The status of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa

Transcription

1 The status of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa An independent overview The advent of democracy in the country has not only seen the liberation of the oppressed South African society, but it has also turned South Africa into a safe haven for displaced people of the world to seek asylum or refugee status. South Africa currently faces significant migration-related challenges which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. One such challenge is around asylum seekers and refugees. As a contribution towards finding sustainable solutions, this article will seek to profile asylum seekers in South Africa. The article will attempt to identify trends in e.g. country of origin, and challenges faced by asylum seekers and refugees in the host country, South Africa. The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa come from the rest of Africa hence this article will attempt to examine the issue of asylum seekers and refugees in its rightful context. Desiree Manicom and Fairuz Mullagee Desiree Manicom is a senior lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. Fairuz Mullagee is a researcher in the Law Faculty at the University of the Western Cape. Introduction Before 1994 there was no clear policy and certainly no legislation governing refugees in South Africa. During the systematic racial discriminatory apartheid era South Africa was a classic example of a refugee producing country. This situation changed when South Africa realized its democratic transition to a non racial society. The advent of democracy in the country has not only seen the liberation of the oppressed South African society, but it has also turned South Africa into a safe haven for displaced people of the world to seek asylum or refugee status. South Africa is regarded as a safe haven for many people who perceive their lives to be threatened in their countries of origin. Since 1994 South Africa has experienced an increase in the number of people seeking asylum within its borders. While Africa accounts for a little more than a tenth of the world s population, it typically accounts for more than a third of the world s stock of refugees living in foreign countries. 1 Although much of Africa is well established as a migrant and refugee sending region, since 184 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

2 1994, South Africa has become a primary destination for migrants from the African continent (Landau 2004, 10). 2 In 1996, ending its years of international isolation and status as a refugee producing country, South Africa signed the United Nations (UN) 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, as well as the 1969 Organisation for African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. These international conventions require South Africa to formally recognize and provide protection to people classed as refugees. The Refugees Act (Act 130 of 1998) became effective in 2000 and continues to be the country s primary piece of legislation related to the position of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa (Landau 2004, 16) 3. The Refugees Act confirmed the definition of a refugee spelt out in the UN conventions. It obliges South Africa to protect any person who has fled another country because of well-founded fears of persecution due to race, ethnic origin, political and religious creed and membership of any particular social groups. Following well established international practice, the Refugees Act distinguishes between refugees, and those who have applied for asylum but have yet to have their status determined. (Landau 2004, 16) 4 The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa hail from countries on the African continent. This article will therefore restrict itself to examining conditions in South Africa for asylum seekers and refugees from the continent. Much has been written on the issue and the article will draw on the existing body of knowledge as a basis for arriving at a better understanding with the view towards more enduring solutions. The context: Asylum Seekers and Refugees in South Africa Kok 5 argues that migration dynamics and linkages between internal and international migration in South Africa are in some respects different from those of the rest of Africa. Until abandoned in 1986, the pass laws effectively restricted Africans from moving freely between rural areas and designated urban agglomerations. The disappearance of the arbitrary apartheid barriers resulted in an intensification of internal migration to the urban centres. This migration pattern was followed by the post relaxation of border controls and access into South Africa by foreign African nationals who were hitherto restricted from entering the country other than as migrant labourers for the farms and mines. Southern Africa has in the past experienced volatile political transition, and as a result, has been both a source of and destination internal and cross-border forced migrants. Over the last decade refugees and asylum seekers have fled from a number of countries including Rwanda, Burundi and Zimbabwe, to Kenya, South Africa and Botswana. Presently, Zimbabwe s economic and political crisis has generated an increasing volume of refugees and asylum seekers. Countries like Namibia, Mozambique, and South Africa, which became politically stable only in the last decade or so, have also received large numbers of repatriated refugees and former asylum beneficiaries. 6 In spite of a more peaceful southern Africa after 1994, peace in the region is still precarious, with refugees and asylum seekers still crossing the borders. The situation is far from settled, and country-specific incidents often trigger outflows of refugees and asylum seekers. The arena of refugees and asylum seekers remains affected by the tension Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

