Back to Index

Zimbabwe exodus: Key facts on Zimbabwean refugees and asylum seekers
Sean Garcia and Patrick Duplat, Refugees International
November 07, 2007

http://www.refintl.org/content/article/detail/10281

A significant number of Zimbabweans who leave their country have legitimate fears of persecution and therefore qualify as refugees under the 1951 Convention. Yet many do not apply for asylum in neighboring countries because of the cumbersome process and restrictive laws. The restrictions on asylum seekers are counterproductive in the face of the Zimbabwean crisis.

Ultimately, the southern African region must develop a coherent response to the problems posed by displaced Zimbabweans and their legitimate protection needs. Host governments must develop a new legal framework, in consultation with civil society organizations and the United Nations, to provide Zimbabweans facilitated entry and ensure reasonable protection.Any effective solution must include a regional mechanism, through the Southern African Development Community or otherwise, to provide temporary protection in anticipation of a political settlement.

• The most pressing need for the vast majority of Zimbabweans is to be able to send food and money to their families back home. That stark reality trumps their protection needs. Many displaced Zimbabweans in neighboring countries would qualify as refugees under the 1951 Convention owing to legitimate fears of persecution back home. RI interviewed teachers, policemen, soldiers, journalists, and political activists who have been threatened, beaten or tortured inside Zimbabwe. Many do not apply for asylum, however, in order to preserve their ability to transit back home to deliver vital goods to their families in Zimbabwe.

• Some civil society groups are calling for all Zimbabweans to be recognized as refugees under the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention. While Zimbabweans are forced to leave because of "events seriously disturbing public order" - the OAU criterion - such a designation is politically impractical and does not completely reflect the nature of the migration. The circumstances of the crisis call for new legal approaches in line with progressive interpretation of refugee and international human rights covenants.

• The situation is different in each host country. In South Africa, the government has been slow in tackling a backlog of some 80,000 asylum seek- ers, of which Zimbabweans constitute a majority.The Department of Home Affairs' (DHA) lack of capacity and resources - a problem which dates back several years - has led to legal irregularities and protection concerns. These range from transgression of migrants' rights at refugee reception offices to arbitrary detention and deportations. While there have been some improvements since Refugees International's last mission to South Africa in 2004, there are still significant unresolved issues which show a lack of political will. South Africa should redouble its efforts to fix management and backlog problems within DHA, and ensure genuine access to social services for both asylum seekers and refugees.

• In Botswana, the number of Zimbabwean asylum seekers is unduly low (10 so far in 2007) when compared with South Africa. The main reason is Botswana's policy of detaining asylum seekers in detention facilities while processing their appeal, and then placing them in camps once the appeal has been granted. This policy - domestic exceptions to the 1951 Refugee Convention - deprives them of the right to work, and keeps them isolated from the rest of society. Given the small number of refugees from all nationalities in Botswana (roughly 3,000), the country should consider rewriting its refugee law to allow for local integration.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP