The status of asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa

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

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- 1994 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 2010 185

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 647 200 individual applications for asylum or refugee status were submitted to Governments and UNHCR offices in 154 countries. With 332 400 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 36 000 or 23% of all new applications, followed by Malaysia (19 000 or 12%), Equador (11 000 or 7%), Ghana (8 600 or 6%) and Pakistan (5 800 or 4%). During 2004, non-industrialised countries received 158 000 applications for asylum or refugee status. South Africa was the largest asylum seeker receiving country with 32 600 or 21% of all claims, followed by Malaysia (20 700 or 13%), Sudan (12 000 or 8%), Egypt (10 700 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 53 400 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 251 000 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 2008 2009, 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 2008 186 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

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 9 160 0 0 0 0 168 Kenya Burundi U FI 67 115 58 28 40 126 56 Malawi Burundi G FA 1 051 1 046 00 29 85 118 1 979 Mozambique Burundi G FI 664 322 67 102 0 169 817 South Africa Burundi G FI 804 1 014 41 58 0 99 1 719 Uganda Burundi G FI 887 422 151 271 0 422 887 United Rep. of Tanzania Burundi G FA 319 197 302 0 0 302 214 Zimbabwe Burundi G FI 16 117 80 0 0 81 South Africa Cameroon G FI 186 311 22 36 0 58 439 Cameroon Central African Rep. U FA 1 546 1 282 998 441 622 2 061 767 Cameroon Chad U FA 1 404 514 318 404 730 1 452 466 Central African Rep. Chad G FI 627 106 87 21 0 108 625 South Africa Congo G FI 1 133 808 93 57 0 150 1 791 Cameroon Côte d Ivoire U FA 261 188 5 27 261 293 156 Congo Côte d Ivoire J FA 301 161 0 46 0 48 414 Mauritania Côte d Ivoire U FA 24 198 108 110 0 218 0 South Africa Côte d Ivoire G FI 35 158 0 0 0 0 192 Burundi DRC G FI 7 078 1 603 167 395 659 1 221 7 460 Cameroon DRC U FA 466 289 50 189 211 450 305 Central African Rep. DRC G FI 709 256 208 0 0 208 757 Congo DRC J FA 3 392 438 47 88 0 135 3 695 Kenya DRC U FI 378 283 246 24 311 581 80 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya DRC U FA 49 108 7 13 18 38 119 Malawi DRC G FA 1 213 847 30 14 77 121 1 939 Morocco DRC U AR 0 352 0 247 0 249 103 Morocco DRC U FI 449 218 88 267 114 469 198 Mozambique DRC G FI 3 090 435 0 5 709 716 2 809 Namibia DRC G FI 655 301 5 67 16 88 868 Nigeria DRC G FI 352 199 19 100 105 224 327 South Africa DRC G FI 5 307 6 571 380 375 0 755 11 123 Uganda DRC G FI 0 1 733 1 669 64 0 1 733 0 Zimbabwe DRC G FI 276 912 592 12 154 758 Egypt Eritrea U FI 112 829 123 145 0 272 669 Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 187

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 0 7 810 7 806 0 0 7 806 5 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Eritrea U FA 311 233 78 8 9 95 449 Malawi Eritrea G FA 0 505 0 0 505 505 0 Malta Eritrea G FI 43 339 210 35 0 246 136 South Africa Eritrea G FI 333 438 21 36 0 57 714 Sudan Eritrea G FI 401 14 107 9 558 10 1 932 11 500 3 008 Uganda Eritrea G FI 425 233 200 33 0 233 425 Egypt Ethiopia U AR 37 126 0 79 0 83 80 Egypt Ethiopia U FI 89 248 13 126 0 142 195 Kenya Ethiopia U AR 791 184 72 233 82 387 588 Kenya Ethiopia U FI 4 421 2 721 1 197 542 2 513 4 252 2 890 Malawi Ethiopia G FA 233 1 324 0 78 1 471 1 549 8 South Africa Ethiopia G FI 3 847 3 413 99 111 0 210 7 050 Sudan Ethiopia G FI 3 626 1 073 658 5 39 702 3 997 Uganda Ethiopia G FI 309 200 170 63 0 233 276 Zimbabwe Ethiopia G FI 0 1 850 6 0 1 842 1 849 South Africa Ghana G FI 185 282 0 23 0 23 444 Cameroon Guinea U FA 10 134 0 7 8 15 129 South Africa India G FI 1 138 710 0 99 0 99 1 749 Egypt Iraq U FI 0 223 19 0 0 19 204 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Iraq U FA 453 1 898 1 176 191 44 1 411 940 Morocco Iraq U FI 33 123 99 0 11 110 46 Ethiopia Kenya J FI 0 2 644 2 644 0 0 2 644 0 South Africa Kenya G FI 512 341 10 51 0 61 792 Mauritania Liberia U FA 25 184 13 191 0 204 5 South Africa Malawi G FI 5 476 3 341 0 642 0 646 8 171 South Africa Mozambique G FI 418 296 0 41 0 41 673 Morocco Nigeria U AR 0 216 0 177 0 177 39 Morocco Nigeria U FI 300 251 0 309 173 482 69 South Africa Nigeria G FI 648 904 6 136 0 142 1 410 South Africa Pakistan G FI 1 326 918 0 197 0 197 2 047 Cameroon Rwanda U FA 243 249 99 160 31 290 202 Kenya Rwanda U FI 63 224 95 72 92 259 28 Malawi Rwanda G FA 2 636 2 388 127 1 680 415 2 222 2 802 Mozambique Rwanda G FI 403 107 61 43 25 129 381 188 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

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 244 365 8 30 0 38 571 Uganda Rwanda G FI 3 068 1 283 235 1 048 0 1 283 3 068 Egypt Somalia U FI 286 770 912 11 0 924 132 Ethiopia Somalia J FI 8 9 261 9 251 0 5 9 256 13 Kenya Somalia U FI 11 773 14 176 1 102 109 24 037 25 248 701 Malawi Somalia G FA 98 885 0 0 940 940 43 Malta Somalia G FI 58 585 368 7 0 381 262 South Africa Somalia G FI 2 735 2 041 747 18 0 765 4 011 Sudan Somalia G FI 50 1 338 1 111 0 0 1 114 274 Uganda Somalia G FI 1055 645 644 0 0 645 1055 United Rep. of Tanzania Somalia G FA 0 684 684 0 0 684 0 Zimbabwe Somalia G FI 5 1 323 5 0 1 314 1 319 Egypt Sudan U AR 10 404 18 204 0 222 192 Egypt Sudan U FI 12 511 1 343 92 20 708 820 13 034 Kenya Sudan U AR 23 120 0 9 0 9 134 Kenya Sudan U FI 100 1 289 173 329 66 568 821 Kenya Uganda U AR 0 151 0 53 22 77 74 South Africa Uganda G FI 881 1 461 11 92 0 103 2 239 South Africa United Rep. of Tanzania G FI 1 698 1 236 0 209 0 209 2 725 South Africa Zambia G FI 229 256 0 38 0 39 446 South Africa Zimbabwe G FI 17 578 17 667 271 1 623 0 1 894 33 351 114 005 130 013 46 030 12 813 40 396 99 281 53 016 Source: UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2008 11 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 (130 013) 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 42 258 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 2010 189

Figure 1 2007 Asylum applications in South Africa: African countries of origin Zambia 256 Zimbabwe 17667 Algeria 9 Burundi 1 014 Cameroon 311 Congo 808 Uganda 1461 Cote d Ivoire 158 Tanzania 1236 South Africa 41 063 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 2008 12 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 2 721 asylum applications from Ethiopia, while Ethiopia in turn received a similar number, 2 664 asylum applications from Kenya. 190 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

