i issue. We have to admit that Makosi has become a household name to many of us. I will address the implications of her victory to remain in the UK from the point of view of some of us who are campaigning for Zimbabwean asylum seekers.
Makosi’s victory to remain in this country has two aspects – moral and legal. It is not the first time that we as campaigners have been faced with such issues. When we go out campaigning we do not distinguish or classify asylum seekers, we just look at the situation in Zimbabwe and the risk faced by asylum seekers in general. If our assessment shows that it is not safe to return failed asylum seekers, as is the case now we will focus our campaign to highlight that risk.
When we win our campaigns they do not cover a certain group of Zimbabweans, it covers everyone even those Zimbabweans in the UK who are against our campaigns. On January 15, 2002 the home office stopped forced removals of failed asylum seekers and that meant any Zimbabwean who was caught committing other crimes and decide to claim asylum when faced with deportation would not be removed.
This left us in a big dilemma as some Zimbabweans abused the system by claiming asylum as a last ditch to stop removals. There is no justification at all for supporting a Zimbabwean who is caught drinking and driving without car insurance or driver’s license and on being arrested and handed to immigration officials because he/ she is an overstayer decides to claim asylum. The majority of these people do not belong to any opposition party and are ignorant of the situation in Zimbabwe but chose to claim asylum because of the blanket ban on removals. These are the people who make our struggle more difficult as we find ourselves defending their weak cases and try to justify the unjustifiable.
Makosi’s issue raises the moral issue in that, here is a nurse who had a work permit but because of reasons known to her decided to go on the TV show fully aware of the implications of her decision. When faced with deportation she claims that she will face persecution if she was to be returned to Zimbabwe. One thing that I find hard to forgive is for someone to abuse the privileges of having a work permit fully aware of the disastrous consequences.
We have hundreds of asylum seekers who are professionals but are not allowed to utilize their skills. We are campaigning day in and day out for the home office to grant Zimbabwean asylum seekers the right to utilize their skills yet we have people like Makosi who seem not to appreciate how privileged there are to have work permits. Instead of complying with the conditions of their work permits they embark on their ambitions to become stars and when it fails they use all avenues available to remain in the UK. It is morally unfair to genuine asylum seekers who never had the opportunity of entering UK because they are languishing in detention and some have never been allowed to utilize their skills because there are not allowed to work or even to further their education.
These asylum seekers have religiously complied with their immigration conditions such as reporting to police or immigration reporting centres three times a week for the past few years. In return they have been detained on several occasions pending removals and if it was not for the hard working of campaigners most of them would have been deported. Most of the campaigners see the asylum determination process like a lottery because it is unpredictable who will be granted refugee status.
In as much as we may have moral issues with the Makosi issue we should not forget the legal aspect to her case. I am not a legal specialist and my analysis may not be correct but I have done a bit of research to make sure that my general analysis is correct. I would advise Zimbabweans to consult their solicitors for a detailed analysis of this interesting case.
In law if there is precedence, it means similar cases will be judged in more or less similar way. If we want vulnerable people to be protected then test cases have to cover everyone who qualifies without segregating them on other basis. In the Zimbabwean case the tribunal in October 2005 ruled that it was not safe to remove failed asylum seekers regardless of the merits of their cases. The test case in that ruling was that of AA which was a weak case but it was found that it was not safe to remove failed asylum seekers. Makosi qualifies in that she feared persecution when returned to Zimbabwe. The Home office was represented by its top lawyers for the Makosi case and they argued that there were going to use “SAFER METHODS TO REMOVE FAILED ASYLUM SEEKERS ”. They admitted that the current methods of removals were not safe as ruled by the tribunal and were going to use safer methods and could not reveal those so called safer methods. If Makosi had lost her case it means that our victory in October would have been short-lived. In view of this I would like to congratulate Makosi and her legal team for winning yet another test case for Zimbabwean asylum seekers. It has to be put on record that we would have liked other cases to be test cases not controversial ones.
I do not think that Makosi won her case because of flashing her boobs on national television but it’s all due to the hard work of Zimbabwean asylum seekers and their campaigners. Its sad, but we do not begrudge people who rip where they did not sow. We hope Makosi will join hands with some of the campaigners to highlight the plight of asylum seekers as she has benefited from their struggle.
The message to all Zimbabweans in the UK is for us to remain focused in our campaign for asylum seekers. The courts as can be seen are still on our side so we need to continue campaigning and not be side tracked by personalities who are getting refugee status. We should welcome the granting of refugee status to all Zimbabweans but that does not mean to say that we should not debate issues of interest such as this case in discussion. Debate is healthy and we should come out of if much stronger and determined.
Every Zimbabwean has a right to be here since we are all victims of the regime in Zimbabwe. Let us support one another.
– Dr Chireka wrote this article in his personal capacity. Comments are welcome and his email is docbeecee@yahoo.co.uk
Post published in: Opinions