The court determined whether petitioners were detained because of the alleged theft they had committed and whether they thus could apply for bail. The court also determined whether their detention was illegal or not.
The court found that petitioners were detained because they were failed asylum seekers and the authorities had decided to treat them strictly in accordance with their status, and not due to the allegations of theft against them. As such petitioners were not detained solely because of the alleged theft and had not been charged with any offence, and hence they could not apply for bail.
The court found that petitioners’ detention was not illegal, for reasons that their application for asylum was rejected, was not illegal.
Asylum application rejected; detention; accusation of theft
Petitioners were nationals of the DRC who fled to Botswana because of the war in the eastern part of the DRC. They applied for political asylum in Botswana, which was rejected. After that rejection, petitioners stayed in a refugee camp. While staying in the camp, petitioners were accused of theft from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) warehouse in the camp and interrogated by the police. Five days later, they were taken into police vehicle and detained in a centre for illegal immigrants.
The petition is dismissed with costs.
To determine the reasons for the detention, the court relied on submissions made by several officials. The court’s finding that the detention was not illegal is based on the fact that the Petitioners’ detention did not arise from the suspicion that they committed an offence but from their status as failed asylum seekers.