Asylum seekers queue outside the Customs House building in Cape Town. As
of May 2020, it was estimated that there were 188,296 active asylum files and
80,752 recognised refugees in South Africa. (Photo by Gallo Images / Nardus
Engelbrecht)
A new report says that Home Affairs’ massive backlog in processing
asylum seekers has created fertile ground for corruption.
On Thursday 17 September, Lawyers for Human Rights, the Scalabrini
Centre and Corruption Watch launched a report titled “Costly protection:
corruption in South Africa’s asylum system”. They also hosted a discussion
moderated by Sharon Ekambaram from Lawyers for Human Rights, with Karim Singh
from Corruption Watch, Charne Tracey from Lawyers for Human Rights and Sally
Gander from the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town.
The report shows how corruption
is endemic in the South African Home Affairs system, as well as the various
players that perpetuate it, such as the police, and metro and Home Affairs
officials.
Singh said it was important for corruption to be understood against the
backdrop of the rule of law and what it meant in a constitutional democracy. He
said that the issue was about systemic governance weaknesses when it came to
asylum seekers and that there was a need to intensify advocacy and law reform.
Singh suggested that Home Affairs needed to strengthen its internal integrity
systems. “We sit with a deep accountability deficit,” said Singh.
According to the report, “Corruption has historically posed a
substantial challenge to the implementation of the Refugees Act – and thus to
the wellbeing of refugees and asylum seekers themselves. The systemic failures
in implementation of the Refugees Act and limited capacity within the DHA
[Department of Home Affairs], have therefore rendered the system vulnerable to
abuse – by both desperate asylum seekers as well as by officials seeking to
take advantage of this vulnerability. As a result, many people seeking asylum
cannot secure proper documentation, resulting in their displacement and
increased vulnerability to exploitation.”
The report said that as of May 2020 it was estimated that there were
188,296 active asylum files and 80,752 recognised refugees in South Africa. It
went on to say, however, that because of barriers in the system and Refugee
Reception Offices (RROs) being closed as a result of the Covid-19 crisis, there
were likely to be more refugees and asylum seekers in the country. The main
focus of the survey was the interaction of respondents with the South African
Police Service (SAPS), their experience at RROs and their general South African
experience over the past five years.
The report’s research was conducted through surveys of 263 people aged
15-60, the majority being 26 to 30 years old, with males representing 63% of
the group. The surveys were conducted in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town,
Durban and Musina, and the respondents were predominantly from the Democratic
Republic of Congo and Ethiopia. When crossing the borders (which is where the
asylum-seeking journey begins), 10% of respondents reported being asked for
bribes by border officials to gain entry into South Africa. The amounts ranged
from R700 to R2,500.
The report explains that immigration officials are required to give
refugees crossing into SA a five-day asylum transit permit to grant them time
to get to an RRO and apply for asylum. Those who enter the country unofficially
are under law protected from arrest if they declare they are seeking asylum and
are supposed to go to an RRO immediately. However, 11% of respondents said they
had been arrested by the SAPS for not having correct documentation before they
were able to get to an RRO, despite being protected by the Refugees Act.
Respondents also reported that there were impediments to getting into
RROs, such as security guards not letting them in without a bribe, very long
queues and interpreters soliciting bribes. Once respondents made it into the
RROs, Home Affairs officials accounted for 62% of the bribery soliciting.
The fact that asylum seekers have to return to RROs every three months
to renew their documents made them vulnerable to police harassment when they
were found with expired documentation. Thirty-five percent of respondents had
to make multiple attempts to enter the reception offices – one respondent
reported trying for three years. Respondents were required to pay fines for
lost or expired documents or face arrest.
According to the 2019 Auditor-General’s report, “the Standing Committee
for Refugee Affairs experienced backlogs of 40,326 (compared with 475 during
the 2007 audit) and the Refugee Appeals Board 147,794 (compared with 893 during
the 2007 audit) cases, respectively. With their current capacity, the Standing
Committee for Refugee Affairs would take just over one year and the Refugee
Appeals Board 68 years to clear the backlog without taking new cases.”
During the discussion, Gander said that the report could be used as a
tool to assist with the effective implementation of the Refugees Act, which
would help Home Affairs discharge its asylum-seeker duties effectively.
Gander mentioned that although the number of applications seemed to have
dropped since 2014, this was not because people were no longer seeking asylum,
it was because they were frustrated by the barriers in the Home Affairs system.
She said that there needs to be amnesty for people who have been trying and
failing to get documentation for five years through no fault of their own.
The report said that Home Affairs’ massive backlog created fertile
ground for corruption. Its key recommendations were for:
- The reopening of RROs;
- For RROs to be fully capacitated;
- Proper staff training in refugee law and
international refugee law; and
- Sensitivity training and adoption of policy
measures such as better accessibility to RROs that will bolster SA’s
refugee system.
The report also recommended the establishment of a safe and easy way for
people to be able to report corrupt officials and the creation of an
independent body to deal with this corruption.
Closing the discussion, Ekambaram said that acts of xenophobia cannot be
separated from the failed asylum system and that the call for strengthening
institutions of democracy was not only for refugees and migrants, but that it
is also about South Africans
www.samigration
.com