[ad_1]
Capturian refugees, officially known as Namibian refugees, accuse the government of giving them an ultimatum to register for repatriation.
The repatriation action was carried out Wednesday for those who volunteered to return while a total of 709 refugees approached the emergency court
Refugees, represented by the lawyer Martin Dingake, will know their fate once the court has ruled on the matter.
For now, the state's attorney and refugees have not requested voluntary repatriation will not be expelled and this has been confirmed by the High Court judge , Godfrey Nthomiwa Wednesday by a temporary ban.
Dingake had previously wanted the ban to also cover those who volunteered for repatriation. they did it under duress.
He argued that the conditions had deteriorated at the camp and most had no choice but to make the decision to leave
. the government argued that they would not hold those who volunteered to be held hostage.
Now, on the reasons for going to court, the refugees accuse the government of making the decision to repatriate them again without regard to security issues. Refugees say the government made the decision to repatriate them without addressing security issues and complying with the Tripartite Agreement, the Refugees Act and international law.
"May 9, 2018" Security said the refugees had two months to be repatriated, July 11, 2018 being the last day, otherwise they would all face a forced repatriation, "reads the newspapers.
According to the founding affidavit of Tyson Mujela communication by the minister, the Caprivian elders made an effort of dialogue with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other stakeholders The decision to meet at the SADC offices on June 18, 2018 was not successful because they were arrested and are still detained in the Immigration Department on the instructions of the Minister of the Interior. . The refugees are now asking the court to intervene on the grounds that the planned repatriation was arbitrary,
inhuman, degrading and unlawful because it contradicted the fundamental principles of international law, national law and tripartite law. Agreement between the Governments of Botswana and Namibia with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
"There is no disclosure of the reasons that motivate the decision to start the repatriation process all at once and even do it in such a violent manner," read the statement. 39; affidavit.
Mujela argued that the government failed to produce its own report after the abrupt Go See's mission, Come Tell was confirmed in 2014 and the Minister did not explain why these people are not wanted in Namibia.
"The refugees say that they can not return to Namibia when it is clearly stated that the reasons for flight still exist and our political party is still banned in Namibia.
" Several members of our party who were repatriated upon their arrival were arrested and are now serving sentences for treason and that is why we are seeking asylum in Botswana. "Later, the refugees said that it was inconceivable to know what forced repatriation would do, because most of the non-released refugees have children and families who depend solely and highly on them
they have a cause and they have delayed the lawsuits because they thought the government would be willing to listen to them and have a positive dialogue about it.
Mujela, further in his affidavit, states: that the repatriation would be suspended and that the negotiations would resume when, for their part, there would be no alternative recourse for them once expelled and / or repatriated.
"The court would have no jurisdiction and therefore could not order our return to Botswana. Our deportation will mean that all remedies that we currently have in law will cease to exist. We will have no right of recourse against the government in court, "said Mujela.
Finally, the refugees request that the court grant them the final ban, as they have an affair and that 39: they will suffer irreparable harm if they are not granted.
[ad_2]
Source link
