News Articles

Rwandan man faces death if he is deported from South Africa

Source: Groundup, 03/11/2018


The Constitutional Court heard argument on Thursday in the case of a
Rwandan man facing deportation.
Alex Ruta is a Rwandan national who worked for the Rwanda National
Security Services.
He was sent to South Africa by his superiors in 2014 but he had to
enter the country illegally because he did not have a visa. Once in
South Africa, Ruta learned that his task from Security Services was to
assassinate members of the exiled opposition party, the Rwanda
National Congress, GroundUp reports.
He said he immediately reported this to the Hawks who put him under
witness protection while an investigation was opened. Ruta said he
told the Hawks that he wanted to apply for an asylum permit, but he
was never given an opportunity to apply.
According to a Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) statement, Ruta tried to
apply for asylum at home affairs in February and March 2015 but was
told that the system was offline both times.
Two years later, Ruta was arrested for driving an unlicensed
motorcycle, driving without a licence and being in possession of a
fraudulent asylum permit. The fraudulent asylum permit charge was
subsequently dropped.
Ruta was convicted of the two charges and sentenced to three months in
jail, which he has finished serving.
He was later told that home affairs considered him to be an illegal
immigrant and his convictions disqualified him from applying for an
asylum permit.
As a result, he was set to be deported. He then urgently applied to
the High Court for an interdict against his deportation so that he
could apply to the refugee status determination officer (RSDO) for
asylum. The High Court ruled in Ruta`s favour.
`I will face certain death`
But the minister of home affairs appealed the decision and the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) reversed the High Court decision.
Ruta then appealed the SCA`s reversal of the High Court decision at
the Constitutional Court on Thursday morning.
The Constitutional Court heard arguments from the Department of Home
Affairs and LHR on whether persons illegally in the country should
always be granted an opportunity to apply for asylum and whether a
crime committed by a person should disqualify them from applying for
asylum.
In an affidavit before the court, Ruta wrote that if home affairs
succeeds in sending him back to Rwanda, `I will face certain death`.
Advocate Steven Budlender, representing Ruta, argued that every person
seeking asylum should be allowed to apply. He said there was no clause
under the Refugee Act that excluded anyone from applying for an asylum
permit.
Budlender said the RSDO was the only official who had the authority to
deny an asylum seeker`s application after an interview process with
the applicant.
But advocate Bofilatos, representing the Department of Home Affairs,
argued that immigration officers also had the authority to determine
whether people can apply for asylum. He said immigration officers
could stop people from applying for asylum if the person did not meet
the first criterion of the Immigration Act.
This criterion states that people have to enter the country through a
legal port of entry.
`No time limit for application`
Also, people who entered the country illegally could not get asylum
under the Refugees Act because they were in contravention of the
Immigration Act, said Bofilatos.
`It is clear, especially in [Ruta`s] case, [that he] deliberately
entered the country through places that are not ports of entries which
means [he`s] not [a] bona fide applicant (an applicant without
intentions to deceive),` he said.
Bofilatos also argued that immigration officers could deny access to
an application for asylum if the person delayed their application
unreasonably.
But Budlender disputed Bofilatos` argument, saying that there was no
basis for it in the Refugee Act. He said there was no time limit
stipulated in the act and people were able to apply for asylum
whenever they wanted to.
Justice Sisi Khampepe asked Budlender if there could ever be a case
where it was too late for people to apply for asylum.
Budlender said there could never be a case where it was too late to
apply but he said the delay in application may hinder the RSDO`s decision.
`We are not saying that the RSDO should always rule in favour of the
asylum seeker. In fact the delay in applying for asylum might
negatively affect the RSDO`s decision if the reasons are not
compelling enough, but the person must always have that opportunity to
apply and the decision must be taken only by the RSDO,` said Budlender.
He said the case had far-reaching implications for all people who were
denied an opportunity to apply for asylum.
Judgement was reserved.


Search
South Africa Immigration Company