Africa Refugee Rights News

Vol. 1, Issue 1, April 2003

Welcome to Africa Refugee Rights News, a new email and web based newsletter focusing on issues affecting refugee protection in Africa.

The newsletter is coordinated and hosted by the International Refugee Program of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Through the newsletter we hope to highlight and support efforts to enhance the protection of refugees and internally displaced persons in Africa, and to flag emerging challenges and opportunities for advocacy.

We hope that the newsletter will grow into a forum for exchange of information on refugee protection practice and policy in Africa and create a catalyst for new partnerships.

We very much welcome your comments and contributions.

If you would like to subscribe or unsubscribe from this list please send an e-mail to Olivia Bueno at buenoo@lchr.org. Or write to the International Refugee Program, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, 333 7th Avenue, 13th floor, New York, NY 10001.

Iraq: Are African Refugees the Collateral Damage?

In tracking the effects of the Iraq war on the protection of the displaced in the broadest sense it may be that the most significant impact is being felt by those refugee populations farthest from the epicenter of the crisis.

On April 7, the Executive Director of the World Food Program (WFP), James Morris, warned the Security Council on April 7th that 40 million Africans were on the brink of starvation. With international attention and funds focused on Iraq, and funding shortfalls for Africa food needs ever growing, he told the Council there was a danger that a whole continent would sink deeper into peril.

Describing the food crisis as a threat to peace and security, Mr. Morris outlined how the WFP was responsible for feeding 1.8 refugees and 5.7 million IDPs, many of whom were receiving only half their monthly food rations.

He said “As much as I don’t like it, I cannot escape the thought that we have a double standard. How is it that we routinely accept a level of hopelessness in Africa that we would never accept in any part of the world?”

Senegalese, Swiss NGOs Defeat Delicate Accord

A January 2003 agreement signed between the Swiss and Senegalese governments that would have allowed the Swiss government to deport Africans who “failed to disclose their identities” to Senegal has been rejected by the Senegalese Parliament after a sustained campaign against it by civil societies both in Switzerland and Senegal.

The agreement, one of a series which the Swiss government has been negotiating with other African countries, required Senegalese authorities to hold deportees for 72 hours—in transit centers—while their identity was established. The Swiss saw the agreement as a significant contribution to speeding the processing of deportees, convinced that it would be much easier for authorities within the region to determine the individuals’ identities and process them.

No sooner had the agreement seen the light of day than Swiss and Senegalese civil societies swung into action, criticizing the accord as an attempt to avoid Switzerland’s international obligations by “dumping” such deportees in Senegal.

The Swiss Refugee Council questioned why the identification could not be conducted on Swiss territory and the Swiss section of Amnesty International expressed concern about effective monitoring of the deported individuals’ rights once they were in Senegal.

In Senegal, WARIPNET (the West African Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons Network) and RADDHO (Rencontre Africain pour la Défense de Droits de l’Homme), took the matter to the doors of Senegalese parliament. And on March 3, 2003, the agreement was rejected.

WARIPNET pointed out that the accord was an insult to West Africans. The accord “signaled the death of the right to asylum in Europe,” said Mr. Sadikh Niass, the coordinator of WARIPNET and External Relations Officer of RADDHO. Its inception was particularly worrying in the context of the increasingly restrictive policies towards asylum seekers which were being seen throughout Europe.

Mr. Niass also warned that, had it been implemented, the proposal would have sown seeds of discord between Senegal and her neighbors.

“We defeated their arguments. The Senegalese government abandoned this idea and will not be involved in it again,” said Mr. Niass.

There are, however, concerns that privately chartered flights and other companies may continue to return individuals to Senegal outside the context of a formal framework of return or transit. “We need to remain vigilant and denounce human rights abuses that come with these deportations,” Mr. Niass urged.

There have been reports, he said, that German officials in the state of Hamburg had proposed paying £5,000 per head to African countries that accept failed asylum seekers, even if they were not nationals of those countries.

It is vital that these efforts by States in the global North to shift protection responsibilities to the South are opposed. The transit centre plan is only one of a series of attempts fronted by European States to remove migrants and refugees outside their geographical jurisdiction or to intervene to block the flight at their point of origin.

More recently the UK proposed an integrated asylum system which would process laims for refugee status outside the European Union, possibly in Albania or Russia (see “Britain Moots Proposal to Keep Asylum Seekers at Bay” in this issue). Making aspects of international aid contingent on cooperation in accepting deportees or putting in place more stringent border controls are part of a wider effort to extra-territorialize immigration control, a trend which sees no sign of abating.

Similar initiatives must be as closely scrutinized by advocates in future in order to ensure that they respect international human rights standards, both in theory and in practice.

See www.waripnet.org for more about WARIPNET.

Refugee Law Project in Uganda Ups Stakes

The Refugee Law Project (RLP) of Uganda has a cause to smile. The budding and well- respected refugee research and advocacy project of Makerere University has a new web site.

The site, launched on March 20 in Kampala, will be a useful information and advocacy tool for the protection of refugees in Uganda and elsewhere in the region.

Mr. Zachary Lomo, Director of the project, says the website could not have come at a better time. “It’s going to enhance our work as a voice for refugee protection in Uganda a time when new policies and practice are under discussion at parliamentary level.”

He adds that the new link will bring the research resources of the program to more people that will in turn encourage dialogue and debate.

Founded by Faculty of Law, Makerere University, the RLP seeks to ensure protection of fundamental human rights for refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Uganda. This is done through provision of legal counseling, education and training of those who work with the displaced and conducting of research and advocacy around issues of concern to such populations.

A series of papers, each exploring a particular aspect of the experience of the displaced in Uganda, are now available on the website.

For the last two years, RLP has been a collaborating partner of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights on a broad range of refugee protection concerns both in Uganda and Great Lakes Region. In April 2002, RLP was a co-sponsor along with Refugee Consortium of Kenya (RCK) and LCHR of a workshop for East African parliamentarians. Read more about the workshop

In November, RLP again co-sponsored a conference of refugee protection in Africa along with the Stanley Foundation and LCHR. To read more about the conference, click here.

For more on RLP, please visit the website www.refugeelawproject.org

Refugee Protection in Africa: How to Ensure Security and Development for Refugees and Hosts

The findings of the conference Refugee Protection in Africa: How to Ensure Security and Development for Refugees and Hosts which took place in Entebbe, Uganda in November of last year were published this month in a Policy Bulletin of the Stanley Foundation. The conference, co-hosted by the International Refugee Program, along with the Stanley Foundation and the Refugee Law Project of Makerere University, focused on two main themes, how to ensure security in refugee flows and how refugees can be integrated into the local economy. The conference compared policy and practice of six major host countries in Africa (Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) and other approaches to making international standards a reality on the ground. The objective of the conference was to stimulate constructive dialogue among experts from inside and outside government and develop recommendations for cooperative action to bring about greater protection for the rights of refugees and local hosts.

The intensive four day dialogue saw frank and constructive exchange and agreement around basic recommendations which are available in the Policy Bulletin. It is hoped, however, that the conference will only be the beginning of a process and a creation new set of partnerships around refugee protection in the region. We hope that participants in the conference, many of whom are receiving this newsletter, and others with an interest in refugee protection in the region will continue to exchange information and ideas relating to improving international and local response to refugee flows.

The Policy Bulletin is available by request from the International Refugee Program (contact buenno@lchr.org) and the recommendations are also available on the conference web site, hosted by the Stanley Foundation.

Forced Home? Focus on Rwandan Refugees in Tanzania

Few countries in Africa have generated more refugees than Rwanda. In 1994 alone close to 2 millions people fled the country premising possibly the largest and fastest refugee movements in history. This massive refugee flow followed a genocide that claimed close to one million lives. Refugees fled to many neighboring countries notably Tanzania and Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo)

Since then, there have been various attempts to repatriate the refugees back to Rwanda. In 1996, about 500,000 refugees areturned to Rwanda from Tanzania. However, subsequent repatriations have been a mix of both voluntary and involuntary returns. And the result has been new flows out of Rwanda.

As Olivia Bueno writes on this focus on the Rwandan repatriation from Tanzania, encouraging Rwandans to return home must strive to ensure the voluntariness of return.

Operationally in the field UNHCR began to move from arranging logistics for the transit of the refugees from Tanzania to Rwanda, to a campaign actively encouraging return to Rwanda.

The reality on the ground was, however more complex. While acknowledging major changes in Rwanda, many of the refugees continued to express fear for their safety if returned. Despite the fact that large part of this refugee population consisted of remnants of these who fled Rwanda after the 1994 genocide, about 11,000 had fled as recently as in 2000-2001. All parties in the tripartite agreement had, in fact, acknowledged that there might be a need for continuing protection during the Geneva discussions. A statement issued at the end of the meeting declared that “upon completion of the voluntary repatriation exercise” a plan of action would be agreed “to undertake individual screening of the residual caseload.” The agreement also recognized that Tanzania would continue to receive and process new applications for refugee status from Rwandan nationals.

But the story heard in the refugee camps sounded different. Refugees became particularly concerned when the Tanzanian government announced that the refugees would have to go home by December 31, 2002. What quickly came to back to their minds was the repatriation operation of December 1996, when a similar ultimatum by Tanzanian authorities was resisted by the refugee population. The Tanzanian government had responded by calling in the military to force them leave. While some refugees were doubtless ready to return, others feared for their safety back in Rwanda, but felt under intense pressure to go home anyway.

Suddenly UNHCR began the repatriation program ahead of schedule on November 6. Refugee advocates who observed the initial stages of the program reported that UNHCR in both Tanzania and Rwanda appeared to lack the financial and human resources necessary to run a rights-respecting repatriation program. As the first convoys of returnees arrived in Rwanda, UNHCR was unprepared to comprehensively register the returnees or to distribute repatriation assistance, much less to monitor the reintegration of the returnees.

As the operation wore on, an increasing number of refugees decided that their only option was to flee to third countries and seek shelter. Both the decision and the journey were risky. Tanzanian law prohibits refugees from traveling outside of the camps, and those apprehended would most likely be returned to Rwanda. Nonetheless, thousands of Rwandans reportedly fled to other countries notably to Malawi, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

In December 2002, the Lawyers Committee Human Rights visited camps in western Uganda where it was estimated that at least 3,000 Rwandan and Burundian refugees had recently arrived from Rwanda and Tanzania. Testimony from the refugees with whom Lawyers Committee staff met indicated that they many had felt intense pressure to repatriate from Tanzania. Some recounted how they had actually returned to Rwanda under the auspices of the repatriation program, but had felt that they and their families were not safe in Rwanda and once more forced to flee.

In Uganda there was confusion about how to respond to this new influx. UNHCR refused to provide assistance to the population, contending that the group had already found protection in Tanzania and were thus not entitled to protection in Uganda.

In the meantime UNHCR in Tanzania announced the successful ompletion of the repatriation program, stating that an estimated 19,000 refugees had gone home in just two months.

Three months later, those who remained in Tanzania found themselves in a still precarious situation. On February 13, the UNHCR announced a two-week sensitization campaign aimed at convincing the 2,600 refugees it estimated still in Tanzania to return home. Tanzanian government officials indicated that the country would “have the liberty to lift” the refugee status of those who were not convinced.

On February 27, the Lawyers Committee wrote to the Tanzanian government urging them not to return Rwandan refugees without ndividualized assessment of their continued needs for protection.

The problems that surround this repatriation effort are particularly worrisome when considered in the context of refugee policy relating to the Rwandan refugee caseload more generally throughout the region. UNHCR has signed an agreement, with the Zambian government for example, to repatriate the estimated 5,000 Rwandan refugees in Zambia. Preparations are under way and the operation is expected to begin this month. Meanwhile, discussions about repatriation are under way with the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Namibia and Uganda.

With an estimated 60,000 Rwandan refugees dispersed across the region there is legitimate concern about whether other repatriation programs will fall victim to the same weaknesses as those which littered the Tanzanian operation. Will those refugees who continue to fear for their safety in Rwanda, have opportunity for their individual needs assessed? Will those who choose to return to Rwanda have the benefit of effective reintegration assistance and monitoring of their situations?

It is reported that the Tanzanian government has now begun to push for the repatriation of Burundians on its territory. Will the Tanzanian government approach that repatriation operation in the same way it has approached that of Rwandans? And will Burundians be forced to return home to a country also struggling with a fragile peace?

For more information on this, read:

LCHR, Rwandan and Burundian Refugees Stranded in Uganda, April 11, 2025.

LCHR, Letter to President Mkapa, February 27, 2025

LCHR, Rwandans May Be Forced to Leave Tanzania Refugee Camps, December 27, 2002,

LCHR, "In Limbo Forever? A View From Nakivale, A Ugandan Refugee Camp "

Refugee Law Project, "The Migration of Refugees From Tanzania to Uganda: Whose Responsibility?"

USCR, "Repatriation of Rwandan Refugees Living in Tanzania," January 10, 2025

Britain Moots Plan to Keep Asylum Seekers at Bay

A controversial proposal by the British government to set up “transit centers” in many parts of the world to process asylum claims away from the European borders is currently being examined by a number of countries in the European Union (EU). In a declared attempt to halve the number of asylum seekers in Britain, the proposal would require all asylum seekers reaching EU borders to be returned outside the EU for the processing of their claims.

Under the scheme, asylum seekers who arrive in Britain would be sent to transit centers located outside the EU. Countries which have been identified as possible locations for the “transit centers” include Albania, Croatia, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. The British government claims that asylum seekers will be safely and decently treated in the transit centers, insisting that such measures are necessary to curb illegal operations in which traffickers charge thousands of dollars to help asylum seekers enter the EU illegally.

Last month, one Home Affairs minister’s meeting began discussions of the proposal. While several nations including Spain and Italy were sympathetic, the topic remains sensitive. No decision was taken but it is expected to be raised again at the EU Summit meeting in June.

Proposed by British Home Secretary David Blunkett, the transit center proposal signals a shift in policy which has been severely criticized as a breach of fundamental rights, particularly those relating to the determination of refugee status as provided for under international law. In addition, there are serious concerns about the quality of protection that would be made available in these countries, many of which continue to produce refugees themselves.

While it is important to ensure that claims are efficiently processed, it appears the UK is aiming to reduce the number of asylum seekers in its territory and that of other EU states by denying them access to a border and shifting the asylum seekers to processing zones outside the EU. The irony, however, is that these transit centers are contemplated for regions which are much less able to provide the protection that refugees desperately need and are themselves generators of refugee flows.

Africa Refugee Rights News is produced by staff of the International Refugee Program at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. Karin Van der Tak contributed to this issue.

U.S. Law & Security | Asylum in the U.S. | Human Rights Defenders | Human Rights Issues | International Justice |
International Refugee Policy | Workers Rights | Media Room | About Us | Contribute | Jobs | Contact Us | Publications | Search | Site Map | Home