3 between traditional host nations and countries of origin. 7 Refugees and displaced persons are defined as those who have moved from their place of origin because of fear of persecution, whether such persecution is based on religious beliefs, ethnicity, race, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political affiliation. Asylum seekers are people who have requested international protection and whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined. During 2007, a total of individual applications for asylum or refugee status were submitted to Governments and UNHCR offices in 154 countries. With asylum claims registered during the year, Europe remained the primary destination for those applying for asylum on an individual bases, followed by Africa. Host Country: South Africa in the Global Context During 2003, the non-industrialised countries received 157,000 applications for asylum or refugee status. South Africa was the largest asylum seeker receiving country with or 23% of all new applications, followed by Malaysia ( or 12%), Equador ( or 7%), Ghana (8 600 or 6%) and Pakistan (5 800 or 4%). During 2004, non-industrialised countries received applications for asylum or refugee status. South Africa was the largest asylum seeker receiving country with or 21% of all claims, followed by Malaysia ( or 13%), Sudan ( or 8%), Egypt ( or 7%), Kenya (9 300 or 6%) and Equador (7 900 or 5%). In 2005, Pakistan continued to be the main asylum country followed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. With new asylum claims lodged in 2006, or roughly one tenth of individual applications globally, South Africa became the main destination for new asylum seekers. With a cumulative total of 205,000 individual asylum applications since 2002, this country is one of the largest recipients in the world (UNHCR 2006,10) 8. In 2007, South Africa was in second position in terms of new claims (45 600). With a total of individual asylum applications since 2002, South Africa is one of the largest recipients in the world (UNHCR 2007, 14) 9. The African Connection According to the UNHCR Global Appeal , the year 2007 witnessed the consolidation of peace in several African countries, allowing thousands of refugees to return home. Box 1 Worst places for refugees Kenya s Dadaab and Kakuma Refugee camps are two of the worst examples of the long-term warehousing of refugees in the world. Kenya confi nes the majority of its refugees to these camps, denying the right to work and live where and how they choose. The camps are rife with human rights abuses: rape, domestic violence, and other crimes were common in the camps; traditional court systems imprisoned refugees for offences including adultery that were not crimes under Kenyan or international law; and the local population clashed with refugees over resources like fi rewood. Sudan has kept Eritrean refugees warehoused in camps for nearly 40 years, and Ethiopians for nearly 30. The 12 camps lacked adequate drinking water and food. Sudan denies the right to work, leaving them unable to supplement their rations. Sudanese authorities reportedly attempted to lure Arab Chadian refugees to Darfur to repopulate villages whose inhabitants had been driven out by the janjaweed. Sudan even attempted to bring in Chadian refugees who had fl ed to Niger in the 1970s to take the ethnically cleansed villages. Source:Source: World Refugee Survey AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

4 Table 1 Asylum application and refugee status determination by origin and country of asylum 2007 Country of asylum Country of Origin T L Pending Start 2007 Applied 2007 Approved Rejected closed Sub0 Total Pending End 2007 South Africa Algeria G FI Kenya Burundi U FI Malawi Burundi G FA Mozambique Burundi G FI South Africa Burundi G FI Uganda Burundi G FI United Rep. of Tanzania Burundi G FA Zimbabwe Burundi G FI South Africa Cameroon G FI Cameroon Central African Rep. U FA Cameroon Chad U FA Central African Rep. Chad G FI South Africa Congo G FI Cameroon Côte d Ivoire U FA Congo Côte d Ivoire J FA Mauritania Côte d Ivoire U FA South Africa Côte d Ivoire G FI Burundi DRC G FI Cameroon DRC U FA Central African Rep. DRC G FI Congo DRC J FA Kenya DRC U FI Libyan Arab Jamahiriya DRC U FA Malawi DRC G FA Morocco DRC U AR Morocco DRC U FI Mozambique DRC G FI Namibia DRC G FI Nigeria DRC G FI South Africa DRC G FI Uganda DRC G FI Zimbabwe DRC G FI Egypt Eritrea U FI Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

