Refugee situation in Cape Town: stakeholder engagement; with Minister and Deputy Minister

Home Affairs

11 May 2021
Chairperson: Mr M Chabane (ANC) as Acting Chairperson
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs

Tabled Committee Reports

At a virtual meeting, the Committee received follow-up briefings on the progress made by various entities in matters relating to the protesting refugees in Cape Town. This included briefings from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the City of Cape Town (CoCT), and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). Also on the agenda was for the DHA had to brief the Committee on the queries submitted by individual Members during periods of constituency work, and to provide an update on the allegations of corruption levelled against the Executive Management of the Government Printing Works (GPW).

The Committee was briefed by the UNHCR on protesting refugees. Members heard that the UNHCR in collaboration with its implementing partner the Adonis Musati Project, has reinstalled 414 persons from the Wingfield site in Cape Town back to their hosting communities for reintegration. As of 1 January 2021, the UNHCR has voluntarily repatriated 305 refugees and asylum seekers from South Africa. In addition, 135 people from the protest sites have been assessed for voluntary return interest, and 23 of these people have already returned to their home countries - the majority of which was women and children.  The UNHRC will soon close the window for refugees’ reintegration assessments of those who are living at Paint City in Bellville and Wingfield in Kensington. The refugees and asylum seekers have up until May 15 to approach the UNHCR and accept the reintegration package, which includes counselling, three months paid rent, along with food.

Members appreciated the briefing but were concerned about the gap in the Gatherings Act and felt that if it was not there then the matter of the protesting refugees could have been solved at the very start. Regarding the timeline and running out of steam when service delivery stopped at the UNHCR, they asked whether this was a result of the DPWI pulling out at that stage. The Committee asked the Minister ‘Are there standard operating procedures being developed for the future for these types of situations’? Members asked further ’Does the UNHCR or the DHA have any monitoring or follow-up mechanisms to ensure that these people are integrated well and can get sustainable incomes’? The AGSA informed the Committee that there was possibly over 900 000 migrants in South Africa and also possibly 15 million people that are undocumented. Members asked ‘How will these people be processed or documented’? Members felt strongly that it was time to review the country’s non-encampment policy. Members were disappointed to hear that 350 individuals – have remained defiant - are not willing to take the options offered by the UNHCR.

The Committee was briefed by the SAHRC on protesting refugees. Members heard that It was reported that more than 450 refugees and asylum seekers were moved to the Wingfield Military Base near Goodwood that have been put in place as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 1 000 people were .housed at Paint City. It was reported that the 485 remaining refugees at Wingfield were willing to reintegrate and 130 of them have received offers to reintegrate. Some members felt that there was no need to offer documentation to people who did not want to be reintegrated into the community. Members asked that the Committee be updated on the status of the refugees after they have been repatriated or reintegrated into their communities.

The Committee was briefed by the CoCT. Members heard that the CoCT’s participation in this process was guided by its constitutional mandate and the applicable legislation. The CoCT was participating with other stakeholders in this process to reintegrate foreign nationals. This intervention was under discussion led by SAPS Provincial JOC. The instruction from the Minister of Home Affairs was that the sites of Wingfield and Paint City must be closed on 30 April 2021 after a 14-day extension on the breaking down of tents. There was confirmation from all parties that they will work together in order to find a solution to the matter. The government had given the refugees two options, to either resettle within communities in and around Cape Town or voluntary repatriate to their countries of origin. Members asked the SAHRC to comment on whether any human rights violations were found when the inspections were conducted relating to the refugee sites and the cost incurred. The Committee heard that it had cost the CoCT R 6.71 million excluding the costs of the police presence and additional amenities. The Committee noted with gratitude and appreciation that the CoCT has really tried to support all the interventions and the intergovernmental discussions in good faith and have gone beyond its narrow constitutional role as the financial contribution has demonstrated.

The Committee was briefed by the DHA and heard that a total of 32 failed asylum seekers were deported to their country of origin. The Committee received an update regarding local reintegration: for the Wingfield site 414 individuals were assessed and have already taken up reintegration; an additional 427 have until 15 May 2021 to find alternative accommodation for local reintegration; of these, 120 people have already completed the process; the remaining 307 people still need to comply with the process; for the Paint City site 128 individuals were assessed, but none of them have identified accommodation outside of the shelters to qualify for assistance. The Director-General of the DHA commented that the DHA was able to negotiate a payment of R 499 000 for a period of three months relating to the ablution facilities An eviction order will be applied for to remove the hardliners by various stakeholders. A total of 32 failed asylum seekers were deported to their home countries. As a way forward, the Committee has urged the DHA to develop a framework on how to deal with any similar future cases. The Committee was surprised to hear that there are over 260 000 refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa who are reintegrated and living in communities.

The Committee was briefed on the allegations of corruption at the GPW.  The Committee had also received a response to various complaints raised by unions representing employees at the GPW. It was stated that the GPW plays an integral part in producing credible security documentation in South Africa and has made impressive strides in extending its footprint into the Southern African Development Community region with the ultimate goal of serving the entire African continent. The Committee has resolved to undertake - following approval processes - an oversight visit to the GPW to deal with persistent complaints raised within the institution. The Committee intends to interact with every stakeholder to ensure that resolutions are found to reported challenges at the entity including the alleged loss of data and the system crash that hampered production.

Generally, the Committee welcomed the reintegration into society of 414 refugees and asylum seekers who were residing at the Wingfield and Paint City temporary site. Despite a number of challenges encountered since the start of the matter, the Committee appreciates the work put in by all stakeholders to conclude the matter. Nonetheless, the Committee is concerned that some 350 people remain defiant and have resolved not to take advantage of the generous offers made by the UNHCR. Members were angered to hear that children have been denied the right to attend school or education for more than a year. It is expected that the Department of Social Development would have by now acted by removing those children from their parents who deny them this right and placing them in places of safety where they would be able to pursue their education.

Meeting report

Mr Eddie Mathonsi, Committee Secretariat, noted that Chairperson Bongo was on leave. This necessitated the election of an Acting Chairperson for this meeting. If more than one person is nominated the Committee would have to vote. Mr M Chabane (ANC) was duly elected as the Acting Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson convened the virtual meeting and welcomed Members. He noted the apologies from Adv B Bongo (ANC) and Ms A Khanyile (DA). He welcomed the delegations from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the City of Cape Town (CoCT), and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA).

The delegation from the UNHCR consisted of Mr Leonard Zulu, Representative of the UNHCR, Mr Igor Ciobanu, Deputy Representative of the UNHCR, and Mr Jesus Perez, Senior Protection Officer of the UNHCR. The delegation from the SAHRC consisted of Mr Chris Nissen, Part-time Commissioner: SAHRC, and Mr Ghalib Galant, Project Leader: Provincial Facilitation Office, Synergy Works. The delegation from the CoCT consisted of Councillor JP Smith.

The delegation from the DHA consisted of Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Nzuza Njabulo, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Tommy Makhode, Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs, Mr Gordon Hollamby, Deputy-Director General: Finance & Supply-Chain Management, Department of Home Affairs, and Mr Thulani Mavuso, Deputy-Director General: Institutional Planning & Support, Department of Home Affairs.

The purpose of the meeting was for the Committee to receive follow-up briefings on the progress made by various entities relating to the protesting refugees in Cape Town. This included briefings from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), the City of Cape Town (CoCT), and the Department of Home Affairs (DHA). Another item on the agenda was for the DHA to brief the Committee on the queries submitted by individual Members during periods of constituency work, and to provide an update on the allegations of corruption levelled against the Executive Management of the Government Printing Works (GPW). The last item on the agenda was for the Committee to consider and adopt its Budget Vote Report on the DHA and its entities.

Briefing by the UNHCR on protesting refugees in Cape Town

The first item on the agenda was the briefing by the UNHCR on the issue of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. Mr Leonard Zulu, the Representative of the UNHCR, presented the briefing to the Committee.

Overview of the issue of protesting refugees:

The UNHCR in collaboration with its implementing partner (the Adonis Musati Project), has reinstalled 414 persons from the Wingfield site in Cape Town back to their hosting communities for reintegration. As of 1 January 2021, the UNHCR has voluntarily repatriated 305 refugees and asylum seekers from South Africa. This included 197 people from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 107 people from Burundi, and one person from Burkina Faso. In addition, 135 people from the protest sites have been assessed for voluntary return interest, and 23 of these people have already returned to their home countries. A majority of these cases were women and children. The assessments of 128 people from the splinter group outside Paint City were completed, and the group was subsequently moved to the Wingfield site by an NGO. The UNHCR remains ready and available to assess protestors who want to be reintegrated up until 15 May 2021. All people assessed for reintegration will be individually verified against the DHA list of those that were moved in 2020 to maintain integrity and audit control.

The UNHCR continues to pass the following key messages to the protestors: ‘respect for the rule of law, return peacefully to host communities’, and messaging on resettlement including no group resettlement and the inapplicability for these individuals. The UNHCR’s focus is on supporting local integration and inclusion through the provision of social and legal assistance provided the occupants leave the temporary sites and have extended its offer of reintegration until 15 May 2021 during which partners remain engaged in needs assessments of persons expressing an interest in reintegrating. After 15 May 2021 the UNHCR will disengage in this activity. The UNHCR continues to provide voluntary return counselling and support. Despite the progress there are still three major concerns that need to be addressed. First, there is a need for undocumented persons to be regularised within the asylum process before interest in voluntary return can be processed (around 72 persons). The voluntary return programme remains ongoing. Secondly, for the group of 414 persons that have been integrated, stakeholders and civil society should continue to counsel and engage to ensure the sustainability of the reintegration process. Thirdly, there are concerns that without access controls at the sites and updated verification lists of persons staying on site, this problem will continue to self-perpetuate with a constant stream of newcomers.

The UNHRC will soon close the window for refugees’ reintegration assessments of those who are living at Paint City in Bellville and Wingfield in Kensington. The refugees and asylum seekers have up until May 15 to approach the UNHCR and accept the reintegration package which includes counselling, three months paid rent, along with food. The UNHCR expressed its gratitude for the hard work, collaboration, and efforts towards resolving the protest situation that was shown by the CoCT law enforcement agencies, the South African Police Services (SAPS), and the DHA along with various other stakeholders and partner organisations.

Briefing by the SAHRC on protesting refugees in Cape Town

The second item on the agenda was the briefing by the SAHRC on the issue of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. Mr Chris Nissen, Part-time Commissioner, presented the briefing to the Committee.

South Africa’s refugee law

Just over two decades ago, South Africa adopted the Refugees Act 130 of 1998 which incorporated the global and regional international refugee law-related obligations. For its time, the Refugees Act was progressive and advanced in terms of the scope and content of protection it provided to refugees. The coming into force on 1 January 2020 of the Refugees Amendment Act 11 of 2017 substantively and detrimentally altered our country’s refugee protection landscape by severely restricting access to the asylum regime and by denying asylum-seekers substantive rights that were previously available to them pursuant to International Refugee Law related obligations and court judgments. The amended Refugees Act also withdrew status and protection from refugees in circumstances that violated the spirit International Refugee Law.

Overview of the issue of protesting refugees

More than 450 refugees and asylum seekers who were sent from pillar to post have been moved to the Wingfield Military Base near Goodwood where they are expected to stay for the duration of the national lockdowns that have been put in place as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 1 000 people were also housed at Paint City and the numbers have continuously increased.

