The court in the first place held that applicant was never granted authorisation to reside outside a refugee camp. Moreover, respondent would not be competent under Malawian law to grant applicant permission to stay outside a refugee camp.
Subsequently, the court had to assess the legality of respondents’ order regarding the return of all refugee/asylum seekers to refugee camps was legal.
The court held that the order was not discriminatory since the order applied to refugees/asylum seekers of all nationalities. Moreover, the order did not violate the right to freedom of movement of refugees/asylum seekers, since it is an appropriate measure to protect national security or public order. The court held that the fact that there was no actual breakdown of national security of public order does not mean that respondent cannot take a precautionary measure. Applicant cannot blame respondent for not affording him an opportunity to be heard, since applicant had sufficient time to know that he had to return to camp. If applicant’s children cannot get the right education within the camp, he must apply for a study permit, but this cannot be a reason to reside out of camp.
The court also relied on a reservation made by Malawi regarding Article 26 of the Refugee Convention on Freedom of Movement, in which it reserves the right to designate the place of residence of refugees and to restrict their movements when national security or public order so require.
Order to return to refugee camp; permission to live outside refugee camp; freedom of movement
The Department of Poverty and Disaster Management issued an order requiring all refugees and asylum seekers in Malawi that reside outside designated areas, to return to the appropriate refugee camps. The applicant was a Rwandese with refugee status in Malawi, who does not live in a refugee camp, nor receives any assistance from a refugee camp. As such, he was affected by the order.
The applicants brough an application for judicial review. They prayed to the review the decision of the respondent. The applicants contended that the decision was unlawful and unconstitutional and ought to be quashed.
The applicant argued that a subcommittee of the respondent authorised him to reside in urban areas outside refugee camps and issued him an identity card for that purpose. Respondent denies this and states that applicant’s permission to reside outside a camp was rejected.
The application was dismissed.
The application had no merit.