Don’t trade people fleeing war ‘like commodities’ – UNHCR

17 June 2022 · Carmel Rickard

The UN High Commission for Refugees has issued a strongly-worded statement condemning attempts by the UK government to fly asylum-seekers to Rwanda. And while the UK courts have rejected attempts to halt the flights, the European Court of Human Rights has unexpectedly intervened to halt the first scheduled removal of asylum-seekers at least until July. The result has been to raise the international profile of the dangers and difficulties involved in asylum-seeking.

As UK government attempts to deport a first group of asylum seekers to Rwanda clash with local efforts to have the courts approve legal objections to the scheme, the UN’s refugee agency has spoken out strongly against the UK’s plan.

The UK should not be trying to ‘shift asylum responsibilities’ and ‘evade international obligations’, the UNHCR’s assistant high commissioner for protection, Gilliam Triggs has said.

‘People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing,’ Triggs added.

Her comments come as last-minute efforts to prevent the scheme from going ahead were played out in the UK courts.

Perilous

The UNHCR has urged both the UK and Rwanda to re-think their arrangement, warning that instead of deterring refugees from resorting to perilous journeys – the ostensible justification for the plan to outsource the problem to Rwanda – the planned arrangements ‘will only magnify risks, causing refugees to seek alternative routes and exacerbating pressures on frontline states.’

Triggs said that Rwanda had been generous for decades, providing a safe haven for many refugees fleeing conflict and persecution. But most refugees in that country ‘live in camps with limited access to economic opportunities.’

‘UNHCR believes that wealthier nations must show solidarity in supporting Rwanda and the refugees it already hosts, and not the other way around.’

Evading obligations

She said that arrangements transferring refugees and asylum-seekers to third countries without adequate safeguards and standards, amounted merely to shifting asylum responsibilities, evading obligations and action that was contrary ‘to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention.’

‘The UK has an obligation to ensure access to asylum for those seeking protection. Those who are determined to be refugees can be integrated, while those who are not and have no other legal basis to stay, can be returned in safety and dignity to their country of origin.’

Instead, however, the UK is ‘adopting arrangements that abdicate responsibility to others and thus threaten the international refugee protection regime which has stood the test of time and saved millions of lives over the decades.’

Humane

‘The UK has supported UNHCR’s work many times in the past and is providing important contributions that help protect refugees and support countries in conflicts such as Ukraine. However, financial support abroad for certain refugee crises cannot replace the responsibility of states and the obligation to receive asylum seekers and protect refugees on their own territory – irrespective of race, nationality and mode of arrival.’

She concluded that while UNHCR recognised the challenges posed by forced displacement, ‘developed countries are host to only a fraction of the world’s refugees and are well resourced to manage claims for asylum in a humane, fair and efficient manner.’

Meanwhile, after two failed attempts in the UK courts to halt the initial flight to Rwanda, the first flight had to be postponed at the last minute thanks to an unexpected intervention by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Strasbourg-based court said the flight should wait until British courts have taken a final decision on the legality of the UK’s policy, a matter expected to be argued in July.

Serious issues

Of particular concern to that court was the fate of one Iraqi man, due to be on the flight. The judges said that he faced ‘a real risk of irreversible harm’ if he were taken to Rwanda.

The man, referred to by the court as K N, left Iraq in April 2022, travelling first to Turkey and then across Europe before crossing the English Channel by boat. Alleging that he was in danger in Iraq, he claimed asylum when he arrived in the UK on 17 May.

One of the points made by the European court was that the UK high court had acknowledged ‘that there were potential serious issues with the assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.’

Torture

The European court also noted that a doctor at the UK’s Immigration Removal Centre had issued a report saying that the Iraqi man ‘might have been a victim of torture’.

The court also considered concerns raised by the UNHCR ‘that asylum-seekers transferred from the UK to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status’.

The court added, ‘In light of the … risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the UK in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the Court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.’

Read official statement by the European Court of Human Rights

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.