State of Refugee Reception Offices: briefing by Deputy Minister

Home Affairs

28 June 2011
Chairperson: Ms M Maunye (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Committee received a briefing from the Deputy Minister and the Department of Home Affairs on the status of Refugee Reception Offices in the country. The Department also briefed the Committee on the status of the “Who Am I Online” Project.

The Department of Home Affairs said there were specific reasons for the increase in migration to South Africa. The Section 22 permits, with its Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs conditions, undermined the Immigration Act and acted as pull factor. The perceived sustainable livelihood/better socio-economic opportunities attracted economic migrants who clogged the Asylum Seeker System and resulted in unmanageable demand at the . There were challenges faced by the country in the management of its borders. South Africa was used as a transit to the world beyond. Absence of a regional approach in managing asylum seekers and refugees was also a contributing factor. There were five designated Refugee Reception Offices in five of the nine provinces in the country. On 25 March 2011, a court order instructing the Department to close the JHB Refugee Reception Office at Crown Mines within a period of 60 days was issued. The Department took a decision to relocate the Crown Mines operation to Pretoria Showground. The status of RRO lease agreements was highlighted. There were many problems which affected RROs. Court Orders served to Cape Town and Crown Mines had resulted in the closure of operations in Johannesburg. The threat of eviction in Musina and Port Elizabeth had been detrimental. Refugee Reception Offices being situated in inappropriately zoned areas (Industrial areas) was unhelpful and the ever-increasing demand for services led to complaints of nuisance by business owners - which was a hindrance.

The Department had paid Gijima R391 million to date. The Department signed a contract amounting to R4, 535 billion whereas the business case approved in principle by National Treasury amount to R2, 234 billion. After careful consideration of the implications for the non delivery of the solution to the entire hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the Department after evaluating progress made by Gijima/AST, decided to develop an alternative system. The Department consulted the Minister of Finance to assist in the development of the system, since SARS was also operating in the Ports of Entry. SARS together with the Department developed and implemented the new movement control system. The Department further informed Gijima that it regarded the purported contract signed between the parties as well as IBM and HP as invalid; however this repudiation was disputed. To avoid indefinite delays to the project by costly and lengthy litigation, the Department entered into negotiations to amicably resolve the dispute and allow for the urgent completion of the project in line with the original requirements. The Department of Home Affairs envisaged changing the manual processes where paper forms were used as a main interface with its clients and systems, to a total paperless environment where all transactions were committed online and in real-time. The WAIO project was to supply a “turn-key” solution for an integrated core system based on the General Live Capture Concept (GLCC). The proposed design of the system consisted of an Integrated Core Business Application (ICBA), with a set of Integrated Client Services Consoles (ICSC) for the DHA front offices locally and internationally.

The Department published a tender in April 2006 through the South African State Information Technology Agency (SITA) for the design of an integrated core business system. The tender was awarded, a year later, to Gijima/AST on 22 October 2007 at R1.9 billion. The contract was signed on 31 December 2007, for a period of five years; however including software licences, core hardware and requirements finalisation, which were excluded in the awarding of the tender. That resulted in the increase of the tender value to R4.535 billion. The contract was signed as an operational lease although it met the requirements of a finance lease in terms of accounting standards. On submission of the Business Case in February 2009, an amount of R 2.3 billion was requested for approval, which was approved in principle. The loss to DHA is R389 million (which is R2.489 billion less R2.1 billion).

