Jimmy Mubenga guard incites racist jokes on Facebook

Terence Hughes, currently under investigation for the death of Jimmy Mubenga, who died during a deportation, is now under fire for uploading an image of two alleged detainees. Two other guards have been suspended for their racist comments.

Read more

Source: Guardian

Torture survivors let down

Source: Institute of Race Relations

By Frances Webber

An audit of UK Border Agency (UKBA) officials’ responses to medical reports concerning vulnerable detainees, including torture survivors, demonstrates a frightening lack of care.

The UKBA report, Detention Centre Rule 35 Audit, ’seeks’, in its own words, ‘to address the perception among some NGOs that the UK Border Agency fails to comply with … policy and detains thousands of torture victims every year’. The findings of the audit provide no comfort to critics and vindicate concerns that torture allegations are not taken seriously.

For years now, campaigners have argued that the UKBA does not follow its own policy whereby vulnerable people including torture survivors should not be detained. A 2006 test case[1] exposed the routine failure of detention centre medical staff to screen new arrivals for signs of torture or physical and mental illness, as required by the immigration rules – because UKBA refused to pay them to do the screening. As a result, signs of torture were not being picked up and torture survivors were unlawfully being detained. Since then the issue of detention of torture victims has received more scrutiny. Both Medical Justice (http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/) and the The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (http://www.torturecare.org.uk/) urged the UKBA to audit its procedures to see whether torture survivors were in fact being inappropriately detained. The UKBA audit was conducted a year ago but was only released on 1 March 2011.

The somewhat obscure title of the report refers not to the on-arrival screening duty (Rule 34 of the 2001 Detention Centre rules), but to Rule 35, which imposes duties on medical staff to report to managers whenever they become aware of detainees whose health is likely to be affected badly by detention, including those suspected of having suicidal intentions, as well as on persons who may have been victims of torture. Under the rule, managers of detention centres must send copies of ‘Rule 35′ medical reports to the UKBA ‘without delay’. In practice, medical staff give a copy of Rule 35 reports to on-site UKBA staff, who are required by Detention Services Order 03/2008 to send it on within 24 hours to the detainee’s ‘case owner’ with responsibility for the decision to detain, who must review the person’s detention within 48 hours. Clearly, the purpose of the exercise is to remove extremely vulnerable people from the harmful environment of detention as quickly as possible.

The audit looked at all the cases in November and December 2009 when a Rule 35 report was submitted to UKBA, to see whether UKBA officials responded promptly and appropriately. It found that in only 35 per cent of cases did UKBA officials respond within the 48-hour time limit.

It is unclear whether all Rule 35 reports were examined or just those where torture was alleged: the executive summary suggests that all cases where medical staff reported on the health of detainees were included, while the text of the audit suggests that it was limited to allegations of torture. In any event, during the two months covered by the audit, a total of 216 Rule 35 reports were received, in respect of 190 detainees (out of the total of 6,666 people who were detained during the period). In only sixty-seven cases (35 per cent) did UKBA staff respond within the required 48-hour period, and in one-third of the cases ‘case owners’ failed to respond to the medical report. The audit states that in all but ten cases, there was evidence from the case file that the allegation of torture had been taken into account, although there had been no formal response, but it is not clear how – in particular, whether there was a detention review.

This is bad enough, indicating as it does a fairly devastating failure on the part of UKBA officials to respond promptly to serious medical concerns – but the most shocking findings are left until last. The review of detention resulted in release in only 9 per cent of the cases; in the other 91 per cent of cases, the information contained in the Rule 35 report made no difference to the decision to detain. We are given no explanation whatever for this extraordinary finding, which suggests that case owners are simply disregarding medical evidence – after all, they are not medically qualified – or that they are not applying policy which states that torture survivors and those for whom detention carries unacceptable risks should not be detained. The other shocking statistic is that only twenty-six of individuals subject to a Rule 35 report – 14 per cent – were granted any form of status, whether refugee status or humanitarian or discretionary leave, while ninety – 47 per cent – were refused and removed, and another seventy-four – 39 per cent – were refused or claims are still ongoing.

These latter findings go to the heart of UKBA decision-making. They suggest that case owners are either provided with inadequate medical information, or that they are simply not equipped to take vital decisions about the detention of asylum claimants or about the strength of their claims. But the report fails to discuss the implications of its own findings. It is full of management-speak about ‘improving communications across business areas to drive up performance’, ’sampling and data quality checks’, arranging ‘roll-out of improved recording and monitoring systems’. With this kind of language, it is perhaps not surprising that elementary human truths are lost. Nowhere does the report ask: Do the medical reports provide enough information for case owners? What is the quality of the information provided? Or is it that case owners have no understanding of the reports they read? Why do those responsible for people in detention appear not to care about their welfare, even where there is evidence that they have been tortured? The audit demonstrates that the business model of performance indicators and box-ticking is fundamentally flawed when it comes to dealing with damaged and vulnerable people. The meaning of torture, the experience of asylum seekers, the inhumanity of current detention practices – all these the audit signally fails to address.

Since the audit was carried out, things have got even worse, according to Medical Justice, which points out that the latest HM Inspector of Prisons report on Colnbrook detention centre (August 2010) noted that of 125 Rule 35 reports UKBA had received, only sixty-one had been replied to (49 per cent). HMIP reports: ‘The paucity of information provided by health services staff gave case owners little reason to consider release and most replies were equally brief and unhelpful.’

In a statement, Medical Justice expressed its bitter disappointment with the audit, which it says ‘fails miserably and is symbolic of UKBA’s lack of commitment to safeguarding vulnerable detainees’. The organisation intends to lodge a complaint about the inadequacy of the audit and to demand disclosure of the raw data on which the audit was based. According to Medical Justice’s Clinical Advisor, Dr Frank Arnold, they ‘regularly see the outcome of Rule 35 failures; torture survivors and people with serious medical and psychiatric conditions who are routinely and inappropriately detained. Many people fleeing from regimes our government says it abhors are routinely subjected to being wrongfully and harmfully detained each year.’

—-
FOOTNOTE

[1] D and K v SSHD [2006] EWHC 980 (Admin), download a copy of the judgment here (http://www.bhattmurphy.co.uk/media/files/D_and_K_v_SSHD_Judgment_May_2006.pdf) (pdf file, 252kb). Detention Centre Rule 35 Audit, UKBA, March 2011.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

G4S whistleblowers confirm detainees’ allegation

Article first published 17 February 2011 (Institute of Race Relations)

By Dr Frank Arnold, Emma Ginn and Harriet Wistrich
The Guardian reported last week[1] that whistleblowers within G4S, the private company contracted to carry out forced deportations, say that staff warned management of inappropriate use of force. Yet, after the death in October 2010 of a deportee[2] who had been restrained and complained he couldn’t breathe, a top G4S manager claimed he was ‘not aware’ of any staff concerns.

In response to our 2008 Outsourcing Abuse (http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view/411/88/) dossier of nearly 300 assault complaints, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) Chief Executive implied that our motivation was to ‘damage the reputation of our contractors’ and trashed our claims of widespread abuse while, according to the Guardian, they knew of G4S staff allegations. Our warnings were not exaggerated; a man later died. Their apparent disregard and lack of control was noted in 2009 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons who found UKBA contract monitors did not work to any clear criteria and sometimes ‘appeared to be part of the escort team’ that they were meant to be monitoring.

UKBA have been aware of allegations of excess violence and abuse by escorts all along through their own complaints procedure and legal challenges by deportees. In its last report, the Home Office’s own Complaints Audit Committee reported ‘endemic and enlarging problems’ in misconduct investigations, that 79 per cent of serious misconduct complainants were not interviewed, and that 65 per cent of responses to them were not defensible.

Doctors associated with Medical Justice have examined dozens of detainees who have suffered injuries consistent with restricted breathing during failed deportation attempts. Forty-two cases in Outsourcing Abuse included restriction of detainees’ breathing. Eighteen of these detainees were identified in the report and data from all forty-two cases contributed to the findings.

The UKBA response to most assault allegations we made was that injuries were regrettable, but the force used was in accordance with approved Control & Restraint (C&R) methods, yet the whistleblowers reveal a frequent failure to use approved C&R methods. Many allege assault after a deportation is aborted, when escorts say they lost money as a result. Whistleblowers have confirmed the suspected motives for the gratuitous assaults complained of.

The whistleblowers’ evidence should trigger a further review of some of the complaints in our dossier. A parliamentary committee should conduct an inquiry into the use of force in the deportation process. As there is no evidence that UKBA have made any meaningful changes towards avoiding another death the use of force should be suspended meanwhile.

Emma Ginn, Co-ordinator, Medical Justice
Dr Frank Arnold, Clinical Advisor to Medical Justice
Harriet Wistrich, Birnberg Peirce & Partners Solicitors

Authors of Outsourcing Abuse: The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during the detention and removal of asylum seekers, which can be downloaded here (http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/reportonoutsourcingabuse.pdf) (pdf file, 940kb).

—-
FOOTNOTE

[1] ‘G4S security firm was warned of lethal risk to refused asylum seekers’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/08/g4s-deportees-lethal-risk-warning-mubenga), Guardian, 8 February 2011 and ‘Staff on deportation flights played ‘Russian roulette’ with lives’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/08/staff-deportation-flights-g4s), Guardian, 8 February 2011. [2] See ‘Security guards accused over death of man being deported to Angola’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/14/security-guards-accused-jimmy-mubenga-death), Guardian, 14 October 2010; and ‘Justice for Jimmy Mubenga’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2010/december/ha000012.html), IRR News, 9 December 2010.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Immigration detainees failed by system

By Frances Webber| IRR

An important new report from Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), A nice judge on a good day: immigration bail and the right to liberty, reveals the systemic failures within the Home Office and the legal system which consign detainees to oblivion for months or years.

Liberty is regularly proclaimed as one of the most important of our fundamental human rights. But the right to liberty does not appear to be taken so seriously for those without British passports. This casual attitude towards the liberty of foreigners is manifested by the refusal by successive governments over the past forty years to legislate for a maximum period of immigration detention, and the failure to ensure other safeguards, such as automatic judicial oversight of detention and access to legal representation. There are few votes in reform of immigration detention, and the attitude seems to be that those whose right to be in the country is in question have no right to liberty.

In this situation, BID, a small charity set up twelve years ago, has worked to secure the release of those held in immigration detention – by providing representation on bail applications to particularly vulnerable detainees, by training large numbers of detainees so that they can make their own bail applications, and by campaigning, lobbying and reporting on the issues. The increased public awareness of immigration detention and in particular the high-profile campaign against the detention of children are in no small part due to BID’s educational activities.

For this report, BID focussed on the legal process of getting bail, analysing sixty-five bail applications at four hearing centres in and around London and Birmingham. On average, detainees had spent over sixteen months in immigration detention, most of them following a decision to deport them for criminal activity (generally minor, and frequently involving the use of false documents to obtain entry or work). Eleven had children in the UK, some of whom were British. Common to many of the cases was arrival in the UK as a young member of a refugee family, followed by problems in teenage years leading to crime and the prospect of deportation and separation from family members here.

Importance of legal representation

The report’s first finding is what a difference representation makes. While over half of represented applicants in the sample were granted bail (excluding a small number who withdrew their applications), the proportion of unrepresented applicants who were successful was less than a fifth. The percentage of successful applications overall has fallen from twenty-five per cent in 2006 to eighteen per cent in 2009 and in the first quarter of 2010.

In 1999, the government made provision for automatic bail hearings for all immigration detainees after seven and thirty-five days in detention. This meant judicial scrutiny of detention even where the detainee did not request it, to ensure that only those who really needed to be locked up were deprived of their liberty, and for as short a period as possible. But the provision was never brought into force, and was quietly repealed in 2002. This left thousands of immigration detainees languishing in detention, unaware of their right to apply for bail, ignorant of the procedures, or unable to obtain legal help in making an application. Obstacles to access to justice, difficult enough in the community, assume insurmountable proportions in detention. The difficulties are exacerbated by frequent moves around the detention estate, for no apparent reason, as detainees who have legal representatives frequently lose them when they are transferred hundreds of miles away.

Apart from lack of legal representation, other obstacles to bail identified in the report include the widespread misapprehension, often shared by detainees and immigration judges, that sureties must be provided before bail will be granted; the barriers arising from video link hearings, such as applicants’ inability to see and hear the proceedings clearly (nearly all hearings are now by video link from the removal centre); leaving large parts of the hearing uninterpreted; Home Office failure to serve vital documents in time, such as their objections to bail (known as ‘bail summaries’); widespread inaccuracies, errors and prejudicial remarks in these documents and giving applicants inadequate opportunity to challenge them.

Inadequate objections to bail

The report devotes several pages to the most common reasons given by the Home Office for the refusal of bail, and demonstrates how flimsy, contentious or unfair many of these reasons are. One example cited is the objection that a bail address provided by the Home Office (eg hostel accommodation for refused asylum seekers) demonstrates an applicant’s lack of community ties, showing that he is likely to abscond – a wholly speculative train of deduction, but one of the standard reasons used by the Home Office in objecting to bail, cut and pasted for use against hundreds of applicants, regardless of their personal integrity or absconding history.

The research reveals that the Home Office uses prolonged detention to ‘induce’ people to return to countries where conditions are such that there are no enforced returns, including Zimbabwe, Somalia, Iraq (at the time of the research) and Sri Lanka. Those seeking to challenge their continued detention are accused of ‘frustrating removal’, which justifies their remaining in detention for months while their legal challenge proceeds.

Judicial failings

But immigration judges also come in for criticism, for failing too often to ensure a fair hearing for applicants. Many did not see as problematic the late service of Home Office objections to bail, or Home Office failure to provide evidence in support of contentious allegations at the hearing, both of which deprive applicants of a proper opportunity to challenge their detention – apparently forgetting that deprivation of liberty must be rigorously justified. Some judges required applicants to prove matters which were not challenged by the Home Office. Some failed to give applicants a chance to address Home Office bail objections. In around a third of cases ‘inappropriate’ friendliness was observed between immigration judges and Home Office presenting officers (civil servants who represent the Home Office). Too often, particularly where applicants were unrepresented, judges failed to consider the length and impact of detention, and reasons for refusing bail were too often confusing, contradictory or unjustified by the evidence.

The unsurprising conclusion from this research is that unfair decision-making on bail for immigration detainees can easily go unchecked because of inadequate safeguards. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of current guidance notes for immigration judges following the withdrawal of guidance promulgated in 2003. New guidance has been promised for summer 2010 but has not yet appeared. But as BID concludes, over and above improved safeguards, ‘a fundamental review is needed on how judicial and government departments engage with the bail process’. To assist in that review, the report ends with a series of recommendations, from prompt provision of information and a right to publicly funded legal advice to detainees, to the return and implementation of automatic bail hearings and a statutory time limit of twenty-eight days on immigration detention. For if the right to liberty is to mean anything for foreign nationals, it must be pursued seriously and with a sense of urgency currently lacking both in the Home Office and in the immigration judiciary.

—-
FOOTNOTE

A nice judge on a good day: immigration bail and the right to liberty, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) (http://www.biduk.org/), July 2010. If you would like hard copy of the report please email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]), otherwise download a pdf from the link below.

HAT News is precluded from expressing a corporate view: any opinions expressed are therefore those of the authors.

Asylum seekers speak

Read more

New report blasts U.S. on immigrant detainees

By Tyche Hendricks, SFChronicle Staff Writer

More than 400,000 people a year are detained by immigration officials in the United States – including undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants who run afoul of the law and asylum seekers who come fleeing persecution – but according to a report released today by Amnesty International, conditions are often deplorable and detainees are routinely denied due process.

It’s the second major human rights report in a week to indict the nation’s immigration detention system. The system is attracting increased attention in part because the number of people in detention has grown exponentially in recent years and in part because of dozens of in-custody deaths and a lawsuit over the treatment of children.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano last month ordered her department to examine all aspects of Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations and hired a special assistant, Dora Schriro, to oversee detention and removal conditions.

A spokeswoman for ICE, as the immigration enforcement agency is known, acknowledged Tuesday that concerns have been raised about the treatment of immigration detainees.

“We have already made appreciable gains in improving the detention system by adopting detention standards and monitoring the compliance with those standards,” said Cori Bassett. “All that said, the care and treatment that some detainees receive does not yet meet our shared expectation of excellence, and we can all agree this is a reason for concern.”

The cases of two Bay Area men illustrate two of the problems highlighted by the Amnesty report: Detainees often are denied due process, and the burden is on the detainees to prove they don’t belong in custody.

Afghanistan-born Lemar Nasir of Fremont and Thailand-born Yuttasak Simma of San Francisco were taken into ICE custody in 2007, though both are naturalized U.S. citizens.

Though the men told immigration officials of their citizenship, neither had papers to prove it, and both languished in immigration custody in Santa Clara County jail – Nasir for 11 months, Simma for seven – before a lawyer finally secured their release.

Sin Yen Ling, an attorney with San Francisco’s Asian Law Caucus who represented the men, called the cases a violation of the men’s constitutional right to due process.

“Absent congressional authorization, you cannot use immigration laws to lock up a citizen,” she said. “And this is not unusual: I have on my docket right now five to seven of these cases. People have legitimate claims to citizenship, and they inform ICE, yet there’s no formal procedure to figure out what to do with these folks.”

The Amnesty International report, “Jailed Without Justice: Immigration Detention in the USA,” noted a variety of concerns over due process and the conditions of detention:

– People in immigration custody don’t have the same guarantees as criminal detainees to challenge their detention before a court, make a phone call or obtain legal representation.

– Detainees can be transferred from one facility to another, sometimes in another state, with no notice given to their families or attorneys.

– Two-thirds of people in federal immigration custody are housed in state or county detention facilities, usually alongside criminal detainees, even though violations of immigration law are considered administrative, not criminal, and asylum seekers have committed no violation.

– Immigrants are subject to excessive use of restraints such as handcuffs, waist chains and leg restraints.

“In the criminal justice system, anyone arrested is assumed innocent, but in the immigration system, they’re put in detention, and then it’s the individual’s burden to prove they shouldn’t be detained,” said Sarnata Reynolds, an author of the report. “That’s why you’ll see long periods of detention, because it’s an incredibly high burden.”

Both the Amnesty report and a study released last week by Human Rights Watch faulted ICE for failing to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment to detainees. Human Rights Watch, which focused on women’s access to health care, emphasized problems with perinatal care and care for survivors of sexual violence.

Since 2003, 90 people have died in immigration custody, according to Schriro of Homeland Security. Immigration authorities last year pointed out that the death rate in immigration detention is a small fraction of that in other U.S. jails and prisons.

But earlier this month, Schriro testified before Congress that detainees did not always receive timely and appropriate medical care. She vowed improvements.

A 2007 lawsuit over the treatment of children in immigration custody led to improvements in the conditions at a private Texas prison where families are held.

The Amnesty report called on the Obama administration to consider alternatives to detention for immigrants who are neither a flight risk nor a danger to others. That’s a proposal endorsed by San Jose Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration subcommittee.

“Oftentimes there are alternatives, like these ankle bracelets and bonds and other ways to make sure the person doesn’t disappear into the woodwork,” said Lofgren, who is particularly incensed that asylum seekers are locked up until they can make the case they’d face persecution in their home countries.

“You’ve got people now waiting six months for a 20-minute (asylum) interview,” she said. “Well, at $90 a day, the meter’s running here. How can it possibly be cost-effective to postpone a 20-minute interview? It’s stupid.”

E-mail Tyche Hendricks at [email protected].

Asylum detainees win record payout

In a landmark settlement, the Congolese family have been awarded £150,000, believed to be the biggest payout over the unlawful detention of child refugees seeking asylum in Britain.

Lawyers and immigration campaigners said the settlement could lead to dozens more compensation claims being brought by refugee families with young children who have been detained or are still locked up in the UK asylum system. It is estimated that every year the Home Office authorises the detention of 2,000 child immigrants. One firm of lawyers said it was already preparing three separate compensation cases where families had been unlawfully detained.

Mark Scott, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors, who acted for the family, said: “This case demonstrates not only the very damaging impact that detention has on children but the wholesale failure of the Home Office to comply with their own policy and the commitments given to Parliament that detention of children is only used as a measure of last resort and even then for the shortest possible time.”

But Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP for Newark and Retford, said: “It just shows everyone how chaotic the immigration and asylum system has become that we end up having to pay asylum-seekers [in a case] which could have been avoided if the Government had a properly run policy.”

In the case, the court was told that a one-year-old baby and an eight-year-old child from the Democratic Republic of Congo were deeply traumatised after immigration officers twice raided their West Midlands home. After their arrests they were taken to Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire where they were held for 57 days. Two months later, the family home was raided for a second time leading to a further three-day unlawful detention at the same centre.

Both children suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and were kept in detention despite warnings from Bedfordshire Social Services and an expert psychologist who raised concerns about the impact of the detention on children.

The family, who were detained in 2006, have since been granted asylum.

In the face of court proceedings brought by the family, the Home Office has accepted that their arrests and subsequent detentions were unlawful as the mother had not exhausted her asylum rights and could not have been lawfully removed from the country.

Amanda Shah, assistant director of Bail for Immigration Detainees, said: “Yet again the courts have found children’s rights have been violated by the Home Office’s detention policy. This case shows both the damage done to children in detention and also the inadequacy of Home Office safeguards to keep them from harm. the Home Office knew the impact detention was having on these children but continued to detain them anyway.”

She added: “Children we work with tell us they are scared of detention centre guards and don’t understand what they have done to deserve being put ‘in prison’ – it is little wonder that many suffer serious mental and physical health problems as a result.”

Emma Ginn, of the immigration campaign group Medical Justice, said: “This settlement recognises the severe harm to children of long-term immigration detention and flies in the face of the Home Office’s insistence that they only detain children for the shortest possible time prior to an imminent removal.”

A recent report by Anne Owers, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, found that the plight of detained children remained of great concern. She concluded: “An immigration removal centre can never be a suitable place for children and we were dismayed to find cases of disabled children being detained and some children spending large amounts of time incarcerated.”

After an inspection of detention facilities, she added: “We were concerned about ineffective and inaccurate monitoring of length of detention in this extremely important area. Any period of detention can be detrimental to children and their families, but the impact of lengthy detention is particularly extreme.”

A UK Border Agency spokeswoman said: “The UKBA is actively working on alternatives to detaining families with children. During detention or removal from the UK, we take the welfare of families with children extremely seriously. Officers involved in family removals receive thorough training in procedures to minimise the distress caused. All members of the family are treated as sensitively as possible.” – The Independent

Guns into greenbacks

(IRIN) – Hundreds of people in Kinshasa have handed over illegal weapons for cash and cloth in a no-questions-asked campaign to reduce crime in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

AK-47 automatic rifles, Uzi sub-machine guns and rocket launchers were among the 3,000 or so weapons collected over the past three weeks by the Ecumenical Programme for Peace, Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation (PAREC), an NGO. Those in working order were handed over to the police, the rest were destroyed.

Photo: MONUC/Kim Sarrazin Gjerstad

In a bid to prevent crime in the capital, citizens are being rewarded for turning in their guns (file photo

“There have been several hold-ups and attempted murders carried out by armed men in Kinshasa recently and several arms caches have been discovered,” said PAREC coordinator, Pastor Daniel Ngoyi Mulunda.

“These are the facts that motivated us to take this action, knowing that there have been too many fire arms in circulation in the capital.”

Ngoyi said the government had promised not to take any legal action against civilians surrendering their guns. So far, he added, no arrests had been made. Most of those who handed in weapons were women, Ngoyi said. Upon surrender, the women receive $100 and a length of cloth. However, several Kinshasa residents expressed concern over the origin of the fire arms being collected.

“I suspect those bringing in arms may be from the armed forces, not civilians,” Benjamin Yogolelo, a former military officer, told IRIN. “And those thousands of weapons could [have been] stolen from military camps. Some people come back many times to hand in different guns and get more money. This is easy money.”

Ngoyi said the police and the media were not allowed to talk to, film or photograph people handing over arms so as to encourage others to do likewise. Meanwhile, questions are being asked about the highly publicised discovery of four weapons caches in November and the subsequent arrest of former soldiers from Equateur province accused of preparing a coup.

“There is more to this story of arms caches than meets the eye because we don’t have any real proof that they existed. Only people from Equateur were arrested. We think it could be a set-up to carry out a purge in the army,” said Dolly Ibefo, the vice-president of La Voix, a human rights NGO.

Ibefo said the detainees included a woman and her baby, arrested in place of her husband.