This appeal determined the effect of a rejected asylum seeker(s)’ application in Botswana. The court held that a failed asylum seeker should be dealt with according to the Immigration Act (Cap 25:02). A failed asylum seeker becomes an illegal immigrant liable for detention and removal from Botswana, without intervention from the court. The length of the detention that was permissible for effecting lawful removal of unlawful immigrants should be considered according to s 5(1) of the Constitution. The court interpreted the provision to hold that it permits the deprivation of liberty that was reasonable to effect lawful removal depending on the circumstances of the case. The court held that none of the respondents was being held for longer than what was reasonably allowed.
The court noted the importance of refraining from making orders that require the government to make unusual or substantial uses of public resources. Further, courts should adhere to the requirement of s 7 of the State Proceedings (Civil Action by or against Government or Public Officers) Act (Cap 10:01) which gives the government three months to comply with orders before enforcement.
The court found that the respondents were kept in the dark on the progress of the government in repatriating them. The respondents have a right to be updated regularly, according to reg 16 of the Prisons (Centres for Illegal Immigrants) Regulations (Cap 21:03 (SI) 38).
Consolidated appeal; asylum seeker(s); political persecution; rejection of application; detention; non-refoulement
This was a consolidated appeal (the Iragi and Ngezi cases), concerning the fate of unsuccessful asylum seekers who were detained pending their removal or departure from Botswana. The Attorney General appealed against two orders of the High Court in the two cases. The High Court had ordered the respondents to be released from detention in the Francistown Centre for Illegal Immigrants (the Centre) and be accommodated at the Dukwi Refugee Camp.
The appeal was upheld. The orders granted by Moroka J and Solomon J were dismissed with no order as to costs. There was no order as to costs in the appeal.
The court held that the respondents were not entitled to be released from detention. Further, the court should refrain from making orders that require the government to make unusual or substantial use of public resources.