The briefing focused on the Safety Lab Report compiled. It was reported that Mr Nathaniel Roloff, Director of the Safety Lab, has done extensive work with the Refugees from both Wingfield and Paint City. In conjunction with Bushra Razack from Phillppi Village, Roloff has been giving psycho-social, medical, and food relief assistance from the inception of the Wingfield and Paint City sites. Neither of the organisations involved had a mission or mandate relating to refugee work. It was reported that the remaining refugees at Wingfield are willing to reintegrate. There are 485 remaining individuals, of which 130 have received offers to reintegrate. The DHA is responsible for processing the applications from asylum seekers relating to renewals. The remaining refugees need to be assessed and provided offers for reintegration.

It was reported that Wingfield has never operated similarly to or had the same demands as Paint City. Wingfield should be treated differently to Paint City due to the drastically worse condition it has suffered under management of the government, and the vastly different approach they had to collaboration as well as willingness to reintegrate. The donor agencies of the two involved organisations have been fulfilling the government mandates in many cases which have built the trust required to facilitate some of these processes.

The Safety Lab indicated its willingness to use its remaining resources to facilitate the government’s offers for reintegration. However, there is a lack of the required support to fund the basic offers toward this end. It was reported that the only two remaining requirements to be able to close this tent from the UNHCR and the DHA includes viable offers of reintegration packages, and document processing at offices of the DHA.

Briefing by the CoCT on protesting refugees in Cape Town

The third item on the agenda was the briefing by the CoCT on the issue of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. Councillor JP Smith Councillor at the CoCT presented the briefing to the Committee.

Overview of the issue of protesting refugees

The CoCT’s participation in this process is guided by its constitutional mandate and applicable legislation. This intervention is under discussion led by SAPS Provincial JOC. The CoCT is participating with other stakeholders in a process in relation to the reintegration of the foreign nationals. The instruction from the Minister of Home Affairs was that the sites of Wingfield and Paint City must be closed on 30 April 2021 after a 14-day extension on the breaking down of tents. There was confirmation from all parties that they will work together in order to find a solution to the matter. The government had given the refugees two options; to either resettle within communities in and around Cape Town or voluntary repatriate back to their countries of origin.

During the update provided on 28 April 2021 by the PROVJOC, it was reported that the DHA is busy with the process in terms of documentation regarding refugees and asylum seekers and will have interventions on 29 and 30 April 2021 at the Wingfield and Paint City sites. Those undocumented refugees will be removed from these sites. The UNHCR is still busy with the reintegration process regarding refugees and asylum seekers and will have interventions on the mentioned days at the Wingfield and Paint City sites. They will deal with approximately 400 refugees at the Wingfield site and 120 at the Paint City site. By Friday afternoon 30 April 2021 they should be in a position to indicate who of the refugees are left and who do not want to comply with the reintegration process or the voluntary repatriation offered to them. Any forceful removal from the tents of those who do not want to co-operate will not be possible. This will amount to an arbitrary eviction which is unlawful. If the occupants agree to vacate the tents voluntarily, no eviction order will then be required. This is the ideal solution to this matter. The CoCT is still awaiting feedback on this matter and whether evictions orders are required. This was the status of affairs on 28 April 2021.

Briefing by the DHA on protesting refugees in Cape Town

The fourth item on the agenda was the briefing by the DHA on the issue of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. Mr Tommy Makhode, the Director-General of the DHA, presented the briefing to the Committee.

Background to the briefing:

In line with a court judgement on 17 February 2020, the DHA was required to conduct a verification process (in terms of the Refugees Act and the Immigration Act 13 of 2002) in relation to the protesters occupying the Greenmarket square area and all those persons who associate themselves with the aims of those protesters (those inside Central Methodist Church) for a period of seven days from the date of the court order.

In compliance with the court order, the DHA with the assistance of the SAPS and the CoCT conducted such verification from 19 to 27 February 2020 at the Salt River Community Hall. A total of 781 persons were interviewed for verification. After the verification process there was a Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs meeting on 10 March 2020 where Chief Whips of Parties who are not members of the Committee also attended. They were angered by events that happened in court when one of the protestors caused havoc. The Committee ruled that there were two options for the protestors: Either they had to be integrated into communities where they came from in Cape Town, or those who refused must be deported to their countries of origin. The stakeholders that were instructed were the DHA, the CoCT, the SAHRC, and the UNHCR, and were given a period of 30 days to complete this work. Unfortunately after a few days the country went into lockdown as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In terms of the Disaster Management Act 75 of 2002 and in compliance with the COVID-19 regulations nobody could be in the streets regardless of their nationality. The protesters inside the Central Methodist Church were relocated on the 2nd April 2020 to the temporary shelter at Paint City in Bellville and the protesters on the outside streets - approximately 350 persons - were relocated on 7 April 2020 to the temporary shelter at the Wingfield Military base in Maitland. The relocations were conducted with the participation of the DHA, the SAPS, the CoCT, the Department of Social Development, the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), and the Department of Health.

When the country moved to level one of the lockdowns, the refugee appeals institutions processing then started by the Refugee Appeals Authority of South Africa (RAASA), and the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs (SCRA). The RAASA is an independent body that adjudicates appeals by refugees who have been denied asylum by the DHA. The SCRA is an independent body that ensures that appeal cases are dealt with efficiently, effectively and in an unbiased manner in accordance with the Refugees Act.

A total of 1580 persons were processed at the two sites of Paint City and Wingfield. At the Paint City temporary shelter 538 people were processed by 30 October 2020 and 1 042 people were processed at the Wingfield temporary shelter. It was this processing by RAASA and SCRA that identified people who are no longer in need of international protection and so the DHA started the deportation processes.

It was known that during the protest the protestors were split into two factions. One was led by Mr JP Baluse and his wife Ms Aline Bukuru. The other one was led by Mr Papi Sakumi. One faction stayed outside the Church in Green Market Square and the other remained inside the Church. These ringleaders were championing the fight for the refugees and asylum seekers. Due to the work done by the SCRA and RAASA, the 32 persons from the protesting groups have been deported from South Africa because they did not qualify for asylum and international protection. Both Ms Aline Bukuru and Mr Papi Sakumi were transferred to Lindela Holding Centre and were deported on 31 March 2021. Mr JP Baluse who caused havoc in court remains in custody. His case was heard on 4 May 2021 and was subsequently postponed to June 2021.

While the RAASA and the SCRA were busy with its appeals the UNHCR moved in and made two offers in line with the Committee’s instruction of 10 March 2020. To offers were made by the UNHCR to the refugees. The first offer included three months rental and food supply for those who opt to reintegrate back into communities. The second offer was made by the International Organisation for Migration who offered voluntary repatriation to those who want to go back to their countries of origin. Contrary to belief the two centres were not refugee centres but shelters under the Disaster Management Act. At the Paint City site the DPWI supplied facilities as part of the regulations. The DPWI pulled out because it could no longer pay for these facilities. When the DHA approached the National Treasury to continue with these facilities a warning was issued to the DHA that the funding to pay for these shelters would constitute irregular expenditure as South Africa has a policy of non-encampment. The UNHCR on humanitarian grounds supplied the facilities for 90 days only, also being restricted by the non-encampment policy and budgetary constraints.

Developments since the last meeting with the Committee on 26 February 2021

During February 2021 the DHA received notice from the UNHCR that it was financially unable to continue with payments for the tent and ablution facilities at Paint City. The DHA, based on humanitarian grounds, again approached the National Treasury to ask for permission to utilise the DHA’s budget to pay for these facilities (marquee and ablution facilities) at Paint City. The DHA also approached the National Treasury for approval to take over the responsibility of providing accommodation and ablution facilities at Wingfield. The events of March and April 2021 were outlined to the Committee as follows:

  • On 10 March 2021, the DHA also approached the Mayor of the CoCT to provide ablution facilities for a one-week period whist the DHA awaited the approval from the National Treasury.
  • On 11 March 2021 after obtaining approval from the National Treasury, the ablution facilities (consisting out of 20 toilets, 20 showers, and ten sanitary bins) were replaced at Paint City by the DHA. The payment for the tent at Paint City was also taken over by the DHA.
  • On 26 March 2021, the DHA received a letter from the CoCT that they intend to remove the infrastructure marquee tent and ablution facilities at Wingfield on 15 April 2021. The CoCT had obtained a negative audit finding by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) regarding its continued expenditure at Wingfield. The CoCT took a decision to end their continued payment for facilities by 15 April 2021. This decision by the CoCT would have disrupted the work of the UNHCR.
  • On 15 April 2021 a meeting was held between the Minister of Home Affairs, the Director-General of the DHA, the Premier of the Western Cape, and the CoCT. At the meeting, it was agreed that the DHA and the Western Cape Provincial Government would share the cost of the marquee tent and ablution facilities at Wingfield for a period of two weeks only ending on 30 April 2021. This decision was also taken to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
  • On 19 April 2021 the Minister of Home Affairs announced this joint decision (supported by the UNHCR Representative and the Premier of the Western Cape) that the tents and ablution facilities at both Wingfield and Paint City temporary shelters will be removed two weeks after 15 April 2021.
  • On 24 April 2021 the various refugees and asylum seekers were served notices informing them of the envisaged shut down of temporary shelters. The notices were printed in five languages including French, English, Arabic, Kirdi-Swahili, and Swahili. Interpreters from the UNHCR read out the notices and explained the content over a loud hailer at both shelters. The refugees and asylum seekers were encouraged to consider the UNHCR’s reintegration package to reintegrate back into their communities or to present themselves for voluntary repatriation to their countries of origin.
  • On 26 April 2021 Maj-Gen Lincoln from the SAPS convened the Exit Strategy Task Team to plan the shutting down of the two shelters on 30 April 2021. The SAPS were requested by the UNHCR to allow them to finalise the registration process for those willing to reintegrate and those wishing to repatriate.
  • A follow up meeting of the Task Team was held on 28 April 2021. The key stakeholders in attendance were the DHA, the SAPS, the CoCT, and the Office of the Premier, the Department of Social Development and the UNHCR. The outcomes were that the plans outlined will resume once these stakeholders have concluded their processes.

It also appeared that some of the persons coming forward were not part of the initial protest and did not stay at the facilities. They rather came during the day implying that they are safely integrated with local communities. After the meeting, the UNHCR Representative and the Director-General of the DHA did an in loco inspection of the two shelters and distributed more of the notices. During the inspection it was discovered that some persons indicated that they were undocumented and were advised to report to the DHA and 34 people subsequently did so. They were amongst a group of 43 persons who were identified as undocumented by the UNHCR.

Update on voluntary repatriation and temporary shelters:

The UNHCR is facilitating the voluntary repatriation of protesters who have opted to return to their home countries. Between 1 January and 21 March 2021 it was reported that 305 individuals have voluntary departed South Africa to their countries of origin.

The latest report on voluntary returns stated that there were 23 individuals which included one terminally ill individual from Wingfield site. In addition 135 individuals are being assessed for voluntary return and the number included 43 undocumented persons. The undocumented persons were referred by the UNHCR to the DHA’s Inspectorate to find a dignified way of returning them to their own county.

It is also important to note that while the refugees and asylum seekers were at Paint City, they again split into two factions. The first faction was the hardliners comprising of 350 people in the marquee. They have refused the generous offer by the UNHCR for reintegration or voluntary repatriation. They also plan to use children as human shields during police operations. In this regard, the Department of Social Development has been engaged to assist. The second faction was another group comprising of 128 people that were expelled from the Marquee and could not access the ablution facilities. This group was expelled because they wanted to exercise the option to reintegrate, contrary to the hardliners. The group was staying outside and was registered for reintegration on 29 April 2021 following a visit by the UNHCR and the DHA. These teams worked hard to move them from the area.

