Ambiguity on asylum

MIXED messages on the treatment of asylum seekers do little to provide reassurance that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing at the Department of Home Affairs.

President Jacob Zuma bragged at the UN last week that asylum seekers found nirvana within our borders, with the freedom “to live wherever you like and the right to work‚ study and access social services”. Meanwhile, the new Refugees Amendment Bill proposes severe curbs on asylum seekers’ rights to work. The bill itself was lobbed like an ill-timed grenade into the middle of the period for public submissions on a green paper that purports to define the broad parameters of migration policy, leaving observers wondering which was the cart and which the horse.

And while Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba said two weeks ago that the government would provide asylum seekers with food, shelter, healthcare and social services, this week his spokesman told the Sunday Times that officials were in Geneva trying to persuade the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to take on these responsibilities.

The impression of confusion is disconcerting because this is not a minor issue; statistics from the UNHCR and home affairs are unreliable, but Africa Check says that with about 400 000 open asylum cases, South Africa has the second-highest number in the world.

Slow and inefficient bureaucracy is the culprit, according to activists, adding to the overall impression of officials and politicians fiddling while home affairs burns.

The plight of asylum seekers is particularly poignant because of the human suffering involved. The least any country can do is try its hardest to minimise that pain.