SEFU GODEL

RELOCATION OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS REFUGEE RECEPTION OFFICES (RROS) FROM INLAND TO THE BORDERS

Policy analysis by Mr. Sefu Godel K. Johannesburg, South Africa.

1. The analyst

Sefu Godel K. is originally from the Eastern province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. He holds a degree in Philosophy and BA in Theology. He succesfully completed trainings in Disability Rights in Africa (University of Pretoria), HP Get It (Ort South Africa) and Public Policy, Governance and Leadership (OSISA & Africa University). He founded the Disabled Refugees Projects, an organization seeking to protect, empower and promote the rights of refugees with disabilities in South Africa. He is actually the Director of the organization. As a disabled individual he is very passionate on findings adequate solutions to protect refugees with disabilities being an easy target of xenophobic violence. He also works on designing policies that can help to end gross human rights abuse and promote the rights of refugees in South Africa. 2. Definition of problem The declared intent by the South African Department of Home Affairs to move all asylum and refugee services to the border posts at the end of June 2012 poses potential socio-economic and legal challenges to foreign imigrants already domiciled in the country. 3. Backgound and source of the problem Socio economic deterioration, political unrest and civil wars are some of the challenges which the African continent is grappling with; this is the reason why there is mass exodus of people from their respective countries to South Africa. People flock into this country seeking refuge and greener pastures; and the worst part of it is that, the good life is just a pipe dream to others. These desesperate people clogg the South African Asylum Seeker System and result in unmanageable demand at the Refugee Reception Offices on a hand, and create challenges in the management of the borders on another hand.

SEFU GODEL The Department of Home Affairs considers that there are actually a very large number of refugees and illegal immigrants in the Country. Many of these are likely to be more in criminal activities than good behavior. There is then a huge need to change the immigration act and refugee act to be stronger and stronger. Moving all the RROs from inland to the borders will probably be one of the adequate solutions in dealing with the challenge. There were five designated Refugee Reception Offices in five of the nine provinces in the country. On 25 March 2011, a court order instructing the Department to close the JHB Refugee Reception Office at Crown Mines within a period of 60 days was issued. The Department took a decision to relocate the Crown Mines operation to Pretoria Showground. The status of RRO lease agreements was highlighted. The situation today is that all the RROs will be relocated to the border posts. 4. Objective of the policy The goal of this policy is to look up the socio-political security of the refugee and migrants communities in South Africa. 5. Proposed alternatives
a) To relocate the RROs to the boarder posts as proposed by the Department of Home

Affairs.
b) To maintain the RROs where they are and re-open those already closed. c) To maintain the RRO inland, re-open those already closed and open new offices in the

borders for new comers.

6. Analysing alternatives Evaluation criteria Alternative (a) Alternative (b) Alternative (c) To maintain the RROs inland, reopening those already closed and open new RROs in the borders for new comers Applicable Applicable Very effective Acceptable High Acceptable

To relocate the RROs To maintain the to the borders posts RROs inland and reopen those already closed Economic feasibility Administrative feasibility Effectiveness Political acceptability Responsiveness Cultural Acceptability Non applicable Non applicable Not effective Low Low Somewhat Applicable Applicable Effective Medium Medium somewhat

SEFU GODEL 7. Policy recommendation The policy of relocation of RROs at the borders is likely directed at the africaphobic penchant and exclusion rather than acceptation and protection which fly in the face of South Africas international commitments to protect refugees. It is unlawful and not suitable. It is unlawful as [T]he constitutional right to just administrative action applies equally to all, including foreign nationals. It is not suitable as the RROs will no longer be accessible to all refugees and asylum seekers who are already in the Country. This will have devastating consequences to those most disadvantaged groups in the refugee and migrant community (foreign nationals with disabilities, children, unemployed women etc). These destitute human groups may no longer acceed these remote services and become subjected to criminal sanctions and deportations by the police. The Department of Home Affairs needs to consult with refugees and refugee services providers to come to a solution which is compliant with both international law and the basic rights afforded to applicants under the Constitution. If democracy is the governance through dialogue as described by the Nobel Price Amertya Sen and, if South Africa belongs to all those living in it as declared by the South African icon Nelson Mandela, then dialogue remains an important tool in dealing with critical issues affecting the Country. The alternative of maintening the RROs inland and re-open those closed is then much applicable to all. But considering the challenges faced by the country in the management of its borders and fighting crimes, the alternative of maintaining the RROs inland (re-opening those closed) and open new RROs in the boarders for new comers is the best to be recommended.
3