Biti’s deportation an abrogation of international law – Mumba
By Staff Reporter
CHIEF government spokesperson Dora Siliya has appealed for moderation in discussing the deportation of Zimbabwe’s opposition leader Tendai Biti on Thursday.
And governance and conflict resolution expert, Francisco Mumba says the deportation of Biti to Zimbabwe by the Zambian authorities was a serious abrogation of international law.
In an attempt to justify the decision to hand back Biti to the Zimbabwean authorities when he was seeking asylum in Zambia , Siliya who is also information minister claimed that it was erroneous for the media to report that the former was deported.
“Biti was not deported but handed back as he had not entered Zambia. His hand-over documents were processed on 8 August while his court order against his return processed on 9 August 2018,” said Siliya ignoring a factual presentations regarding Biti’s deportation.
Biti was held by the Zambian immigration authorities on August 8, until 9 when he was surrendered to the Zimbabwean government.
Siliya claimed foreign media had been awash with reports of Zambia, one of the most peaceful countries in Africa denying Biti asylum in the wake of electoral violence that resulted to the death of six people.
“Zambia is known regionally for sheltering people under persecution since its independence in 1964, but it is often reluctant when instances of crimes on the part of those seeking shelter are pointed out. It is not clear whether the shadow of six deaths associated with the opposition in Zimbabwe’s recent bloody poll could have discouraged the Zambian authorities to consider Biti’s application,” she said.
Analysing the turn of events, Mumba said whether an asylum-seeker met the inclusion criteria of the 1951 Convention refugee definition, decision-makers must have taken into account all relevant facts and circumstances of the case.
He said a person could be granted asylum or refugee status as long as he/she could prove that he/she was outside country of nationality or habitual residence.
Mumba explained that persecution should provide adequate grounds for someone seek refugee status.
“The term “well-founded fear” contains a subjective and an Objective element, and when determining refugee status, decision makers must consider both,” he stated.
“Fear is, by definition, a state of mind and hence a subjective condition, which will depend on the individual’s personal and family background, his or her personal experiences, and the way in which he or she interprets his or her situation”.
Mumba said in practice, any expression of unwillingness to return was normally sufficient to establish the “fear” element of the refugee definition.
“Whether or not the fear is “well-founded” must be assessed in the context of the situation in the applicant’s country of origin and in light of his or her personal circumstances,” he said.
Mumba said the decision-maker also needed to develop a detailed understanding of the applicant’s background, profile and experiences.
He said experiences of family members and/or other persons with a comparable profile would also be relevant.
“Asylum-seekers are not required to prove their fear “beyond reasonable doubt”, or that it would be “more probable than not” that the feared harm will materialize,” Mumba explained.
“The applicant’s well-founded fear must relate to persecution. The concept of “persecution” is not defined in the 1951 Convention. From Article 33 of the 1951 Convention it can be inferred that a threat to life or physical freedom constitutes persecution, as would other serious violations of human rights”.
He said the preamble to the 1951 Convention refers to international human rights standards, which provide a useful framework for analysis that would have helped to deal with Biti’s case.
“Having raised the above government could reduce the questions being raised by citizens by providing specific answers for denying Tendai Biti Asylum. Without concrete reasons the government will be regarded as an accomplice for whatever would happen to Tendai Biti,” Mumba cautioned.
“Secondly, it is serious abrogation of international law which Zambia is a state party to deny one asylum on the basis of allegations from his country of origin”.