An update regarding local reintegration was presented to the Committee. For the Wingfield site 414 individuals were assessed and have already taken up reintegration. An additional 427 have until 15 May 2021 to find alternative accommodation for local reintegration. Of these, 120 people have already completed the process, while the remaining 307 people still need to comply with the process. For the Paint City site, 128 individuals were assessed, but none of them have identified accommodation outside of the shelters to qualify for assistance. The rest of the people (350 individuals) have remained defiant and are not willing to take the options by the UNHCR. Further an eviction order will be applied for to remove the hardliners by various stakeholders. A total of 32 failed asylum seekers deported to their home countries. The UNHCR processes will be continued until 15 May 2021 thereafter the exit strategy will be implemented. The phased exit strategy will be implemented in line with International Conventions. The process will run up until 15 May 2021, and once the marquee and ablution facilities have been removed, the CoCT bylaws will kick in.

South Africa is a signatory to the United Nations’ Refugee Convention of 1951 which defines who a refugee is and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant the status. The UNHCR has informed the refugees that while they are in the country it is required that they observe the laws of the country. It is important to note that there is no ‘one size-fits-all’ approach to integration, countries apply this approach depending on numerous factors. These include efforts to enable refugees to reach and develop their full potential, to protect their human rights, employment opportunities, and access to education, reduce their marginalisation, and foster social cohesion and harmonious coexistence. The UNHCR has a monitoring tool for integration into society through the social assistance implementing partner. Those that they have been integrated have been providing positive feedback to the UNHCR. It was recommended that the Committee notes and appreciate the presentation made by the DHA.

Discussion

The Acting Chairperson thanked the delegations for the briefings made to the Committee. He stated that during the first stages of the Committee’s dealings with the matter, there were no indications that there would be cohesion in resolving the issues at play. The Committee and stakeholders realised that it is important that the various stakeholders come together to attempt to resolve the matter. He appreciated the progress made.

Mr A Roos (DA) agreed with the comments of the Acting Chairperson regarding the need for cohesion and collaboration in resolving the matter of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. He thanked the UNHCR for continuously aiding the DHA in their work, and the CoCT for ensuring progress. He said ‘It is really unfortunate that the CoCT had obtained a negative audit finding by the AGSA regarding its continued expenditure at Wingfield that was classified as irregular expenditure, especially since the DHA was not willing to take responsibility for the matter’. He referred to the Gatherings Act 205 of 1993 and stated that by the time that the refugees gathered outside the UNHCR’s offices, the CoCT could not remove them as they were allowed to gather. It makes it exceedingly difficult for cities to enforce its bylaws in those situations when people are technically not together in groups. ‘At what point is it no longer an issue of human rights or xenophobia and where other laws should take their course’? There appears to be a gap in the Gatherings Act that if it was not there, then the matter of the protesting refugees could have been solved at the very start. Regarding the timeline and running out of steam when service delivery stopped at the UNHCR, he asked whether this was a result of the DPWI pulling out at that stage. The SAHRC mentioned the need for intergovernmental cooperation, and this was something that the Committee called for way back in October 2019. It seems that the intervention to move people out of Paint City was done unilaterally. ‘Was this agreed to with PROVJOC and was the UNHCR consulted in this decision’? He asked the Minister of Home Affairs how similar situations would be handled in the future. ‘Are there standard operating procedures being developed for the future for these types of situations’? Funding is clearly problematic with these types of situations showing another gap. The National Action Plan to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerances actually calls for the establishment of a rapid response mechanism that the Cabinet should be allocated funding for. This should be investigated and an update given on the progress in this regard. The Committee requires an intergovernmental approach led by the DHA to establish a national competency with clear stakeholders.

Ms M Molekwa (ANC) appreciated the briefings made to the Committee. She acknowledged the progress made so far and appreciated the collaboration between the various stakeholders. She asked for clarity on who will be responsible for the funding of people not going back to their home countries, and what entity will be footing the bill for people being reintegrated into their communities. The UNHCR indicated that people will be taken care of for a period of three months when they are reintegrated into their communities, specifically regarding rental and food needs. ‘’Does the UNHCR or the DHA have any monitoring or follow-up mechanisms to ensure that these people are integrated well and can get sustainable incomes’?

Ms L Tito (EFF) welcomed the briefings made to the Committee. She asked when the CoCT will finish the reintegration of the migrants who did not volunteer for repatriation. ‘What is the financial burden of maintaining the two sites until it will be demolished’? When the DHA approached the National Treasury to continue with these facilities, a warning was issued to the DHA that the funding to pay for these shelters would constitute irregular expenditure as South Africa has a policy of non-encampment. ‘How much money was the DHA assisted with by the UNHCR contributing to the payments for facilities’?

Ms L van der Merwe (IFP) asked for more clarity on the plans for people who are not willing to be repatriated or reintegrated into their communities. ‘While we were dealing with these presentations in the past, we actually spoke about the need to engage the ambassadors of the countries of origin or the country representatives of the individuals coming from Burundi, the DRC, Malawi, Tanzania, all of the countries that have been mentioned’. She asked whether the DHA had engaged some of these country representatives to assist them, in particular with the hardliners that are quite clearly gearing themselves up for a confrontation with the government of South Africa. ‘At the end of the day, as much as it has become the problem of South Africa with these individuals not wanting to comply with our laws and regulations, it is also the responsibility of the countries of origin’. She then referred to the DHA’s own budgetary constraints and asked how much has been spent or prioritised from the DHA’s budget for the payment of these facilities to ablution facilities and the tents with regard to the deportations that were affected. Were they all paid for by the UNHCR or did some of deportations come from the DHA’s budget. She was particularly perturbed by the mention that some of these hard liners at the specifically at Paint City site will be using children as shields if it comes to that. She noted that the Department of Social Development has been engaged in this regard and asked what assistance is required. ‘We really thank the UNHCR for their generous offer to these individuals in terms of taking them back to their countries of origin or even paying their rent. However, when it is all said and done, when this situation is hopefully resolved, it seems like we have a problem in terms of how South Africa processes these asylum seekers and refugees that come into our country. There is a backlog with over 200 applications from asylum seekers, and there seems to be no plan for their resolution’. The AGSA informed the Committee that there is possibly over 900 000 migrants in South Africa, and possibly 15 million people that are undocumented. ‘How will these people be processed or documented’? She asked whether it is not time to review the country’s non-encampment policy and stated that there is a need to consider how other countries treat and process refugees coming into their countries.