Members commented that it was clear that the lack of basic infrastructure and approval of the Border Management Agency (BMA) would ensure that the problems at RROs would persist. They commented that Section 22 permits were too broad in the allowances they gave to migrants, they needed to be more specific and clear. They commented that the RR offices in Cape Town were not modern by any standards and the Department needed to find a way to improve conditions at that centre. Some members commented that South Africa was a signatory to international conventions which mandated that asylum seekers be taken in regardless of from where they came. They commented that the Maitland Offices were like a “cattle station”. They asked what progress there had been in establishing a regional approach to migration. Some members commented that South Africa needed to balance its goodwill with realism considering the capacity issues the country faced. The Chairperson commented that the Department was dealing with huge numbers of asylum seekers on a daily basis and the question had to be asked how long the country could continue to take in those people as the economy of the country would suffer from the continued intake. The human rights laws and the Constitution were being used as an excuse for asylum seekers to enter the country. “South Africans had not enjoyed their freedom since 1994, the country had gotten freedom in 1994 and floods of asylum seekers had come to the country”.

One member commented that it was not Gijima/AST’s fault that the tender process had not been followed. Others were not convinced that the Department had saved R2 billion by settling with Gijima/AST. Gijima/AST could not do the job they were still employed to do; they had been paid R2.5 billion to maintain hardware. They commented that the Committee needed a full audit report on the WAIO Project from the Auditor General. They applauded the idea of using the Government Printing Works to assist with the production of smart cards.

Meeting report

Ms Fatima Chohan, Deputy Minister for the Department of Home Affairs thanked the Committee for its invitation. She apologised for the Minister’s absence from the meeting due to unavoidable duties.

Briefing by the Department on Refugee Reception Offices
Mr Jackie McKay, Deputy Director General for Immigration Services: Department of Home Affairs (DHA) briefed the Committee on the status of Refugee Reception Offices (RROs).

There were five designated Refugee Reception Offices in five of the nine Provinces in the country located in: Musina (Limpopo), Cape Town (Western Cape), Port Elizabeth (Eastern Cape), Durban (KwaZulu-Natal), Marabastad (Tshwane - Gauteng) Main Office and PTA Show Ground (Satellite) which used to be housed at Crown Mines, Johannesburg. These offices in all the provinces were in city centres.

On 25 March 2011, a court order instructed the Department to close the JHB Refugee Reception Office at Crown Mines within a period of 60 days [after the business community went to court claiming the large presence of refugees rendered conditions intolerable for business]. It would be temporarily transferred to a refugee reception centre at the Pretoria Showgrounds. All clients that were serviced from Crown Mines were expected to report to the Centre located in the Pretoria Showground. A process had been designed to inform all concerned about the relocation. The Department had had to reprioritise its resources to accommodate the unplanned relocation. The relocation process had been designed in such a way that there was minimum disruption to clients.

The status of RRO lease agreements was highlighted. In Johannesburg, a court order forcing eviction had led to that RRO being moved to Pretoria. The Pretoria showground RRO was being rented on a month to month basis and would be temporary whilst a permanent site was found. The same would be done for the Cape Town offices in Maitland. The leases in Port Elizabeth and Durban would expire on 31 October. The Musina RRO lease would expire in August 2013; the office was still operating but required increased capacity.

There were specific reasons for the increase in migration to South Africa. The Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs conditions applicable to Section 22 permits undermined the Immigration Act and acted as ‘pull’ factor. The perceived sustainable livelihood/better socio-economic opportunities attracted economic migrants who clogged the Asylum Seeker System and resulted in unmanageable demand at the Centres. There were challenges faced by the country in the management of its borders. South Africa was used as a transit to the world beyond. Absence of a regional approach in managing asylum seekers and refugees was also a contributing factor.

There were many problems which affected RROs. Court orders served to Cape Town and Crown Mines had resulted in the closure of operations in Johannesburg. The threat of eviction in Musina and Port Elizabeth had been detrimental. Refugee Reception Offices being situated in inappropriately zoned areas (such as industrial areas) was unhelpful and the ever-increasing demand for services led to nuisance complaints by business owners.

