Meanwhile, the lack of a well-defined mechanism has at times been
blamed for failure to manage illegal immigration efficiently, on the
basis that it created operational concerns for affected stakeholders,
especially during anti-crime exercises and custody of illegal
immigrants.
This follows the release of a Performance Audit Report No.9, 2008 on
the management of the illegal immigrants by the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIC), from the Office of the Auditor
General (OAG) this past week.
According to the report, the existence of a policy on illegal
immigrants was crucial because it would have been a guidance tool for
the efficient management of illegal immigrants by the DIC and the
respective stakeholders.
The Auditor General stated, The policy on management of illegal
immigration would have identified the intent of the government to
address this issue along with stating the general approach and strategy
to manage various aspects that appertain to the issue.
On the contrary, the present situation is such that the DIC depends on
the Immigration Act Chap 25: 02. It was observed by the OAG that, with
the promulgation of the said act, the department issued regulations to
assist the Immigration Officers to perform their duty.
Against this background, the report exposes the folly of the existing
dispensation thus; The Act and Immigration Subsidiary legislation
specifically provided for the procedures to be adopted for issues such
as; Warrant of Detention and Removal of Prohibited Immigrants, whereas,
it did not mention the procedure to be followed in case of illegal
immigrants.
The senior Management of the DIC, according to the report, opted to
defend the present order by expressing the view that there was no
difference between a Prohibited Immigrant and Illegal Immigrant as
both were treated as undesirable persons.
An Illegal Immigrant is a foreigner who either illegally crossed an
international border, be it by land, water, or air or a foreigner who
legally entered a country but nevertheless overstays their visa in
order to live and or work therein, asserted the Auditors.
To further elaborate on the world of difference between the two categories, Section 7 of the Act is cited.
The section goes, A Prohibited Immigrant is a person who: has
infirmity of mind and body; is any idiot, epileptic, insane or mentally
deficient; any prostitute; is declared by President to be an
undesirable inhabitant of or a visitor to Botswana; the wife and
children under the age of 18 years and any other dependent of a
prohibited immigrant.
On the basis of this, it was argued that these were distinct categories
for which procedures to apprehend, detain and repatriate were to be
provided separately.
Moreover, the fact that the parties involved in dealing with the
Illegal Immigrants, namely DIC, Botswana Police Service (BPS) and the
Department of Prisons and Rehabilitation (DPR), each has to rely on
their own Acts makes life even worse. In this arrangement the DPR is
required to detain the Illegal immigrants in the Prison Cells waiting
for the DIC to finalize their investigation and repatriation processes.
The members of the BPS on the other hand are responsible for overseeing
the anti-crime exercises, and clean up campaigns targeting such alien
elements.
To compound matters, the Audit report alludes to a complaint by the
Prisons department of the adverse effect of the lack of coordination on
their financial budget.
This proved that the role that each organization had to play and their
cut off links in the issue were not clear, lamented the Auditors.
An extreme scenario manifested, according to the report, in instances
where partly because of their exclusion from the investigations, and
therefore ignorance as to their, the Prison Warders when detainees
complained to them regarding detention, they would merely release them
without a word to the Officer in Charge of the DIC. This, it is
reported, tended to bring tension between the two entities.
Thus, from this context, it emerges that issues of accountability and
best international practice are of no consequence in the management of
alien persons.
To address this discord, the OAG recommended that the DIC should take
reasonable steps to review and amend the existing instruments in line
with the gaps highlighted.