Mr M Tshwaku (EFF) welcomed the briefings made to the Committee. He stated that the presentation by the CoCT should have been more detailed. The offers presented to the refugees are reasonable by presenting them with the choice to either be reintegrated into their communities or to be repatriated and returned to their home countries. There is a need to offer documentation to the people who do not want to be reintegrated into the community. We reached a point where the disaster management phase is coming to an end, and they will be required to be reintegrated back into the community. Perhaps before the drastic steps (such as forced evictions), the Committee should satisfy itself regarding this matter to see whether there is a possible third solution to this crisis. He asked the SAHRC to comment on whether any human rights violations were found when the inspections were conducted relating to the refugee sites.

Ms T Legwase (ANC) appreciated the briefings made to the Committee. She acknowledged the progress made so far and appreciated the collaboration between the various stakeholders, and the work that has been done by UNHCR since the beginning of this matter. She asked that the Committee be updated on the status of the refugees after they have been repatriated or reintegrated into their communities.

Mr K Pillay (ANC) was pleased and satisfied with the work that has been done but also said that there has to be finality on this matter. He expressed concern about the 350 people that do not want to be integrated and stated that they cannot just be sent home since they are just adamant that they will not move and that they are not going to go anywhere. ‘It sounds as if they are holding the country to ransom because they will not go anywhere unless it is exactly where they want to go, such as Canada. It is important that the DHA informs the Committee on the legal recourse with regard to these 350 people. The matter should be handled with care to avoid a media spectacle around it. However, it is important that the narrative that we set is to indicate that we have exhausted all options in affording them the opportunity to be reintegrated or to or to be deported, and that these people have chosen not to use any of the opportunities presented. The matter should be finalised and close, and if necessary, legal recourse should be used in this regard’.

Acting Chairperson Chabane thanked Members for the inputs made. He asked the delegations to respond briefly to the issues raised, as the Committee had other items on the agenda to attend to.

Reponses by the UNHCR, the SAHRC, the CoCT, and the DHA:

Mr Igor Ciobanu, the Deputy Representative of the UNHCR, responded that the facilities cost the UNHCR about R 48 000 per month and was paid for in 90 days (three months). The UNHCR does not support deportations, but rather endorses voluntary returns where people are conditioned for their returns. It is appreciated that the government of South Africa is against the encampment of people. The UNHCR is promoting all reintegration or local integration of persons in need of international protection. The UNHCR is also working with the Adonis Musati Project to ensure the successful reintegration of the remaining refugees.

Mr Ghalib Galant, the Project Leader of the Provincial Facilitation Office, Synergy Works at the SAHRC, responded that South Africa is a constitutional democracy and that people have the right to protest. However, this also comes with various responsibilities. The SAHRC does not work outside of its constitutional mandate, but there are many times that there are irresponsible protesters causing human rights violations, such as violating the right of the children to go to school. The SAHRC has been working with the CoCT and other stakeholders in this regard. The SAHRC not only monitors these situations, but also tries to seek solutions to make sure that volatile situations can be diffused. He confirmed that it was the DPWI who were providing the services at Paint City that were then withdrawn at the end of January 2021, while at the Wingfield site it was the CoCT that withdrew service provision on 15 April. Other stakeholders then had to take over the provision of services. Regarding the question of intergovernmental cooperation, he responded that it was not the SAHRC that moved people to the Wingfield site. It was done by the NGOs that have been providing humanitarian support to the residents at the refugee sites. He stated that nothing stops the CoCT from applying its bylaws, but the issue at the church was that there was a private landowner who needed a court order to evict people which had nothing to do with people’s right to protest.

Councillor JP Smith responded to the questions around the process of reintegration of refugees. He stated that the presentations by various stakeholders clarified that this was not something that would be undertaken by the CoCT. It is not within the CoCT’s competencies. Regarding the question on the costs of the tents, he responded that it has cost the CoCT R 6.71 million, excluding the costs of police presence and additional amenities. The CoCT has really tried to support all these interventions and the intergovernmental discussions in good faith and have gone beyond its sort of narrow constitutional role in this regard as the financial contribution demonstrates. In the meantime, the costs incurred are a problem because the AGSA has now made it clear that the CoCT cannot legally incur these costs. It is beyond its competency, as the CoCT has been saying over the last more than half a year, that whilst it did so under the original shelter provision and there is a current shelter provision, but the original shelter provision compelled the CoCT to do so. The current shelter provision simply says that the CoCT must identify shelters and if the CoCT are to identify shelters then it would point to the current safe spaces and homeless shelters which still have some spare capacity. Originally, the CoCT incurred this cost in good faith by anticipating in a shorter period of lockdown than was in the end. Nobody expected the lockdown to proceed this long when it was initially declared. The CoCT is now caught in a situation where it cannot legitimately and legally incur further cost, but that until the eviction is undertaken, all people are voluntarily reintegrated. At some point, a final discussion will need to take place between the CoCT and other stakeholders because the CoCT is now being given truly clear instructions by the idea as to what costs can and cannot be incurred as a local government.

Mr Tommy Makhode, Director-General of the DHA, commented that the DHA was able to negotiate a payment of R 499 000 for a period of three months relating to the ablution facilities. Regarding the assistance sought from the Department of Social Development, he stated that the children have been denied the right to attend school or education for more than a year. It is expected that the Department of Social Development would have by now acted by removing those children from their parents who deny them this right and placing them in places of safety where they would be able to pursue their education. The fact that these children are used as human shields also places them in danger, is in direct contradiction to the Children’s Act 38 of 2005. The Department of Social Development has a mandate to act against the parents in terms of removing those children and placing them in places of safety where they will be safe from harm as well as being able to attend school. There are over 260 000 refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa who are reintegrated and living in communities. The protests in Cape Town cannot be regarded as a failure of South Africa’s refugee law, but that it was rather a protest of people who want to be resettled to other countries that exclude South Africa and their home countries.

Mr Nzuza Njabulo, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, stated that the DHA is moving towards finalising the matter of the protesting refugees in Cape Town. There is a need for the support of all stakeholders, including the Committee, so that decisive action can be taken. Because when people say that human rights are being violated, whilst they deny their own children the right to go to school and make people live under conditions that are not desirable, it cannot be tolerated. They cannot come into human rights whilst they themselves are really abusing their human rights. The government’s action has to be in the best interest of the children living in the refugee sites who have not had the chance to go to school. He stated that it was not fair of Mr Roos to say that the DHA leaves its work to the CoCT. All of the stakeholders have a responsibility to share as various government institutions, and that is what has been happening. The progress that has been made has been literally because of our ability to work together. ‘We cannot have a situation where we provide for integration and the people then refuse and then we call it a stalemate. We have to find ways of applying the law and making sure that there are those who integrate and those who seek to go back to their countries. We facilitated that particular process. The DHA has been proactive in the engagement with other ambassadors in this regard.

Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Home Affairs, agreed with Mr Njabulo that the DHA has been proactive in the engagement with other ambassadors in this regard to facilitate the finalisation of the matter of the protesting refugees. ‘Nobody is deported without their ambassadors being kept in the loop’. The UNHCR explained to the refugees that there is no mechanism under which they can take people as a group to Canada, as was the demands of the protestors. The reasons that these protestors want to go to Canada is because of the progressive nature and economic advancement of the country with lots of social services which cannot be afforded in South Africa. These are the reasons that the protesters do not want to agree to the offers made by the UNHCR. Canada will never allow people who settled as a group because people who resettled in third countries must apply as individuals. He agreed with Mr Pillay’s comments regarding the unwillingness of the protesters to accept the offers made. He stated that human rights go hand in glove with responsibilities, any person who demands human rights or who must receive human rights has equally a responsibility to take responsibility for certain actions. This matter must come to an end.

The Acting Chairperson thanked the delegations for the responses submitted. He stated that despite a number of challenges encountered since the start of the matter, the Committee appreciates the work put in by all stakeholders to conclude the matter. He further welcomed the visible collaboration between the UNHCR, the CoCT, the Western Cape Provincial Government, the SAHRC, and the DHA to conclude the matter. The Committee appreciated the spirit of Ubuntu personified by the people of South Africa who have welcomed back the 414 people into communities. This dispels the wrong impression created those refugees and asylum-seekers are not welcome in South Africa. He stated that the reintegration proves the long-held view that protests were premised on misinformation and nefarious reasons outside of those that were presented. He stated that the Committee was of the view that everything humanly possible has been done to assist the group of protesters and their continued defiance is unjustified and irresponsible. The Committee welcomed the initiative by the DHA to call on the Department of Social Services to assist, especially in relation to school-going children. Members are even more concerned by the suggestions that children and women will be used as human shields when the removals are implemented. This is inexcusable especially in the context of the generous offers made. He thanked the delegations in attendance for the briefings made to the Committee. He excused the delegations from the UNHCR, the SAHRC, and the CoCT from the remainder of the meeting.

Update by the DHA on the progress made relating to the queries submitted by the Committee

Another item on the agenda was for the DHA to brief the Committee on the queries submitted by individual Members during periods of constituency work. Mr Makhode, the Director-General of the DHA, stated that the DHA has received two sets of lists both from Parliament and the Committee. On the Parliamentary list, the DHA received 195 queries to date and 160 have been finalised. The DHA will ensure that due diligence is conducted on the remaining 35 queries that are still pending. The DHA needs to verify every step that is required in the verification processes. On the second list 32 queries have been received from the Committee of which 14 have been finalised. An update was provided to Members on the status of the queries lodged.

The Acting Chairperson stated that there must be a commitment from the DHA to respond to all queries made by Members and the Committee. He appreciated the responses from the DHA in this regard.

Update by the DHA on the allegations of corruption involving the GPW

The next item on the agenda was for the DHA to provide an update on the allegations of corruption levelled against the Executive Management of the GPW. Dr Motsoaledi presented the briefing to the Committee.

Overview of the allegations of corruption involving the GPW

Dr Motsoaledi stated that there was a response by the DHA to a letter written by organised labour and government which are constituted by the Public Service Commission. Structures and entities who received this letter are being requested to investigate maladministration and elements of corruption against government members. The issues raised in the letters related to relief payments, the issues of personal protective equipment (PPEs), and the lack of uniformed security officers. Regarding the claims of exorbitant amounts of money paid to previous members of the Executive Management of the GPW that was disguised as COVID-19 allowances, he stated that the allegations involved the general manager of human resources and the Acting General Manager of Production and Operations who paid themselves exorbitant amounts of money. In the resolution, which was signed on 10 June 2020, employees were granted permission not to forfeit their annual accumulated leave. These could have been taken by the end of June but to ensure that all the days of leave are utilised by 28 December. He stated that there is a tendency for government employees and public servants to not take leave but to accumulate it in order to get money at retirement.

To curb this, a resolution was taken by the Department of Public Services and Administration that if leave days have been accumulated, they must have been used by June of the year otherwise it will be forfeited without compensation. This resolution was taken because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deadline for taking the leave was extended until December 2020. Employees who could not take their leave because of the operational needs of their employers could have their leave paid out if it could not be rescheduled.

On the issue of security and other officers having no uniforms the reason was because the government, to its impact on the tender process for uniforms, the tender was evaluated, but none of the people complied with the requirements, the most important of which was local contributions. That means when the uniforms are produced, there must be local contributions in order to encourage economic development, the country, rather than just wandering things overseas for the time.

Discussion

The Acting Chairperson thanked the Minister for the brief and detailed report on the letter written by organised labour and government which collectively are constituted by the Public Service Commission. He stated that the Committee directed investigations into the allegations that applications for the position of the Chief Financial Officer of the GPW were stolen. The Committee has dealt with this matter in detail. But what is becoming clearer now is that the Committee must pay special attention to the details of the emerging issues which impacted negatively on the GPW. He noted that the letter was used to refer to many stakeholders but Parliament wanted to focus on what is being dealt with, who we must deal with and other activities that will be carried by the Public Protector. The Committee has the responsibility to conduct oversight over this matter.

Ms Legwase agreed that the Committee has the responsibility to conduct oversight over this matter and the duty to interact with all the stakeholders of the GPW. She appreciated the information presented on the process on how far they are with securing the uniforms for security officers. The Committee would like to know the relationship between management and the labour unions. It is not the first time that administrative matters are raised with the Committee. The Committee needs to get a sense of whether there is a good working relationship between the labour unions and the management of the GPW. Another issue is the allegation by the unions that the GPW is in a bad financial state. She asked for a response on this allegation.

Ms Tito agreed with Ms Legwase on the need for the Committee to conduct oversight over this matter.

Mr Roos stated that the GPW is an entity with massive potential. The Committee has to be careful not to say that just because an organisation complained more than once or different things, that those are then related to the same type. It is crucial that the Committee looks into the different types of complaints as separate things. He thanked the Minister of Home Affairs for investigating the latest allegations. The other allegations are allegations of mismanagement, and corruption relating to PPEs has to be investigated by law enforcement agencies. One person may have withdrawn their statement but there were many other allegations. The DA took the step of saying that these allegations have to be investigated by the police. He noted that the Minister of Home Affairs asked the Hawks to investigate the undue influence on the appointment of the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the GPW, and an outcome on those processes was still required.

Ms Molekwa appreciated the report by the Minister of Home Affairs regarding the allegations against the GPW. There are now new allegations that have been imposed from the union to the management of the GPW. This animosity has been going on for some time. There is a need for the Committee to attend to this as a matter of urgency in order to put the matter to rest. She agreed with Ms Legwase and Ms Tito on the need for the Committee to conduct oversight over this matter to finalise the issues at play.

Mr Tshwaku agreed that there is a need for the Committee to conduct oversight over this matter as the allegations are extremely serious.

Ms van der Merwe supported the move by other Members that the Committee should conduct oversight over this matter by conducting investigations and engaging with the staff involved. There is clearly something amiss at the GPW. She agreed with Mr Roos that the GPW is an entity with massive potential. It is quite tragic that there are constant allegations and counter allegations regarding the GPW. It is time to finalise the matter.

Mr Pillay and Ms Modise also supported the move that the Committee should conduct oversight over this matter. They agreed with Members’ concerns regarding the need for oversight.

Responses by the DHA and the GPW:

Ms Alinah Fosi, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the GPW, stated that when you are the head of the family and you actually learn that your own children have gone to the neighbour's house to complain about your internal household matters, it should worry you. She commented that it obviously calls for introspection to establish whether things have actually gone wrong. As the management of the GPW it is recognised that the letters being sent around in the public reflect that the internal challenges need to be addressed. The GPW’s management remains committed to creating an environment conducive for labour employer engagement in order to create that labour peace that we all aspire to have by contributing to overall governance. It is crucial that internal matters needed to be addressed internally first before we go out into the public. The GPW would gladly welcome oversight from the Committee.

The GPW has a longstanding culture of poor management which has actually been sustained to a point where it created bad character in the organisation and it is important that we recognise that. It will take a bit of time to actually deal with it and correct it. The GPW’s management must ensure that there are measures in place to make sure that such a culture was deal with. Everything plays itself out in that culture. There is an acknowledgement from management that there is a strained relationship between management and the unions. However, it is important to also raise that the management has already extended a hand to labour unions to make sure that these matters are dealt with internally and to clearly state that unions have instead decided to adopt a populist approach of taking things out to the media or to the public entities or all the entities that they have sent the letter to without actually having exhausted the internal challenges in the GPW. In a strategic planning meeting that was held in October 2019 the GPW’s management took a very firm decision to take control and make sure that there was no communication with the unions. This is a stance that has actually rocked the boat for unions and hence the levels of dissatisfaction within the organisation. There has also been a bad culture of misinformation and discrediting the GPW’s management in the public eye and then to also taint the image of the organisation on the public platform. This approach worked against the greater interest of the organisation. The GPW has policies in the Department and labour unions alike. Management and employees must subject themselves to policies of the organisation. Illegal strikes around ill-discipline or misconduct cannot be tolerated within an entity of the state where people choose to decide to do as they please. The GPW will continue to adhere to the rule of law in raising their dissatisfaction without actually causing discomfort to those who are willing to actually obey the laws.

Dr Motsoaledi stated that the oversight of the Committee is supported. He stated that the organisation will need to start taking action and there must be consequences against those who provide the misleading information. One cannot have people coming up claiming certain things and then they withdraw, the organisation will take action against them.

The Acting Chairperson stated that the GPW plays an integral part in producing credible security documentation in South Africa and has made impressive strides in extending its footprint into the Southern African Development Community region with the ultimate goal of serving the entire African continent. The Committee intends to interact with every stakeholder to ensure that resolutions are found to reported challenges in the entity including the alleged loss of data and the system crash that hampered production. As a result the Committee has resolved to undertake - following approval processes - an oversight visit to the entity to deal with persistent complaints raised within the institution.

The last item on the agenda was for the Committee to consider and adopt its Budget Vote Report on the DHA and its entities. This item was postponed until the next meeting of the Committee. He thanked the delegations in attendance for the briefings made to the Committee and for the questions and concerns raised by Members.

The meeting was adjourned.

Share this page: