Press statement: LHR wins fight against closure of PE refugee reception office on World Refugee Day

Lawyers for Human Rights on Thursday, 20 June 2013, scored a hard-fought victory in the case challenging the closure of the Port Elizabeth Refugee Reception Office in the Eastern Cape High Court.
The judge has ordered that the reception office be fully functional by 1 October 2013.

LHR and the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University’s Refugee Rights Centre challenged the closure - the latest in a series of moves by the Department of Home Affairs to relocate RROs to the country’s borders.

This significant judgment coincides with World Refugee Day and has been met with celebration by asylum-seekers and refugees.

“Refugees in the Eastern Cape have expressed their utmost satisfaction with the judgment. It means that new asylum-seekers will from 1 October be entitled to apply for asylum at the Port Elizabeth RRO,” said David Rossouw from the NMMU's Refugee Rights Centre.

LHR is representing the Somali Association of South Africa and the Project for Conflict Resolution and Development who first challenged the decision to close the office in February 2012. The high court found in their favour and ordered the re-opening of the office but the Department of Home Affairs failed to open the office and has relied on an alleged “new decision” taken in May 2012 to keep the office closed.

The Port Elizabeth RRO is the only place in the Eastern Cape at which asylum-seekers and refugees can access their statutory rights under the Refugees Act. Between May 2010 and March 2011, the RRO processed over 22 500 asylum-seekers and refugees. At present only three RROs remain operational in South Africa: Pretoria, Durban and Musina.

The judge agreed that, “the ‘substantive content’ of their [asylum-seekers and refugees] right to apply has indeed changed for the worse”.

He added that the original decision in October 2011 to close the reception office was taken without any intention of reconsidering the move after any consultations.

The Department had originally proposed to close the reception office and relocate it at Lobombo in Mpumalanga – far from any metropolitan area. Unfortunately, the Department has taken a secretive approach to its new policy direction and has not engaged stakeholders.

The ruling agreed with LHR’s submissions that by relocating reception offices from metropolitan areas, the Department would negatively impact access for applicants.

“Access to the asylum system is key to the integration process and moving RROs to our borders is a step in the opposite direction,” added Rossouw.

The Department had argued the decision to close the office was lawful and that the inconvenience of having to apply in a different reception office and traveling there repeatedly not be elevated to a right. They also argued that public consultation had taken place despite the Department's refusal to engage with stakeholders after the closure of the office.

LHR argued on three grounds of review on this “new decision” including that proper consultation was not carried out with the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs, the decision was taken without any form of public consultation and that the decision was unreasonable, irrational and materially affected by irrelevant considerations.

The judge agreed with LHR’s arguments over a lack of engagement with stakeholders, saying, “I hold that there was no public consultation. In the result I find that the decision to close the PE RRO is liable to be set aside in terms of the provisions of section 6(2)(C) of PAJA.”

The Department had argued that public consultation was impossible because they “could not identify who to consult with”. The Department added that non-profit organisations did not have the inherent right to be consulted on the closures either.

The state has not denied claims that no alternative reception office has yet been constructed, saying, “The Lebombo RRO remains a long way from actually being established in a functional state.”

Although stating that it is not government policy to establish refugee camps, there is a real likelihood that the establishment of a refugee reception office in a remote area like Lebombo, with the accompanying closure of existing offices in metropolitan areas, will create de facto camps as seen in other countries with similar policies.

The ruling has also ordered that the Department hand over a written report summarising the steps taken in following through with the order.