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 804 1 014 210 Cameroon 311 6 2 656 2 345 Congo* 808 2 599-209 Ethiopia 3 413 3 19 715 16 302 Kenya 341 9 19 263 18 922 Malawi 3 341 6 12 226 8 885 Mozambique 296 3 864 568 Nigeria 904 1 963 Uganda 1 461 5 4 516 3 629 United Rep. of Tanzania* 1 236 2 881-355 Zimbabwe* 17 667 1 4 202-13 465 * 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 3 972 DRC 2 901 DRC 7 190 Somalia 3 007 DRC 14 069 2 Zimbabwe 2 904 Pakistan 1 460 Pakistan 7 015 Zimbabwe 2 836 Zimbabwe 11 007 3 Angola 2 753 Burundi 1 072 Ethiopia 6 972 Malawi 1 361 Ethiopia 9 356 4 Tanzania 2 559 Zimbabwe 968 India 6 564 Ethiopia 1 219 Pakistan 9 270 5 Somalia 2 532 Ethiopia 779 Nigeria 6 505 Ghana 454 Somalia 8 709 6 Malawi 2 097 Tanzania 657 Zimbabwe 4 299 Pakistan 449 Nigeria 8 445 7 Nigeria 1 021 Nigeria 598 China 3 926 Senegal 399 India 7 520 8 Congo 999 India 470 Bangladesh 3 374 Bangladesh 365 Tanzania 4 902 9 Egypt 750 Kenya 366 Somalia 2 854 Uganda 337 China 4 284 10 Burundi 678 Uganda 340 Uganda 1 845 Nigeria 321 Bangladesh 4 165 Sub0Total 20 265 9 611 50 544 10 748 81 727 Other 4 675 1 731 12 323 1 260 29 430 TOTAL 24 940 11 342 62 867 12 008 111 157 Source: Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated Cases, 12 February 2008 13 Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 191

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 2006. The country of origin distribution of the backlog applications correlates with that provided by the Directorate: Refugee Affairs for the first quarter of 2006. Age Country of Origin Average Minimum Maximum Rwanda 33 16 77 DRC 32 17 63 Somalia 32 19 65 Country of Origin Average Minimum Maximum Congo Brazzaville 31 19 54 Uganda 30 20 49 Angola 29 17 48 Burundi 29 18 47 Ethiopia 28 17 43 Other countries 31 19 48 Total 31 16 77 Source: CASE 2003 14 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

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 111 157 as at 31 July 2008. 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 2005. The project was officially launched in Johannesburg in June 2006 and ended on 31 March 2008. 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 8 478 (60%) asylum seekers from the DRC. Of the finalised cases, 1 508 (18%) were approved for refugee status, 4,953 (58%) were rejected, and 2,017 (24%) were finalised otherwise. Of those who were rejected, 4 658 (94%) had the right to appeal. According to the UNHCR 2007 Global Trends Report, South Africa had 5 307 pending asylum applications from the DRC and registered 6 571 new applications, giving it a new total of 11 878 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 2010 193

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 2007. 21 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 1997. 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 24 940 4 010 5 810 2 180 12 000 12 940 10 739 2 201 Durban 11 342 601 3 213 817 4 631 6 711 5 108 1 603 Gauteng 62 867 1 474 11 277 6 810 19 561 43 306 47 918 04 612 PE 12 008 2 025 3 664 1 235 6 924 5 084 4 121 963 Total 111 157 8 110 23 964 11 042 43 116 68 041 67 886 155 Source: Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated cases, date: 12-Feb-08 20 194 AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 Africa Institute of South Africa

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 2001. 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 2005. 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 2010 195

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 2006. 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 (2005 2008) 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

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, 2006. 2 Loren B. Landau (ed), Forced Migrants in the new Johannesburg: Towards a Local Government Response. Forced Migration Studies Programme, University of the Witwatersrand, 2004. 3 Landau 2004, p 16. 4 Landau 2004, p16. 5 Kok 2006, p 39. 6 Kok 2006, p 51. 7 Kok 2006, p 60. 8 UNHCR Global Report 2006. 9 UNHCR Global Report 2007. 10 USCRI World Refugee Survey 2008. 11 UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2008. 12 Ibid. 13 Refugee Backlog Project Statistics: Adjudicated Cases, 12 February 2008, Unpublished project report, DHA 2008. 14 Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE), National Baseline Survey: Final Report. UNHCR 2003. 15 Ibid, p 45. 16 DHA, Refugee Affairs Backlog Project, Project Charter, July 2005, Unpublished project report, DHA 2005. 17 UNHCR 2007, Table 12. 18 Human Rights Watch (HRW) Living on the Margins. Inadequate protection for refugees and asylum seekers in Johannesburg. HRW vol 17, no 15(A) November 2005. 19 Ibid p 14. 20 DHA 2008. 21 Protecting Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Immigrants in South Africa, Unpublished report, Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CORMSA) Johannesburg, 18 June 2008. 22 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, 1999. 23 Ibid, p 2. 24 Ibid, p 26. 25 SAMP Migration and Social Cohesion No. 1, 2008. 26 HRW 2005, p 6. 27 UNHCR News July 2008. Africa Institute of South Africa AFRICA INSIGHT Vol 39 (4) March 2010 197