Ongoing closure of
reception offices leaves refugees and asylum seekers in undocumented limbo
Daily Maverick - 20 September 2021
South Africa is a signatory to international
refugee treaties, treaties incorporated into its legal system through the
Refugees Act. This gives refugees and asylum seekers protection under the Bill
of Rights. But the ongoing closure of refugee reception offices means that many
are in complete limbo.
Since the
declaration of the national state of disaster, which was followed by the
national lockdown, all public and private offices and institutions were closed
down, except the ones that provide essential services.
Offices
of the Department of Home Affairs were among those that were closed and its
services were limited to ensuring repatriations of South African citizens and
permanent residents who were stranded abroad and to allow foreign nationals to
depart the country. Closure of these offices meant that permits and visas
couldn’t be issued or renewed. Under different levels of the lockdown, certain
crucial civil and immigration services were, however, gradually
re-opened.
Back in
March 2020, the Department of Home Affairs issued a directive that all visas
and permits that expired or were due to expire on, before, or after 25 March
2020 should be deemed valid. This blanket extension, which ran from 26 March to
31 July 2020, implied that all immigration visas and refugee (or asylum-seeker)
permits that expired during the said period remained valid.
Still,
the date of blanket extension was periodically extended. First, it was extended
to 30 September 2020, then to 31 January 2021 and again to 31 March 2021. Owing
to the second wave of Covid-19, it is expected that this date will be extended
further. More importantly, blanket extensions imply that foreign nationals’
expired visas and permits are deemed to be valid if they did expire around or
during the lockdown.
Public
and private offices or institutions should therefore take notice that the
permits of refugees and asylum seekers are deemed valid and they shouldn’t be
turned away when trying to access important services. All the rights, benefits
and obligations of refugees and asylum seekers should remain the same and that
they shouldn’t be penalised when it is clear that their permits expired during the
lockdown.
It is not
disputable that the refugee reception offices have been closed since the start
of the lockdown and remain closed until the minister decides otherwise.
It is
therefore surprising that organs of the state are reluctant to accept the permits
of refugees and asylum seekers on the grounds that they are expired. The South
African Social Security Agency (Sassa) has been turning away refugees who want
to apply for renewal of social grants or social relief of distress, and the
traffic departments have been refusing to renew professional driving permits.
Refugees
and asylum seekers have been struggling to register businesses with the
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, and to apply for trading
licences with municipal offices and for admission to basic or higher education.
Some employers are reluctant to recruit refugees or asylum seekers whose
documents have expired or to renew their employment contracts. They also find
it difficult to open new bank accounts.
These
frustrations add to the existing problems refugees and asylum seekers face when
trying to access public services. Findings of my 2018 doctoral study indicated
that asylum seekers are, for example, traditionally excluded from social grants
to avoid the high impermissible costs that may be incurred by the state should
they be included in various socio-economic programmes. This exclusion is
grounded in the notion that 90% of asylum seekers are economic migrants or job
seekers who do not fall within or deserve refugee protection. Unsurprisingly,
Covid-19 relief measures weren’t extended to refugees and asylum seekers
despite the latter being the most vulnerable group.
The
salient question that we have to ask ourselves is: to what extent are refugees
and asylum seekers entitled to socio-economic rights and benefits, public
services or Covid-19 relief measures? Indeed, this is a controversial question
complicated by the national understanding that refugees and asylum seekers are
in the country to benefit from the fruits of democracy.
The
question refugees and asylum seekers ask themselves is whether the department
values their well-being as much as it does that of citizens.
This view
disregards the fact that South Africa acceded to international refugee treaties
and incorporated these treaties into its legal system through the Refugees Act
130 of 1998 (as amended). This act provides that refugees are entitled to all
rights in the Bill of Rights, except those rights that are expressly reserved
for citizens. Sections 26, 27, 28(1)(c), and 29 of the Constitution provide
“everyone” with the right of access to adequate housing (or shelter),
healthcare services, sufficient food (or basic nutrition), sufficient water,
social assistance and social security as well as education. This seems to indicate
that refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to socio-economic rights or
services.