5 Country of asylum Country of Origin T L Pending Start 2007 Applied 2007 Approved Rejected closed Sub0 Total Pending End 2007 Ethiopia Eritrea J FI Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Eritrea U FA Malawi Eritrea G FA Malta Eritrea G FI South Africa Eritrea G FI Sudan Eritrea G FI Uganda Eritrea G FI Egypt Ethiopia U AR Egypt Ethiopia U FI Kenya Ethiopia U AR Kenya Ethiopia U FI Malawi Ethiopia G FA South Africa Ethiopia G FI Sudan Ethiopia G FI Uganda Ethiopia G FI Zimbabwe Ethiopia G FI South Africa Ghana G FI Cameroon Guinea U FA South Africa India G FI Egypt Iraq U FI Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Iraq U FA Morocco Iraq U FI Ethiopia Kenya J FI South Africa Kenya G FI Mauritania Liberia U FA South Africa Malawi G FI South Africa Mozambique G FI Morocco Nigeria U AR Morocco Nigeria U FI South Africa Nigeria G FI South Africa Pakistan G FI Cameroon Rwanda U FA Kenya Rwanda U FI Malawi Rwanda G FA Mozambique Rwanda G FI AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

6 Country of asylum Country of Origin T L Pending Start 2007 Applied 2007 Approved Rejected closed Sub0 Total Pending End 2007 South Africa Rwanda G FI Uganda Rwanda G FI Egypt Somalia U FI Ethiopia Somalia J FI Kenya Somalia U FI Malawi Somalia G FA Malta Somalia G FI South Africa Somalia G FI Sudan Somalia G FI Uganda Somalia G FI United Rep. of Tanzania Somalia G FA Zimbabwe Somalia G FI Egypt Sudan U AR Egypt Sudan U FI Kenya Sudan U AR Kenya Sudan U FI Kenya Uganda U AR South Africa Uganda G FI South Africa United Rep. of Tanzania G FI South Africa Zambia G FI South Africa Zimbabwe G FI Source: UNHCR Statistical Yearbook However, massive forced displacement remains a grim reality on the continent which hosts a quarter of the refugees under UNHCR s mandate in the world, and includes three of the top five refugee producing countries, i.e. Sudan, Somalia and the DRC. Kenya and Sudan were the two African refugee host countries listed in the World Refugee Survey 2008: Worst places for refugees. 10 South Africa received 32% (41 063) of all new applications ( ) received by African countries. South Africa received applications for asylum and refugee status from 19 African countries. 11/19 countries where asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa came from, were themselves also host countries in 2007 (see shaded countries of origin Figure. 1, above). South Africa started the year 2007 started with pending cases and ended the year with nearly double the number (78 029) of pending cases. Its processing systems are clearly unable to handle the number of applications it receives. Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

7 Figure Asylum applications in South Africa: African countries of origin Zambia 256 Zimbabwe Algeria 9 Burundi Cameroon 311 Congo 808 Uganda 1461 Cote d Ivoire 158 Tanzania 1236 South Africa DRC 6,571 Somalia 2041 Eritrea 438 Rwanda 365 Ethiopia 3,413 Nigeria 904 Mozambique 296 Malawi 3341 Kenya 341 Ghana 282 Source:UNHCR Statistical Yearbook In 2007 South Africa received the largest number (41 063) of asylum applications on the continent, followed by Ethiopia (19 715), Kenya (19 263), and Malawi (12 226). With the exception of Congo, Tanzania and Zimbabwe the majority of those countries that are both host countries and asylum producing countries, appear to be hosting more asylum seekers than they are producing. The data above sketch a picture of movement of people almost in circles as they pursue their dreams of peace, harmony and a better life. An interesting case in this regard is that of Kenya and Ethiopia. Kenya received asylum applications from Ethiopia, while Ethiopia in turn received a similar number, asylum applications from Kenya. 190 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

8 Table 2 Asylum seekers in South Africa whose country of origin also serve as host country receiving asylum seekers Asylum seekers in SA, BUT also serve as host countries No. of asylum seekers SA 2007 No. of countries from which it receives asylum applications No. of asylum applications received as host country Difference Burundi Cameroon Congo* Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Mozambique Nigeria Uganda United Rep. of Tanzania* Zimbabwe* * Countries which have more asylum applicants in South Africa, than asylum applications they receive Table 3 Top ten countries per regional refugee reception backlog site (backlog asylum applications up to 31 July 2005) Cape Town N Durban N Gauteng N Port Elizabeth N National N 1 DRC DRC DRC Somalia DRC Zimbabwe Pakistan Pakistan Zimbabwe Zimbabwe Angola Burundi Ethiopia Malawi Ethiopia Tanzania Zimbabwe 968 India Ethiopia Pakistan Somalia Ethiopia 779 Nigeria Ghana 454 Somalia Malawi Tanzania 657 Zimbabwe Pakistan 449 Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria 598 China Senegal 399 India Congo 999 India 470 Bangladesh Bangladesh 365 Tanzania Egypt 750 Kenya 366 Somalia Uganda 337 China Burundi 678 Uganda 340 Uganda Nigeria 321 Bangladesh Sub0Total Other TOTAL Source: Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated Cases, 12 February Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

9 Findings: Profile of Asylum Seekers in South Africa The lack of reliable empirical data on asylum seekers and refugees is widely acknowledged. In 2001 the UNHCR commissioned the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) to conduct a national refugee baseline survey in South Africa. The report was published in 2003 and provides a wealth of information and suggested a number of areas of possible improvements. In the absence of more reliable, comprehensive and up to date official statistics, this article will rely heavily on the available data from the Backlog Project, a DHA ministerial project that was initiated to finalise pending cases of asylum applications submitted 31 July 2005 and before. Country of Origin On 19 May 2006 the UNHCR reported in its news brief on the quarterly report of the Directorate: Refugee Affairs as it was the first time the government had released such detailed statistics. The report observed that Zimbabwe, DRC, Ethiopia, Malawi, Somalia, Bangladesh, United Republic of Tanzania and Pakistan have all made it through to the top ten countries producing asylum seekers for the first quarter of The country of origin distribution of the backlog applications correlates with that provided by the Directorate: Refugee Affairs for the first quarter of Age Country of Origin Average Minimum Maximum Rwanda DRC Somalia Country of Origin Average Minimum Maximum Congo Brazzaville Uganda Angola Burundi Ethiopia Other countries Total Source: CASE Educational Background The 2003 CASE survey showed that two thirds of respondents had completed Grade 12 (or its equivalent) or a higher level of education, and of these, almost one third had completed at least some tertiary education. Very few applicants had no formal schooling or primary education only. In comparing these figures with figures from the 2001 Census for black Africans aged 20 and over nationally, it was found that asylum seekers and refugees in the CASE sample tended to have higher levels of education than black Africans in South Africa (CASE 2003, 45). 15 Experiences in Seeking Asylum Processing Asylum Seekers The Directorate: Refugee Affairs is responsible for the reception of asylum seekers into the country, adjudicating their claims for asylum, and granting status to successful applicants in accordance with the respective legislation and regulations. The directorate also provides the necessary administrative support to the Refugee Appeal Board which is responsible for the appeal phase in the event of a failed application. 192 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

10 It is further responsible for policy formulation and advising Refugee Reception Offices on policy matters. There are five Refugee Reception Offices in the country, where the applications for asylum are processed by Refugee Reception Officers (RROs), and status determined by Refugee Status Determination Officers (RSDOs). The Standing Committee on Refugee Affairs reviews decisions labelled Manifestly Unfounded made by the RSDO, while the Refugee Affairs Appeal Board determines appeals made by unsuccessful applicants. The Directorate: Refugee Affairs has found it increasingly difficult to perform its functions effectively due to the changing demands of the refugee context and is currently involved in a restructuring process which includes addressing its backlog applications. The Refugee Backlog Project is primarily a humanitarian project by the Department of Home Affairs to provide asylum seekers with refugee status which will enable them to constructively and with dignity participate in the broader South African society (DHA 2005). 16 Amongst other reasons, the lack of capacity and inadequate availability of resources to facilitate the processing of asylum seekers had created a backlog that amounted to as at 31 July This number had accumulated over approximately seven years. As a result of all the problems, the Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Nqakula-Maphisa established the Refugee Backlog project in The project was officially launched in Johannesburg in June 2006 and ended on 31 March The focus of the project was to address the backlog of asylum applications received by the five refugee reception officers: Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Marabastad, Durban and Crown Mines. South Africa has not been able to keep pace with the enormous growth in the asylum seekers process. The DRC, in the top five of South Africa s asylum seekers country of origin, is a case in point. Between September 2005 and March 2008 the Department of Home Affairs successfully finalised decisions for a backlog of (60%) asylum seekers from the DRC. Of the finalised cases, (18%) were approved for refugee status, 4,953 (58%) were rejected, and 2,017 (24%) were finalised otherwise. Of those who were rejected, (94%) had the right to appeal. According to the UNHCR 2007 Global Trends Report, South Africa had pending asylum applications from the DRC and registered new applications, giving it a new total of asylum applications from the DRC that needed to be finalised. The Department of Home Affairs had managed to finalise only 755 cases (UNHCR Report, 2007, Table 12). 17 Standard Operating Procedures The refugee status determination process outlined in the Refugees Act sets out a detailed system for individuals seeking asylum in South Africa. However, the day-to-day implementation of the system and thus the ability of refugees and asylum seekers to fully access and benefit from it remains problematic. Lack of clear, easily available rules regarding the asylum process, operation of the refugee reception offices, and the lack of official interpreters complicate the process and contribute to the pervasiveness of corrupt practices in and around the offices. Insufficient and poorly trained staff and inadequate equipment such as functioning computers, are major causes for long delays in the asylum procedures. This situation is made worse because of inconsistent DHA decisions regarding work authorization (HRW 2005,12). 18 The regulations to the Refugees Act state that an application for asylum must be lodged without delay at a designated refugee reception Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

11 office. Through visits to the Johannesburg reception office and interviews with asylum seekers and NGOs working on their behalf, Human Rights Watch found that factors preventing access to the office include gaining physical access to the refugee reception office, lack of information about the location of the office, how the office and asylum process functions, the need for most newly arrived asylum seekers to wait in long lines sometimes overnight in the hope that they might be admitted the next day; and the constantly changing system of admitting new arrivals seeking asylum (HRW 2005,14). 19 Outcome of Asylum Applications Of the backlog cases adjudicated by RSDOs, 19% (8 110) was approved while 81% (35 006) was rejected. The CORMSA Report of June 2008 shows that 29% of applicants were given refugee status in Integration into Host Society It is important to note that asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa enjoy freedom of movement. There are no refugee camps and as a result the refugee communities live amongst the local population. In 1999 the Southern African Migration Project (SAMP) published Migration Policy Series No. 14 entitled, Still Waiting for the Barbarians: SA attitudes towards Immigrants and Immigration. The report draws on the results of an extensive national survey conducted by the organization in The report examines the attitudes of South Africans towards immigrants and immigration policy, and explores the implication of these attitudes for immigration reform and public education (SAMP 14:1). 22 Results of this study have highlighted a problem with South Africans who do not like foreign nationals regardless of where they come from and prefer highly restrictive immigration policies. All South Africans seem to have the same stereotypical image of Southern Africans citing job loss, crime and disease as the negative consequences they fear from immigrants living in the country, even though only four per cent of respondents indicated that they have regular contact with foreigners from the region. It is in this light that the author argues that policy makers face a major challenge in terms of fostering a climate that is more open to outsiders and their presence in the country (Mattes1999, 2). 23 The report argues that, creating a better public awareness about the actual Table 3 RSDO decisions taken (per backlog centre, per decision category) Backlog Approved Unfounded Manifestly Unfounded Total Adjudicated Subtotal: Backlog Dormant Backlog balance as at 12/02/08 Cape Town Durban Gauteng PE Total Source: Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated cases, date: 12-Feb AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

