Burundi ranks as second most visa-open in East Africa

Burundi ranks as second most visa-open in East Africa

East African | 27 December 2022

Burundi’s immigration policies for other Africans have improved significantly, with the country’s visa openness ranking rising by 32 places in the year and becoming the second most open country in the East African Community (EAC) bloc.

According to a new report by the African Development Bank (AfDB), Burundi’s rise, mostly since 2021, is a result of Bujumbura accepting all travellers from Africa into the country either on visa-free travel (all East Africans) or visas on arrival (all other Africans). Burundi does not have electronic visas yet, but it does not require Africans to apply for entry permits before travelling to its territory.

Burundi’s decision to allow all Africans to travel without visa applications helped it rise from position 44 to 12, making it one of the most improved countries on the continent’s visa openness ranking alongside Benin, Nigeria and Ethiopia.

This may give President Evariste Ndayishimiye credit for reforming his country’s immigration and foreign policies since coming to power at the height of Covid-19. He is the current chair of the EAC.

In the bloc, The Africa Visa Openness Report 2022 shows that Rwanda is still the highest-ranked country on visa openness, allowing visitors from 18 African countries without visas, while granting visas to all other Africans on arrival. It was ranked 5th in Africa, behind Benin, Seychelles, the Gambia and Ghana.

Tanzania allows citizens from 19 African countries visa-free travel, 22 nations get visas on arrival, while visitors from 12 other African countries apply for permits before travel. Tanzania is ranked 20.

But Uganda (30th), Kenya (31st), the Democratic Republic of Congo (47th) and South Sudan (50th) all fell out of the top 20 on the list of African countries seen as most progressive in welcoming Africans.

At the report launch on Sunday, Jean-Guy Afrika, the acting Director of Regional Integration Coordination Office at the AfDB, said the ranking is not all-revealing but only hints at trends on the continent. For example, island nations and landlocked African countries tended to be more welcoming to African visitors. Seychelles, Cape Verde, Mauritius and Comoros were all in the top 20.

Still, landlocked countries with the most natural resources or better economies seemed more unwelcoming. South Sudan, for example, requires visas before departure from 50 countries and allows visa-free travel from only three neighbouring countries. Botswana, too, was cited as restrictive, requiring visas from visitors from 35 countries before travel.

“The causes vary, they are dynamic, but they generally straddle issues of geography, political, economic and cultural reasons,” he told an audience at the launch in Balaclava, Mauritius, on the sidelines of the African Economic Conference.

The index, he argued, was not a name-and-shame list of poor performers but an outline of recent trends. On the continent, the general pattern is that “you will need a visa to travel to other African countries at least 47 percent of the time.”

Some countries also have other non-tariff barriers. In the Gambia, deemed the third best African country in welcoming others, behind Benin and Seychelles, all air travellers pay a $ 20’ airport clearance’ fee on arrival and departure even though no African visitor needs to apply for visas before travel.

The Index Africa Visa Openness Index (AVOI), an initiative of the African Development Bank and the African Union Commission, measures the extent to which African countries are open to visitors from other African countries.

Researchers calculated the number of African countries whose citizens must obtain a visa before travelling there, the number of countries whose citizens may obtain a visa upon arrival, and the number of countries whose citizens do not need a visa to enter. Nations ranking best in these categories receive one (1) as the highest mark. The data was collected between June and August this year.

The index indicates the readiness of African countries to implement some of the continent’s recent protocols on open borders and the movement of the people, such as the Free Movement protocol, the Africa Continental Free Trade Area agreement (AfCTA), and the continental open skies agreement (SAATM).

Some 36 of 54 countries have improved or maintained their score since 2016. 13 of 2022’s top-20 performers have a higher score today than in 2016 when the ranking was launched.

