UKBA Clarifies Enforced Removals to Zimbabwe

By Kenneth Mawomo

The UKBA has added some form of clarity to their policy on enforced removals to Zimbabwe.  Just to recap, the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration, Phil Woolas announced in a statement, on 29 October 2009, some enhancements to the package of assistance to Zimbabweans who return voluntarily.  In addition, the Minister also announced that he was considering the position of enforced returns to Zimbabwe, deferred in September 2006.  The policy review on enforced returns to Zimbabwe is deemed necessary because, according to the Minister,

“The situation in Zimbabwe is improving under the Inclusive Government, and we will be looking to normalise our returns policy progressively as and when the political situation develops”.

The fact that enhancements to the package of assistance to Zimbabweans who return voluntarily were announced at the same time that a review of enforced returns were also proposed has caused a lot of discomfort and panic within the community of refused asylum seekers who feel the UKBA is unfairly employing the ‘carrot and stick tactic’.  Refugee and asylum seeker groups have accused the UKBA of trying to entice people into returning through an improved package while at the same time piling pressure on those bent on snubbing the offer by raising the possibility of a resumption of enforced removals.  The skepticism regarding the sincerity of the UKBA is further heightened by the fact that the enhanced packages are to be reviewed before the end of this month.

What has irked most people particularly those affected by these policy changes is that, contrary to the Minister’s assessment, the political situation on the ground remains unpredictable and volatile, while the inclusive government remains fragile.  To make matters worse, the announcement by the Minister was overshadowed by the partial disengagement of the MDC from any dealings with ZANU PF, citing the latter’s insincerity and lack of commitment to resolving the outstanding issues as stipulated in the Global Political Agreement (GPA).

The MDC’s frustrations have also been shared by local, regional and international human rights organisations such as Zimrights, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA) and Amnesty International respectively. 

OSISA made the following recommendations:

 a) That an ad-hoc delegation (sourced from South Africa in support of its mediation role or from SADC or the AU) be deployed with immediate effect to monitor and report on incidents of political violence and intimidation.

b) That SADC, as guarantor of the Global Political Agreement (and in its absence other regional or international entities), ensure effective implementation of the GPA and a definitive resolution of the outstanding issues as per the SADC communiqué of 26-27 January 2009, and in particular, secure an end to political violence and to partisan use of security forces, the legal system and other state apparatus.

c) That a comprehensive, standing presence of SADC and/or the AU be stationed in Zimbabwe until such time as a new Constitution has been drafted, that the draft has been submitted to referendum and that free and fair presidential and legislative elections have been held. And that the standing presence be coupled with a pooled fund, supported by the international donor community, overseen by sector experts, to ensure that education, health care, water sanitation services and food distribution remain uninterrupted.

 Within the same week that Mr Woolas made his policy announcements, the UN Rapporteur on torture who had been invited to visit Zimbabwe by Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, was refused entry at Harare airport and subsequently detained overnight and later deported the following morning to South Africa.

Needless to mention that the persecution of MDC supporters, activists, members of parliament, human rights activists and journalists continue unabated with a series of politically motivated abductions in broad daylight by members of the state secret service.  On the basis of these and other developments in Zimbabwe, HAT News sought clarification from the UKBA on behalf of concerned parties and asked the following questions:

In the light of the above is it not premature to resume enforced removals to Zimbabwe before permanent and irreversible change is established in Zimbabwe?

Is there a consistent and coherent policy by the British government towards Zimbabwe?

Could you please clarify why the approach of the Home Office and the UKBA is not consistent with that of the Foreign Commonwealth Office that has maintained targeted sanctions against the Mugabe regime arguing that the political reforms are not yet sufficiently embedded to warrant a reengagement with ZANU PF?

Given that the EU has not yet considered lifting the restrictive measures—the travel ban and assets freeze-imposed on 203 named Zimbabwean Ministers and others associated with the abuse of human rights, is the Home Office not acting hastily in considering it is time to normalise enforced returns, especially when we take into account the recent botched enforced removals to Iraq?

What assurances can the Home Office give that those forcibly removed will not be abducted, tortured or killed given the volatile and unpredictable situation in Zimbabwe?

The UKBA reiterated its position that:  “The British Government takes its international responsibilities seriously and we will continue to grant protection to those Zimbabweans that need it.

“The situation in Zimbabwe is improving under the Inclusive Government and we will be looking to normalise our returns policy progressively as the political situation develops.

“We will continue to provide generous assistance to those who choose to return voluntarily – enabling people to support themselves and rebuild Zimbabwe, which hundreds of Zimbabweans who have already safely returned voluntarily are doing.”

In addition the official from UKBA pointed out that, “the indiscriminate violence which marred the elections of 2008 has abated and the formation of the Inclusive Government has led to improvements in the economy, schools and the availability of basic commodities”.
�
They also point out that the courts have noted that not all Zimbabweans are in need of international protection. In this regard UKBA does not accept that there should be a presumption that each and every asylum seeker who presents themselves as being Zimbabwean, or of any other particular nationality, regardless of their particular circumstances, should automatically be afforded the protection of being allowed to remain in the UK.
�
According to UKBA, all asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance with UK international obligations and against the background of the latest available country information as it impacts on the individual concerned.  Those that genuinely deserve protection, asylum will be granted and those who are otherwise vulnerable may engage the UK’s obligations under the ECHR, in which case Humanitarian Protection or Discretionary Leave will be granted.  In the event that one’s application is refused, the concerned individual has a right of appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, a process which the independent courts have oversight.
�
Despite these developments the UKBA has however, quite encouragingly given some respite to a restive asylum seeker community by saying that:
�
“We would only enforce the return of an individual to any country where we are satisfied that the person concerned will not be at risk and has their claim rejected by both the UK border Agency and the independent courts.  We are not resuming yet the enforced return to Zimbabwe of those who have been found not to be in need of protection.  We have always said that we will take account of political factors before recommencing   enforced returns to Zimbabwe”.
�
According to the same official the statement by Phil Woolas to the House simply said that the UK Border Agency are starting work over the autumn on a process aimed at normalising the returns policy to Zimbabwe, moving towards resuming enforced returns progressively as and when the political situation develops. 

What remain to be seen are the exact dates when enforced removals are going to resume.  We urge all those affected by these policy changes to seek legal advice.