12 experiences and intentions of non-citizens living in South Africa must be a policy priority of the South African Government. If South Africa is to adequately address xenophobia in the country and develop a more pragmatic approach to cross border movements in the region it is essential to have public support or softening of public opposition for these policies on the ground (Mattes1999, 26). 24 The need for asylum seekers, refugees and migrants to be integrated into South African communities has taken on a new significance and has become much more of a priority following the xenophobic attacks in May 2008 on foreigners in various locations around the country. (SAMP Migration & Social Cohesion 2008, 2) 25 Within South Africa, the hostility and exclusion that foreigners have faced in past years reached an unprecedented scale in this eruption of xenophobic violence. Protection While the DHA received more than 45,000 new applications for asylum in 2007, less than 5,900 claims were adjudicated. The Department granted refugee status in 29% of these cases. Analysis and Interpretation Processing of Asylum Applications The literature shows that one of the biggest challenges faced by asylum seekers is efficient processing of their applications. DHA and UNHCR implemented a backlog project to reduce the number of pending asylum applications issued under the Aliens Control Act between 2000 and In addition to reducing the number of pending asylum applications, this project was intended to equip DHA with a roster of well trained refugee officers. (HRW 2005, 6) 26 This attempt to clear the backlog smaller then failed to solve the problem. Instead the number awaiting interviews and decisions on whether they met the requirements to be recognised as refugees grew. Some cases dated back to 1998 (UNHCR News July 2006). 27 In June 2006 the Minister of Home Affairs launched yet another backlog project where she made it clear that the project must be successful, especially since this was the third attempt at addressing the backlog. It is encouraging to note that the Minister s Backlog Project had made a significant dent in the pending asylum applications registered up to 31 July The Project saw 43,116 cases being finalised by Refugee Status Determination Officers. The downside of this success, however, is that it creates backlogs in other stages of the asylum application process. For example, 56% (23 964) of the Backlog Project RSDO finalised cases have the right to appeal the RSDO decision this is besides the finalised cases for applications received from 1 August 2005 and beyond. Applicants who choose to exercise their right to appeal could expect to be in South Africa for approximately two years from the date of lodging their appeal with the Refugee Appeal Board, due to the extreme lack of capacity of the RAB to handle their case load. Institutional Capacity Sustainable solutions for effective service delivery, require institutional stability and continuity. Prior to 2003 there was a project to deal with backlogs. A team of legal practitioners were contracted to prepare cases for the SCRA. The majority of these cases, seemingly, were never finalized. In October 2003 the then director general launched the Departmental Turnaround Strategy after reportedly declaring that the DHA was in a scandalous state and that immigration services were a joke compared to other countries. Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March

13 In September 2005, The Minister of Home Affairs initiated a backlog project to finalize applications received up to 31 July 2005, and the project was launched in June At the end of 2006, in response to a high court order, the department appointed process engineers who compiled (in 10 months) a report with recommendations related to the processing and adjudication of applications received by refugee reception offices. While the process engineers ran concurrently with the Backlog Project which had by then accumulated substantial experience having effectively finalized thousands of cases, there was no meaningful and constructive engagement between the two processes. In 2007 the department again initiated a Turnaround Project and the Refugee stream based its strategy largely on the Process Engineers Report. On the ground lessons learnt and insights gained by the Backlog Project over a period of two years, were largely overlooked. The result of this discontinuity could be seen in the virtual collapse of the backlog sites from well run centres of service excellence back to poorly run centres that appear to be keeping the barbarians from the door. In the space of two and a half years ( ) we have witnessed a transition from chaos to order and back to chaos in the processing of asylum seekers. It was unfortunate, to say the least, that the DHA lacked the wisdom to harness the achievements of the Backlog Project in harnessing its resolve to build a world class service. Now that we have an idea of how asylum seekers and refugees fare in South Africa, what sort of relationship should exist between migrants and host country, and what could be done to improve these relations in a manner that would optimally benefit both? Conclusion and Implications Migrants be they skilled or unskilled, educated or not, short term or long term have become a permanent feature of the South African landscape. As Table 1, above illustrates South Africa has become a destination of choice for asylum seekers and refugees. The Department of Home Affairs is responsible for refugee affairs in South Africa and is central to processing of asylum applications. The DHA has long been burdened by a legacy of corruption, inefficiency and incompetence. The last few weeks has seen a flurry of media coverage once again casting DHA in a poor light as nearly 70 per cent of its senior managers failed a competency test. Skills development and capacity building is a premium investment in any organization and a staff retention strategy is essential for bringing about institutional stability. It is perhaps the absence of such a strategy that has once again destabilized Refugee Affairs. The cost of rebuilding, reorientation and a skills development programme for inexperienced officials is a very costly affair. There appears to be an absence of a departmental risk management strategy which is effectively communicated and managed in the institution. This leaves the door wide open to irregular practices and corruption. In a contaminated environment like Refugee Affairs, it is imperative that appropriate control measures accompany any new procedures. While other government departments need to act within their mandates in ensuring that the rights of asylum seekers and refugees are upheld, it is imperative that the DHA, which is entirely responsible for issuing valid documentation, be held accountable for failing to fulfil its legal obligations towards a key segment of its clients asylum seekers and refugees. 196 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

14 One of the key challenges within the arena of asylum seekers and refugees would be to enable the DHA sufficiently for it to be able to function more efficiently and effectively. While dealing with concerns regarding social services, health and education among others it cannot be emphasised more what a vital role the DHA plays securing the necessary documentation that would enable asylum seekers to access the necessary services to which they are entitled and to function without fear of falling foul of the law. While South Africa s position has changed from a refugee producing country to that of host country it has been catapulted into a position of destination of choice for one third of the world s refugee population. There is a great need for collaboration among agencies within host countries and between host countries and South Africa is well placed and better resourced than most host countries on the continent to facilitate such a process. The story of forced migration is one of untold misery and riddled with the complexities of the human endeavour. It calls for a shift in mindset from one which views refugees as a burden to one which is able to embrace it from the point of view of building social and human capital. South Africa could position itself as a key player in the arena of forced migration towards enduring peace in Africa. Notes and References 1 Pieter Kok, Derik Gelderblom, John O. Oucho & Johan van Zyl (eds), Migration in south and Southern Africa. Dynamics and determinants. HSRC Press, Loren B. Landau (ed), Forced Migrants in the new Johannesburg: Towards a Local Government Response. Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of the Witwatersrand, Landau 2004, p Landau 2004, p16. 5 Kok 2006, p Kok 2006, p Kok 2006, p UNHCR Global Report UNHCR Global Report USCRI World Refugee Survey UNHCR Statistical Yearbook Ibid. 13 Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated Cases, 12 February 2008, Unpublished project report, DHA Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE), National Baseline Survey: Final Report. UNHCR Ibid, p DHA, Refugee Affairs Backlog Project, Project Charter, July 2005, Unpublished project report, DHA UNHCR 2007, Table Human Rights Watch (HRW) Living on the Margins. Inadequate protection for refugees and asylum seekers in Johannesburg. HRW vol 17, no 15(A) November Ibid p DHA Protecting Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Immigrants in South Africa, Unpublished report, Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CORMSA) Johannesburg, 18 June R. Mattes, D.M, Taylor, DA Macdonald, A Poore & W Richmond, Still Waiting for the Barbarians: SA attitudes towards Immigrants and Immigration. Migration Policy Series, No. 14, Ibid, p Ibid, p SAMP Migration and Social Cohesion No. 1, HRW 2005, p UNHCR News July Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March