The
Refugees Act, read through the lens of these constitutional provisions, signals
South Africa’s intention to offer effective protection to refugees and asylum
seekers, to respond to their suffering caused by past persecutions in their
home countries, or by disasters occurring in South Africa. The onus rests on
South Africa to restore their self-reliance, participation and agency as well
as to protect their dignity. This can only be done if they are given access to
public services. Documenting refugees and asylum seekers and timely renewal of
documents are core mechanisms to make such access possible.
Unlike
other foreign nationals, refugees and asylum seekers are, irrespective of the
temporary nature of their stay, not required to be self-reliant and
economically independent in order to be admitted to the country. Rather, they
are admitted because of humanitarian reasons and should thus be offered the
necessary humanitarian protection.
However,
during this lockdown, institutions providing public services have relied on the
expiry of permits of refugees and asylum seekers to deny them the services they
are entitled to — services that they need to lead a dignified life. The denial
of such services — on the basis of the expiry of a permit — is inconsistent
with the ministerial directives issued by the minister of Home Affairs for
compliance with the lockdown regulations.
The
question refugees and asylum seekers ask themselves is whether the department
values their well-being as much as it does that of citizens. The refugee
reception offices have been closed on the grounds that long queues at these
offices may facilitate the spread of the Covid-19 virus if people don’t adhere
to social distancing, wearing of masks, and sanitising of hands. However, we
see the same queues (or crowds) at the offices of Home Affairs serving
citizens. There is always a huge crowd with not much social distancing.
Refugees
and asylum seekers feel that the closure of refugee reception offices works to
frustrate their access to services and not to protect them. Furthermore, they
feel that the closure will cause a huge backlog that the department will find
hard to recover from. It should be noted that for many years the department has
been unable to clear the backlog of refugee status appeals, certification
applications and appeals thereof and, in 2019, had to approach the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for help. When the lockdown began in
March 2020, the issue of the backlog had not yet been resolved.
In light
of the above, the refugee reception offices should reopen and serve refugees
and asylum seekers to avoid future irregularities stemming from accumulated
backlogs. The reopening will restore hope for refugees and asylum seekers for
access to services they deserve
www.samigration.com
Since the
declaration of the national state of disaster, which was followed by the
national lockdown, all public and private offices and institutions were closed
down, except the ones that provide essential services.
Offices
of the Department of Home Affairs were among those that were closed and its
services were limited to ensuring repatriations of South African citizens and
permanent residents who were stranded abroad and to allow foreign nationals to
depart the country. Closure of these offices meant that permits and visas
couldn’t be issued or renewed. Under different levels of the lockdown, certain
crucial civil and immigration services were, however, gradually
re-opened.
Back in
March 2020, the Department of Home Affairs issued a directive that all visas
and permits that expired or were due to expire on, before, or after 25 March
2020 should be deemed valid. This blanket extension, which ran from 26 March to
31 July 2020, implied that all immigration visas and refugee (or asylum-seeker)
permits that expired during the said period remained valid.
Still,
the date of blanket extension was periodically extended. First, it was extended
to 30 September 2020, then to 31 January 2021 and again to 31 March 2021. Owing
to the second wave of Covid-19, it is expected that this date will be extended
further. More importantly, blanket extensions imply that foreign nationals’ expired
visas and permits are deemed to be valid if they did expire around or during
the lockdown.
Public
and private offices or institutions should therefore take notice that the
permits of refugees and asylum seekers are deemed valid and they shouldn’t be
turned away when trying to access important services. All the rights, benefits
and obligations of refugees and asylum seekers should remain the same and that
they shouldn’t be penalised when it is clear that their permits expired during
the lockdown.
It is not
disputable that the refugee reception offices have been closed since the start
of the lockdown and remain closed until the minister decides otherwise.
It is
therefore surprising that organs of the state are reluctant to accept the
permits of refugees and asylum seekers on the grounds that they are expired.
The South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) has been turning away refugees
who want to apply for renewal of social grants or social relief of distress,
and the traffic departments have been refusing to renew professional driving
permits.
Refugees
and asylum seekers have been struggling to register businesses with the
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, and to apply for trading
licences with municipal offices and for admission to basic or higher education.
Some employers are reluctant to recruit refugees or asylum seekers whose
documents have expired or to renew their employment contracts. They also find
it difficult to open new bank accounts.
These
frustrations add to the existing problems refugees and asylum seekers face when
trying to access public services. Findings of my 2018 doctoral study indicated
that asylum seekers are, for example, traditionally excluded from social grants
to avoid the high impermissible costs that may be incurred by the state should
they be included in various socio-economic programmes. This exclusion is
grounded in the notion that 90% of asylum seekers are economic migrants or job
seekers who do not fall within or deserve refugee protection. Unsurprisingly,
Covid-19 relief measures weren’t extended to refugees and asylum seekers
despite the latter being the most vulnerable group.
The
salient question that we have to ask ourselves is: to what extent are refugees
and asylum seekers entitled to socio-economic rights and benefits, public
services or Covid-19 relief measures? Indeed, this is a controversial question
complicated by the national understanding that refugees and asylum seekers are
in the country to benefit from the fruits of democracy.
The
question refugees and asylum seekers ask themselves is whether the department
values their well-being as much as it does that of citizens.
This view
disregards the fact that South Africa acceded to international refugee treaties
and incorporated these treaties into its legal system through the Refugees Act
130 of 1998 (as amended). This act provides that refugees are entitled to all
rights in the Bill of Rights, except those rights that are expressly reserved
for citizens. Sections 26, 27, 28(1)(c), and 29 of the Constitution provide
“everyone” with the right of access to adequate housing (or shelter),
healthcare services, sufficient food (or basic nutrition), sufficient water,
social assistance and social security as well as education. This seems to
indicate that refugees and asylum seekers are entitled to socio-economic rights
or services.
The
Refugees Act, read through the lens of these constitutional provisions, signals
South Africa’s intention to offer effective protection to refugees and asylum
seekers, to respond to their suffering caused by past persecutions in their
home countries, or by disasters occurring in South Africa. The onus rests on
South Africa to restore their self-reliance, participation and agency as well
as to protect their dignity. This can only be done if they are given access to
public services. Documenting refugees and asylum seekers and timely renewal of
documents are core mechanisms to make such access possible.
Unlike
other foreign nationals, refugees and asylum seekers are, irrespective of the temporary
nature of their stay, not required to be self-reliant and economically
independent in order to be admitted to the country. Rather, they are admitted
because of humanitarian reasons and should thus be offered the necessary
humanitarian protection.
However,
during this lockdown, institutions providing public services have relied on the
expiry of permits of refugees and asylum seekers to deny them the services they
are entitled to — services that they need to lead a dignified life. The denial
of such services — on the basis of the expiry of a permit — is inconsistent
with the ministerial directives issued by the minister of Home Affairs for
compliance with the lockdown regulations.
The
question refugees and asylum seekers ask themselves is whether the department
values their well-being as much as it does that of citizens. The refugee
reception offices have been closed on the grounds that long queues at these
offices may facilitate the spread of the Covid-19 virus if people don’t adhere
to social distancing, wearing of masks, and sanitising of hands. However, we
see the same queues (or crowds) at the offices of Home Affairs serving
citizens. There is always a huge crowd with not much social distancing.
Refugees
and asylum seekers feel that the closure of refugee reception offices works to
frustrate their access to services and not to protect them. Furthermore, they
feel that the closure will cause a huge backlog that the department will find
hard to recover from. It should be noted that for many years the department has
been unable to clear the backlog of refugee status appeals, certification
applications and appeals thereof and, in 2019, had to approach the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for help. When the lockdown began in
March 2020, the issue of the backlog had not yet been resolved.
In light
of the above, the refugee reception offices should reopen and serve refugees
and asylum seekers to avoid future irregularities stemming from accumulated
backlogs. The reopening will restore hope for refugees and asylum seekers for
access to services they deserve
www.samigration.com
