Relief measures ignored refugees
State’s economic aid packages were mostly for citizens
The early days of the Covid-19 pandemic in South Africa saw the government impose a lockdown in a bid to save lives. It introduced several interventions to cushion the impact of the crisis caused by the shutdown of economic activities on citizens. Among the measures were food aid as well as unemployment and debt relief.
Refugees and asylum seekers expected similar protection. Their expectations flowed from the fact the South African government has a responsibility to protect them according to the Refugees Act 130 of 1998.
The act incorporates international protections enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention and the African Union Convention. These require states or the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to uphold the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers.
An asylum seeker is someone who has applied for sanctuary, and whose application is still being adjudicated on. A refugee is someone who has already been granted asylum.
According to a 2019 UN report, South Africa had 89285 formally recognised refugees and 188285 asylum seekers. From 2008 to 2012, the number of asylum seekers had increased to 800000 – mostly Zimbabweans.
As some refugees and asylum seekers are active in the South African economy, their economic activities were also affected by the lockdown. But it became evident early on that the state was reluctant to implement the Refugees Act in a way that would enable them to benefit meaningfully from its Covid-19 relief packages.
On March 15 2020 President Cyril Ramaphosa stated that his cabinet was “finalising a comprehensive package of interventions to mitigate the expected impact of Covid-19 on the economy. Such interventions would prioritise protecting the health and wellbeing of “all South Africans”. This, by implication, excluded refugees and asylum seekers.
I have examined the protection of the socio-economic rights of refugees and asylum seekers in the country during the pandemic.
The study highlights the need for the country’s Covid-19 relief measures, and constitutional socio-economic protections in general, to be harmonised with the Refugees Act to promote access by formally recognised refugees to state relief programmes.
With food aid parcels, recipients were required to have a
South African identity document.
Food parcels were later replaced by the monthly R350 Social Relief of Distress grant for the unemployed.
Beneficiaries included refugees but asylum seekers were initially excluded.
Refugees and asylum seekers were unable to access relief for small businesses. The Debt Relief for Distressed Business and the Business Growth/resilient Facility packages were restricted to businesses that are 100% owned by citizens.
The restructuring of loans or packages funded by the Small Enterprise Finance Agency was restricted to citizens and foreign nationals with permanent residence status.
The Spaza Shop Support package was mainly for citizens: 70% of the package was allocated to South African-owned informal retail stores (spaza shops).
Relief packages for small businesses in the tourism industry were disbursed in line with the country’s BEE policy. The policy seeks to enable meaningful participation in the economy by black people who were disadvantaged by apartheid. This excluded refugees and asylum seekers.
When it came to relief for employees and employers, the Department of Employment and Labour argued that its computer system was not designed to capture the numbers appearing on the refugees and asylum seekers’ status permits.
The South African government has, over the years, displayed an ambivalent attitude towards the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This is evident in its adoption of socio-economic laws which do not speak to the Refugees Act. These include the Housing Act of 1997, the 2003 National Health Act, the 1999 National Student Financial Aid Scheme Act and the 1998 Skills Development Act.
This ambivalence stems from the notion among some within the government that most asylum seekers and refugees are not “genuine”. This is because of gaps in the asylum management system that economic migrants exploit. Thus, genuine refugees and asylum seekers are ignored as beneficiaries.
From 2008 to 2012, number of asylum seekers increased
to 800 000