Discussion
Mr M Mnqasela (DA) commented that the presentation had been quite interesting. It was quite a battle to manage RROs. It was clear that the lack of basic infrastructure and the delay in the approval of the Border Management Agency (BMA) would ensure that the problems at RROs would persist. The Department needed to look into the best ways to manage economic migrants. The Section 22 permits were too broad in the allowances they gave to migrants; they needed to be more specific and clear. The conditions in some RROs were appalling and the Department needed to look into how to address them. There was no clear evidence of a Departmental approach to the issue of separating asylum seekers and economic migrants. 

Mr Mkuseli Apleni, Director General: DHA replied that the BMA was a Cabinet issue and the Department could not discuss the Agency as yet.

Adv A Gaum (ANC) said that from the Committee’s oversight visit of the Cape Town RRO, it was clear there were a number of vacancies and backlogs in dealing with migrants. There was a major delay in the conduct of interviews to determine the status of migrants due to staff shortages. The Committee needed to get a decision on the potential move of RROs to border posts.  The RR offices in Cape Town were not modern by any standards and the Department needed to find a way to improve conditions at that centre. There was no tracking of people who had been given 31 days to leave the country. There was a long delay in the processing of asylum seeker appeals. He asked how Section 22 permits could be altered to limit the broad scope of its allowances. The Department needed to look into listing countries which were not suffering any conflict so as to control genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants.

Ms Chohan responded that the country could not deny asylum seekers entry based on their nationality. The review of asylum management and RROs was ongoing and would eventually indicate whether they should be moved to border posts or not. The initial placement of RROs had been badly thought out and ill conceived. The RROs needed to be strategically located so that monitoring matters such as the 5 day provision in the Refugees Amendment Act would be possible. The review would be long and would be far reaching in its implications.

Mr Yusuf Simons, Provincial Manager for the Western Cape: DHA, replied that the Department RRO in Cape Town had initially been in the CBD from 1998 to 2006. The RRO had been closed down due to a court order; the Department had been evicted 3 times from 3 different locations. The Department had looked at 10 different locations to move the RRO but the process had been difficult. The location in Maitland was not ideal but the lease agreement was on a month to month basis. The nature of the agreement meant that there was no maintenance at that RRO. The Department had been in Maitland for 18 months and the Department had brought in heaters to try and make the building more conducive for workers and visitors. The Department had also met with union representatives to address the employee complaints about the Maitland RRO. The building was not humane for either asylum seekers or Department staff. The Maitland RRO had 85 vacancies of which 47 were unfunded and 38 were funded. Eight of the funded posts were available and had been advertised and 5 of them had been filled. The Department would aim to fill vacancies in important positions. The Department had taken the initiative to fix parts of the Maitland RRO and had obtained quotations for holes in the roof and broken doors. There were different days assigned for each nationality due to the need to provide security, crowd control and interpreters. There were 25 security guards based at Maitland with one counter-corruption officer. The Department would have to review its operating hours for the Maitland RRO.   

Ms A Lovemore (DA) said that South Africa was a signatory to international conventions which mandated that asylum seekers be taken in regardless of from where they came. The Department’s presentation should have included information about other RROs and specific issues relating to them. The oversight visit to the Cape Town RRO had been enlightening. The Maitland Office was like a “cattle station”. There was one queue for all immigrants with no clear demarcation for specific types of applicants (i.e. asylum seekers, economic migrants). She asked how it would be possible to enforce the 5 day provision in the Refugees Amendment Act when it was promulgated. She asked if RROs would be moved to border posts and if the RROs in Cape Town and Port Elizabeth would be closed if the move to border posts happened. She asked about the Crown Mines RRO and whether there had been a disturbance to services at those offices. Did the Department keep records of economic migrants in the country? She asked why the Department did not know how many economic migrants there were. She asked what progress there had been in establishing a regional approach to migration. She asked why there were separate days for different nationalities at the Maitland RRO.  