“The AfCTA makes an important contribution to how trade agreements can facilitate the movement of people,” argued Zodwa Mabuza, the Principal Integration Officer, Regional Integration Coordination Office at the AfDB. But she warned that the phobia among Africans in welcoming others means the continent must discuss some kind of ‘AfCTA’ visa to address concerns on how movement under free trade can continue without disturbing security.

The report says trade may thrive in a more integrated continent but could still be limited if other attendant disciplines are kept the same.

“Access to the continent’s markets also depends on conditions that govern the trade in services. Trading across borders requires communications, financial services, and transport, and many of these involve people moving across borders. So do tourism, higher education, medical care, professional services and many others.

www.samigration.com

 

 

Kind Regards

Immigration: German couple may retire in SA after long unnecessary legal battle

Immigration: German couple may retire in SA after long unnecessary legal battle

Pretoria News - 28 Dec 2022

Pretoria - A judge was outraged by the conduct of the director-general of Home Affairs, who for years simply turned a blind eye towards an elderly German couple’s desperate plight to retire in South Africa.

The couple fully qualify in terms of the law to obtain permanent residency here, yet their application was turned down by the department.

Western Cape High Court Judge Vincent Saldanha said he considered holding the official personally liable for the legal costs.

He commented that the court noted the egregious conduct of the official for the manner in which he had conducted this litigation and in handling the couple’s application. Jakob Maier, 80 and his wife Maria, 78, dearly want to retire in Cape Town, where they bought a house about 11 years ago.

They applied for permanent residence, but were simply told they didn’t qualify. This in spite of the Immigration Act stating that a person who wants to retire in South Africa must have a minimum of R37 000 a month in their account.

The Maiers, together with their application for permanent residency, made a full disclosure of their assets – both here and abroad – which were verified by the banks where they hold accounts, as well as the businesses in which they had ownership in. This revealed that they were very wealthy.

They also planned to retire in their multimillion-rand home that they bought in Cape Town.

They applied for permanent residence in 2016, but only heard from the department four years later that their application was rejected.

The reason given was “that they failed to provide adequate proof” they would have the prescribed R37  000 a month in their account.

The surprised Maiers tried to engage with Home Affairs, to no avail. They told the court that they still had no idea why their application was rejected.

They turned to court in desperation; they had for years lived in their Cape Town home on visiting visas. This meant they had to leave the country every three months to have the documents renewed.

They said they were living in a state of uncertainty, not knowing when their visas would not be renewed again. As elderly people, this was taking a toll on them, they said.

They asked the court to grant them permanent residency and not to remit the matter back to department to avoid being in the same position as before.

In opposition to the application, director-general Livhuwani Makhode issued an affidavit stating that “their preferred retirement is driven by nothing but sentiment”.

The department said the application was rejected for numerous reasons, including that the couple did not submit a list of their debts. In spite of this affidavit, the department didn’t want to continue fighting the matter in court.

The judge said it was no surprise that the department had thrown in the towel on the eve that the matter was due to be heard in court.

The department proposed a settlement, which would allow it 60 days to verify the assets of the Maiers.

The judge concluded that there was no need for this time consuming exercise, which the department had years to do if they wanted to. He said all records regarding the couple’s finances were above board and thus there was no need to verify it.

Regarding the conduct of the director-general, Judge Saldanha said: “He has displayed a complete disdain for the applicants in the way he has treated them…”

The judge ordered the department to foot the entire legal bill.


For more information, Please contact us on :

Tel No landline CT  :  +27 (0) 21 879 5560

Tel No landline JHB : +27 (0) 12 880 1490

Whatsapp  Tel No : +27 (0) 82 373 8415 - ( Whatsapp messages only, No calls )

Tel No office : +27 (0) 82 373 8415 ( Whatsapp messages only, No calls )  

Tel No admin : +27 (0) 64 126 3073 – ( Whatsapp calls only – No Messages ) 

Tel No sales : +27 (0) 74 0366127 - ( Whatsapp calls only – No Messages )

Please email us to info@samigration.com


www.samigration.com

The most in-demand jobs and skills in South Africa – report

The most in-demand jobs and skills in South Africa – report

News24 | 28 Dec 2022

A new report by the recruitment group Michael Page has highlighted a strong demand for specific professional skills in South Africa, noting that global companies are poaching experienced South African staff while local employers are looking for candidates with the same talent.

Michael Page Africa, a division of the UK-headquartered PageGroup, recruits managers and senior executives on the African continent.  

Based on data captured by the group from job advertisements and insights from consultants, it has compiled a new report on the most in-demand skills and experience needed within various sectors of South Africa.  

Banking and financial services industry

These are the most in-demand jobs according to the report:

1.     Internal audit manager

2.     Senior trader

3.     Senior relationship manager

4.     Business development manager: Insurance

5.     Head of operations: Chartered insurance brokers

6.     Corporate finance: Mergers and acquisition

With an increased focus on hiring individuals who can influence business revenue, business development managers, specialising in insurance, wealth, and banking have become popular within the job market. Businesses have also been actively seeking candidates for administration or "back-office roles" to cope with "increased revenue and the opening of new sectors", according to the report.

Engineering and manufacturing

These are the most in-demand jobs according to the report:

1.     Head of engineering

2.     Project directors

3.     Quality assurance and quality control manager

4.     Product supervisor

The report identifies key trends towards a customer-focused manufacturing industry and a shift which focuses on quality assurance and quality control to "develop superior products" and ensure high levels of productivity. As such, there has been an increased demand for quality assurance and quality control managers.

In addition, the industry has been facing challenges including a shortage of expertise and talent in industries such as project management which can be seen in the increased demand for jobs such as project directors and product supervisors.

Finances and accounting

These are the most in-demand jobs according to the report:

1.     Commercial finance manager and controller

2.     Tax-orientated roles

3.     Finance manager

4.     Head of finance

5.     Regional and African experience

Employers have also begun to look for candidates who have both accounting and technical skills.

The report also identified a need for a "regional and African experience" through streamlining amongst African countries. As a result, such streamlining is able to create a "greater sense of responsibility" in the market, as well as greater interaction between business professionals and stakeholders to understand finances.

Legal industry

These are the most in-demand jobs according to the report:

1.     Corporate commercial in-house counsel

2.     Compliance officer and manager

3.     Fintech, IT and ICT lawyer

4.     Corporate mergers and acquisitions and banking, and finance lawyer

5.     Company secretary and corporate governance professional

6.     African legal counsel

The increased demand for skills in technology within the legal industry is important within the context of South Africa, according to the report, where "South Africa is a commercial hub for external growth on both national and continental levels". There has also been an increasing need for cross-border partnerships between companies. in the continent, which is linked to the increasing demand for African legal counsel.

www.samigration.com

Fraudulently obtained South Africa Visas

Fraudulently obtained South Africa Visas

Sa Migration -  22 December 2022

The Curious Case of the 1997 Exemption Permits 

2021 has started on a busy note in terms of the South African immigration landscape.  The Border Management Agency began its work having been signed into law by the president in December, a draft critical skills list has been published and now the Minister has vowed to take steps to review and investigate visas and permits irregularly issued over the years and its only February. It has been my expectation that the immigration in the post COVID-19 era would be characterised by a dramatic increase in enforcement activities of DHA. Already we have seen a more rigorous entry process and screening which is identifying those who are not complying with their respective visa conditions. On the 11th of February the Minister announced a review of those permits and visas that were issued over the years and especially permanent residence permits. The move comes after prominent figures such as the Bushiri`s were found to be in possession of a permanent residence status that was allegedly irregular or fraudulently obtained.  The permit was purported to have been issued in 1997 however the Bushiri`s had only first arrived in 2009.  In this week’s post I thought we should dive into this issue and shed some light as to why the Department would feel strongly about their case.

Fraudulent v Fraudulently obtained permits  

Firstly I think it’s important to highlight the difference between a fraudulent permit and a fraudulently obtained permit. A fraudulent permit is simply a document that was not issued by DHA and is usually the product of some act of forgery. Often these permits can be identified by the marked difference in things like their font, colour and wording which would all point to a forgery. A fraudulently obtained permit is far more conspicuous in that it is issued by the department through an act of misrepresentation or corruption.  This is often difficult to identify because on the face of it the permit is valid, in fact it would be valid in all respects except that it was obtained by an act of misrepresentation or corruption . This latter category is where we find most of these 1997 Exemption permits. So how exactly did these permits come into being and in such large numbers?

The Origins of the 1996/1997 Exemption Permits

Post-independence as the new government worked to right the wrongs of the apartheid regime, several interventions were announced to register firstly citizens who had been disenfranchised through the homelands system and various acts which deprived black south Africans of their citizenship. These took place between 1994 and 1995, then in 1996, the government introduced a permanent residence program for all SADC nationals who had been working in South Africa pre-1994. The people were to be granted Permanent residence exemptions in terms of section 28 of the Aliens Control Act. The requirements for one to qualify for the exemption were, you had to have been in South Africa before 1994, on work permit, still working in SA, and be a SADC citizen.  The motivations of this move were many but among these were pressure from unions whose membership was made up of these individuals, also the  apartheid government discriminated against all persons of colour regardless of their origin so many of these people were part of the liberation movements and political  formations.

Now what transpired thereafter is where the problem began. Not all people who applied collected their outcomes and because all these outcomes were held at various regional offices it became very easy for someone with a relationship with an Immigration Official to gain access to these. So many people were made to apply for this permanent residence long after it had been closed and many people were duped into believing that their documents were correctly issued.  Moreover when they applied for Identity documents they were issued with these and when they travelled no questions were asked of them. So many, like the Bushiri`s would believe that everything was ok.

Until the latest statement by the Minister there has been no acknowledgment from the Department of this serious breach in their documentation of persons. This despite several arrests and dismissals of officials within the department who had a hand in this very elaborate scheme.  In fact these permits are well known within the ranks of DHA officials that certain offices have gained infamy for being the hotspots for these permits. However, despite this no positive action has been taken to inform the public of this grave breach. There have been several efforts to have people surrender these documents such as the Zimbabwe and Lesotho dispensation permit programmes however, these have not been as effective mainly due to the vague nature of the communication around their intentions.  For starters the department would ask people to surrender their documents which they know to be fraudulent, but if I have been engaging with DHA all this time and no one tells me my permit may be fraudulent I will not know.

What does the Immigration Act say ?

So, what is a person’s legal position when they fall victim of such a scheme.  Unfortunately, the Immigration Act does not make this any easier. Section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act provides that any person who is found in possession of a fraudulent permit, visa, passport or ID is a prohibited person, not eligible for entry into, residence in and not allowed to apply for a visa. If that person presently holds a valid visa but becomes a prohibited person, that visa is withdrawn.   Section 48 goes on to state No illegal foreigner shall be exempt from a provision of this Act or be allowed to sojourn in the Republic on the grounds that he or she was not informed that he or she could not enter or sojourn in the Republic or that he or she was admitted or allowed to remain in the Republic through error or misrepresentation, or because his or her being an illegal foreigner was undiscovered.   Therefore, the unqualified argument that I did not know that my permit was fraudulently obtained does not prevent one from be detained and deported. Finally, section 49(14) makes committing any act of misrepresentation to gain residence in the country a criminal offence.

How do I fix this? 

So how does one deal with such an issue or resolve it? The Act does provide an avenue in section 29(2) which allows a person in this person to apply to the director general to have their status as a prohibited person lifted on good cause.  The Director General through the office of deportation coordination will deal with these matters on case-by-case basis. Not taking any action is certainly not advisable given that the Minister has already announced a warning bell on these and other fraudulently obtained permits and visas.

