Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
17 February 2012

High Court orders Home Affairs to re-open Refugee Reception Office

PRESS RELEASE

The High Court in Port Elizabeth today handed down a judgment in which it declared the Department of Home Affairs’ decision to close the Port Elizabeth Refugee Reception Office to be unlawful and ordered that it be re-opened and maintained for all refugees and asylum seekers, including new applicants for asylum.

On 20 October 2011, Home Affairs publicly announced that the PE Refugee Reception Office would be closed to new applications the following day and would work towards finalising all outstanding claims before 31 March 2012. Recognised refugees were told that they would have to transfer their files to another refugee reception office in order to access refugee services through the Department.

This abrupt decision caused severe prejudice to the asylum seeker and refugee community considering that the closest office in Cape Town is over 700km away. Many new arrivals were left stranded without documentation and at risk of arrest and deportation. The statistics from the Department indicated that last year 22 000 were assisted at the PE office. Many asylum seekers, particularly from war-ravaged Somalia, choose the Nelson Mandela Bay area because of a long-standing refugee community which supports new asylum applicants who have no access to state assistance during the application process.

The challenge to the closure was brought by the Eastern Cape branch of the Somali Association of South Africa (SASA) and the Project for Conflict Resolution and Development (PCRD) with Lawyers for Human Rights and the Refugee Rights Centre at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University as their attorneys.

The court found that a core function of a refugee reception office is to allow new arrivals to apply for asylum. If that function is removed, the office has been de-established as a refugee reception office. The Refugees Act then requires consultation with the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs. The Court was concerned that the department had not consulted with the Standing Committee despite clear obligations to do so in terms of the Act.

“Today’s decision is a vindication that the Department cannot act outside of the law,” said Linton Harmse, Director of the Refugee Rights Centre. “The constitutional right to just administrative action applies equally to all, including foreign nationals.”

This decision follows a similar decision in the North Gauteng High Court which found that the decision to close the refugee reception office in Johannesburg was also unlawful and ordered the Director-General of Home Affairs to engage in a public consultation process and reconsider his decision to close that office. To date, no efforts have been made to engage the public or render the decision lawful.

In light of these judgments and the general failure of the department to act lawfully in terms of rendering services to the refugee community, we call on the Minister of Home Affairs to intervene on an urgent basis to prevent further prejudicial and illegal actions on the part of the department with regards to the operations of the country’s refugee reception offices.

We further call on the Minister and the Director-General to engage with the public, including stakeholders and members of the asylum seeker and refugee community, to discuss the future of refugee protection in South Africa. Such engagement will prevent further embarrassment of South Africa on the international stage and ensure that South Africa’s reputation as a country based on human rights and the rule of law is protected.

For more information, please contact:

Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh (LHR)
011-339 1960 kaajal@lhr.org.za
David Cote (LHR): 012-320 2943 / 072 628 7698 david@lhr.org.za
Linton Harmse (NMMU RRC) 041 – 5044705 / 073 176 2239
SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest