and have not been charged with any offence.    

LHR is concerned about the use of this criminal procedure to bypass the protections of the Refugees Act and detain these persons.  This detention appears to be a ruse to prevent these persons from congregating on the side of the highway after they were removed from a protection camp.    In addition, each of the men in detention was asked by the police to sign an affidavit which stated that they wished to relinquish their refugee or asylum seeker status.  The reason for this affidavit was not explained to them and appears to be an underhanded attempt by the government to easily deport this group of refugees.  This would, however, have the effect of relinquishing any protection under international law. Many of the detainees have stated that they wish to be repatriated to their countries of origin. They state that they no longer feel that they can depend of the protection of the South African government.  This includes both asylum seekers seeking refuge and recognised refugees who the government has already recognized face persecution on their return.      

 

Repatriation may only take place when political circumstances in the country of origin are stable and conducive for safe return.  The UNHCR is currently considering applications from individuals who have requested to be returned to their countries.  This does not mean, however, that the South African government may remove asylum protection from a group of people to fast-track this process.   This would be keeping in line with the Home Affairs Minister’s view that she has washed her hands of this group of refugees.  This affidavit was apparently the result of a meeting between prosecutors, police, the Department of Home Affairs and magistrates in the Krugersdorp court in order to deal with the situation before the matter was brought to court. 

This procedure is highly irregular and should have only been held where defence counsel would have been present. These victims of xenophobic violence should not have been taken to criminal court on a minor charge.  This procedure is being abused by the state in order to remove a problem which they caused one week ago by unlawfully removing these refugees from the Glenanda (Rifle Range) camp.   The solution to xenophobia is not mass deportation of refugees and asylum seekers who were the victims of the xenophobic attacks experienced by the entire country in May of this year. 

The government has not created a comprehensive plan for re-integration to assist these refugees, who have the lawful right to remain in the country, to rebuild their lives in South Africa.  We are concerned about the possibility that the same situation is about to take place at the Akasia camp in Tshwane.  Many of the residents there have refused to register and are the holders of valid asylum seeker and refugee documents.  We fear that the government may choose to use this same abusive procedure in dealing with the residents of that camp as well.    In light of the above LHR calls on government to abide by its obligations under international and domestic refugee law.