Conclusion

As a parting shot, I just want to say when it comes to immigration issues there are no short cuts. As tempting as it may appear to be the consequences of cutting corners are far more dire than the hassle of going through the motions. It’s always better to take the long road. Immigration issues such as fraudulent documents are extremely challenging to deal with, however not acting in the hope that they will go away is not a strategy. Eventually DHA always catches up.

Please rate us by clinking on this links :

SA Migration Visas

https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

www.samigration.com

 

 

UK deportation agreement with Rwanda flawed and won't solve migration crisis, say critics

UK deportation agreement with Rwanda flawed and won't solve migration crisis, say critics

News24 | 21 Dec 2022

Despite the courts on Monday ruling that the United Kingdom's intended deportation of illegal immigrants to Rwanda was legal, the policy remains opaque, shrouded in secrecy, a breeding ground for corruption, and has no guarantee of solving the UK's immigration crisis, says Yvette Cooper, a Labour Party legislator.

Speaking uninterrupted for five minutes in the House of Commons on Monday, Cooper made it clear that she did not support the Rwanda deal for which Home Secretary Suella Braverman was lobbying.

"The government has failed to stop criminal gangs putting lives at risk and proliferating through our borders. They failed to prosecute or convict the gang members and failed to take basic asylum decisions which are down by 40% in the last six years.

"Instead of sorting those problems out, they have put forward an unworkable, unethical, and extremely expensive Rwanda plan which risks making trafficking worse," she said.

Braverman described the court judgment as a vindication of the Conservative Party's policy.

However, Cooper argued that the policy was a drain on the UK's fiscus, and unreasonably expensive.

The court ruling, therefore, was "so flawed and chaotic".

She was supported by Garden Court Chambers - a group of barristers specialising in civil liberties, education, human rights, and immigration - who said: "The Home Secretary did not properly consider the circumstances of eight individual claimants to decide if their circumstances mean the asylum claims should be determined in the UK, or whether there are other reasons why they should not be relocated to Rwanda."

UK lawyer Colin Yeo said an appeal was likely and could delay the policy.

"An appeal by the claimants is inevitable, so the High Court judgment is not the last word. The Court of Appeal is likely to look at the case, as is the Supreme Court," he said.

There's a three weeks window period before the deportations start, if unopposed, because of the interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights, which states that removal cannot take place "until 3 weeks after delivery of the final domestic decision in ongoing judicial review proceedings".

Rwanda has already received 120 million pounds (about R2.5 billion) and another 20 million pounds is on the way.

Once the deportees land in Rwanda, the UK is not accountable for them. 

"The idea is that by doing this to some refugees, other refugees will be deterred from trying to come to the UK to claim asylum," said Yeo.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has long been against this policy. The UNHCR found Rwanda unfit to take in people deported from the United Kingdom.

The UNHCR argued: "In the light of the history of refoulement and defects in its asylum system, Rwanda could not be relied on to comply with its obligations under that convention and, by extension, would fail to comply with the obligations it had assumed under the Memorandum Of Understandings (MOUs) and Notes Verbales (diplomatic communications).If they are granted asylum in Rwanda, they will stay. If not, Rwanda can deport them back to their countries of origin.".

Cooper said the Conservative government even planned to deport heavily pregnant women, and that it wanted a state almost halfway across the world to "take decisions for us".

She added that there was no economic sense in the Rwanda deal.

"The number of people Rwanda takes will be very limited, and there will be lots more money, provided by the UK government. The Home Secretary didn't tell us about any of those things."

Rwanda will take about 200 people, and will translate to over a million pounds per person.

Before the UK deal, Rwanda entered into a similar one with Israel in 2014. In its ruling, the British court said the government didn't investigate the circumstances that led to the collapse of the Rwanda-Israel deal.