Ms Chohan replied that there were many issues for countries with respect to the International Conventions on Migration established in 1951 and 1967. Migration was increasing and countries had to adapt to changing situations “on the hop”. The Department had been requested to present on RROs generally and had not been asked to brief on specific RROs. The review of asylum management and RROs was ongoing and would eventually indicate whether they should be moved to border posts or not. The Department would develop immigration policies which were cognisant of the situation on the ground. The Department needed to be clear about what constituted an economic migrant. As part of the Department’s review on RROs, it was looking into establishing an information system which would highlight troubled countries. The country could not deny asylum seekers entry based on their nationality. The initial placement of RROs had been badly thought out and ill conceived, the RROs needed to be strategically located so that monitoring things like the 5 day provision in the Refugees Amendment Act would be possible. The review would be long and would be far reaching in its implications. She said that the Minister and herself were both dedicated to eradicating corruption at all levels and would act on specific allegations.       

Mr McKay responded that the Cape Town RRO located in Maitland had been set up as a temporary centre, with the assistance of the Department of Public Works, due to the eviction from Nyanga. The Maitland office was meant to be temporary whilst a permanent location was being constructed, however the permanent location which was also in Maitland had been prevented from being constructed by a court order and that had left the Department in limbo. A regional approach to migration would be helpful and beneficial. South Africa had started bilateral talks on the issue at a ministerial level. The Department thought it was important to share information with regional countries to assist in dealing with migration.

Mr Apleni replied that the Department had been invited to present generally on RROs. The Maitland RRO was not conducive for employees but the lease agreement was made on a month to month basis. The Department had 1 076 vacancies and was working to address them.
 
The Chairperson commented that the country did not have a policy to monitor economic migrants and the Committee needed to look into how to address the issue. There was no archive/record of foreign nationals and that was worrying.

Ms Themba Kgasi, Chief Director for Equity and Gender: DHA, replied that there was a pilot filing system project which had been run in an RRO. All relevant records had been kept in the system and it had been successful. The records management unit was running an archives project and the new system would be rolled out soon.

Mr J Thibedi (ANC) commented that South Africa needed to balance its goodwill with realism, considering the capacity issues the country faced. South Africa had issues of its own to deal with let alone dealing with the issue of migration. He asked whether the country was trying to create conditions for permanent refugees. He congratulated the Department on the unanimous support of its budget.

Ms Chohan responded that the Department was trying to create humane conditions at Maitland which provided decent accommodation. She said that the Department’s systems had been the best but it had to stay committed to promoting human rights and protecting them. A regional approach to migration would be beneficial. She thanked Mr Thibedi for his congratulations.
 
Ms S Bothman (ANC) said that the Committee wanted a more detailed presentation on RROs. She commented that management needed to communicate with lower level staff to solve problems. She asked whether anything could be done to renovate/improve Maitland considering its month to month lease.

Ms Chohan replied that the Department’s report on Status Determination Centres could be sent to the Committee.

Mr Apleni replied there was communication between senior level officials and lower level staff.  

Ms Lovemore commented that not enough detail had been given about records management. The Department of Labour would shut down the Maitland RRO based on its current situation for workers and asylum seekers.

Mr McKay replied that an economic migrant’s records were not kept. A refugee status application did not have a skills test requirement attached to it. He commented that people who were undocumented were turned away from the border and that it happened in other countries around the world.

The Chairperson thanked the Deputy Minister and Department officials for the presentation. She said that more security was needed at Maitland RRO. She commented that the planned United Nations refugee passports were still not commissioned as yet, and the United Nations had stated that it could not pay for the passports. What was the point of the UN if it did not assist with migration? She said upon carrying out the oversight visit in Maitland, she wondered whether there was anyone left in Somalia. The Department was dealing with huge numbers of asylum seekers on a daily basis and the question had to be asked how long the country would continue to take in those people. The economy of the country might suffer from the continued intake. She commented that human rights laws and the Constitution were used as an excuse for asylum seekers to enter the country. There was unemployment and poverty in South Africa and that was a big enough burden. She said that South Africans had not enjoyed their freedom since 1994; the country had problems of its own without having to deal with migrants. The country had gotten freedom in 1994 and floods of asylum seekers had come to the country. There were bad elements entering the country under false pretences.   

Ms Lovemore raised a point of order and said that what the Chairperson had said was out of order. Those sorts of comments were irresponsible and were one of the reasons xenophobia was being perpetuated in the country. She disassociated herself from the Chairperson’s comments. She asked the Chairperson to clarify her comments.

The Chairperson said that since 1994 there had been a flood of people coming to the country both documented and undocumented and migration impacted on the economy.

Mr J McGluwa (ID) said that there were serious problems at Beitbridge border post with baboons that stole. He asked whether the Department was doing anything to address that issue.

Ms Chohan responded that the Department was training officials on how to deal with the baboons at Beitbridge.

Briefing by the Department on the “Who Am I Online” Project

Mr Apleni briefed the Committee on the Who Am I Online” Project (WAIO). The Department of Home Affairs envisaged changing the manual processes where paper forms were used as a main interface with its clients and systems to a total paperless environment where all transactions were committed online and real-time. The WAIO project was to supply a “turn-key” solution for an integrated core system based on the General Live Capture Concept (GLCC). The proposed design of the system consisted of an Integrated Core Business Application (ICBA), a set of Integrated Client Services Consoles (ICSC) for the DHA front offices locally and internationally.

The system was to provide solution for both Immigration and Civic services by integrating the National Population Register (NPR), National Immigration Information System (NIIS) and Movement Control System (MCS).
Furthermore, the Home Affairs National Identity System (HANIS) and Integrated Electronic Document Management System (IEDMS) were to be interfaced into the core system.

The Department had published a tender in April 2006 through the South African State Information Technology Agency (SITA) for the design of an integrated core business system. The system would be expected to eliminate manual and tedious processes, reduce the vast amounts of paper needed, ensure acceptable fingerprints quality at offices of application, and improve Turnaround Times for “enabling document” applications. The system would also be expected to eradicate future “Back Record Conversion” and improve overall security. The system was further expected to improve agility through the use of workflow and compliance to Service Oriented Architecture, improve integrity through the enforcement of business rules and to introduce the General Live Capture Concept (GLCC) with Highly Configurable Counters housing Integrated Client Service Consoles (ICSC) backed by Fault-tolerant Controllers for offline processing at any office in order to address the office counters, queuing and ‘look & feel’.

The tender was awarded, a year later, to Gijima/AST on 22 October 2007 at R1.9 billion although per tender documents the service provider was to conform to the following high level project schedule:
1st July 2006: supplier onsite
23 August 2006:1st iteration testing - Head Office
1st November 2006:2nd iteration testing - Kimberley
1st February 2007:3rd iteration testing - all offices
24 May 2007: Certified solution
25 May 2007: Commence worldwide rollout
31st March 2009: Complete and sign-off rollout.

The contract was signed on 31 December 2007, for a period of 5 years; however including software licences, core hardware and requirements finalisation, which were excluded in the awarding of the tender. That resulted in the increase of the tender value to R4.535 billion. The contract was signed as an operational lease although it met the requirements of a finance lease in terms of accounting standards. On submission of the Business Case in February 2009, an amount of R2.3 billion was requested for approval, which was approved in principle.

The implementation of the Project was reprioritised into three phases with an undertaking from the service provider to complete Phase 0 and 1 prior the commencement of the Soccer World Cup. The first phase was a full needs analysis around the requirements of the prioritised scope. Phase 2 would be focusing on the three key ICT functions which were identified for the 2009/2010 event to be delivered by 31 March 2009 including the Movement Control modules, the Visa Application modules, and the Permits Administration modules. The final phase would be focused on civic services and immigration services. Due to increased fraud in the processing of passports, the Department requested the service provider to move forward the ‘passport live capture’, which was part of Phase 2. It was therefore agreed to roll out the solution to 58 offices by 30 November 2009.

Gijima/AST had been unable to deliver systems with regard to the hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup and Passport ‘live capture’ solution. The capital value delivered to the project amount to R1,414 billion and was split below as follows:

Phase 0 – R210m
Phase 1 – R1,150m
Phase 2 – R54m.

The Department had paid Gijima R391 million to date. The Department signed a contract amounting to R4, 535 billion whereas the business case approved in principle by National Treasury amount to R2, 234 billion.
After careful consideration of the implications for the non delivery of the solution to the entire hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, the Department after evaluating progress made by Gijima/AST decided to develop an alternative system. The Department consulted the Minister of Finance to assist in the development of the system, since SARS was also operating in Ports of Entry. SARS together with the Department developed and implemented the new movement control system. The Department further informed Gijima that it regarded the purported contract signed between the parties as well as IBM and HP as invalid; however this repudiation was disputed. To avoid indefinite delays to the project by costly and lengthy litigation, the Department entered into negotiations to amicably resolve the dispute and allow for the urgent completion of the project in line with the original requirements.

The Department had paid R391 million as of 31 March 2010. That amount constituted R177 million paid to Gijima and R214 million to HP and IBM for lease payments (both capital and interest amounts). The settlement represents a potential R2 billion savings to Government as against the R4.5 billion estimated cost to complete the project. During the month of April 2011, the Department settled the lease payments. A report was received from the forensic auditor on the 26 June 2011.The recommendations would be discussed with the Minister for further processing and the Committee would be kept informed.

The Department was finalising the scoping of its IT modernisation project, however the following were the priorities:

• ‘
Live capture’ functionality (ID and Passport)
New National  Population Register
Core Systems Integration – Civics and IMS
Visa and Permitting system
Roll out of the new Movement Control System
Pilot of the Smart Card project
The loss to DHA is R389 million (which is R2.489 billion less R2.1 billion).

Discussion
Mr Mnqasela said that there was nothing more to say about the WAIO Project as media reports on the matter had been widespread. The Committee looked forward to seeing the surrogate programme rolled out.

Mr Apleni welcomed Mr Mnqasela’s comment.

Ms Lovemore sought clarity on the “purported contract” the Department had signed. She commented that it was not Gijima/AST’s fault that the tender process had not been followed. She commented that the two reports detailing the tendering issues should be finalised. She was not convinced that the Department had saved R2 billion by settling with Gijima/AST. Gijima/AST could not do the job they were still employed to do; they had been paid 2.5 billion to maintain hardware. There were over one hundred South African Revenue Service (SARS) employees who were employed to manage and develop the Department’s software.  

Mr Apleni responded that the “purported contract” was legalese which had been used due to the fact that Gijima/AST had changed the original asking price without notifying the Department as to why it was necessary. The blame for the failure of the WAIO Project was not being solely placed on Gijima/AST’s door step but there were principles and guidelines in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) which made it necessary for basic financial practices to be followed and Gijima/AST had not followed them. He maintained that the Department had saved R2 billion in the WAIO deal. The Department was co-opting SARS employees into the maintaining of software because they had the skills and it would save the Department money. The Department was seeking to grow partnerships with other Departments through cooperative ventures such as the management of DHA software.

Mr McGluwa commented that the Committee needed a full audit report on the WAIO Project from the Auditor General. He asked what amount had been budgeted for the
General Live Capture Concept. He asked whether the Department still gave Gijima/AST work. He applauded the idea of using the Government Printing Works (GPW) to assist with the production of smart cards.

Mr Apleni responded that the Auditor General’s report had been issued on the WAIO matter. The Department was processing a report by Professor Weiner which it would release. Forty offices were using the
General Live Capture Concept. The GPW usage was in line with the Department’s initiative to grow cooperative ventures. The costing of the project would be assessed as the process evolved. 

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: