|
Matthew Vella
Charles Buttigieg, the commissioner for refugees, is being awarded new powers – he will determine how far an application for refugee status is abusive or not.
The new definition on so-called bogus claims, termed ‘manifestly unfounded’ applications, will be a new verdict which will appear alongside the rejected applications.
But the new powers have alarmed refugee support groups because the so-called ‘manifestly unfounded’ applicants will be immediately repatriated even if they lodge an appeal on their case.
The tough stance appears to be informed by government’s experience with refused applicants who appeal the Refugee Commission’s decision. Since 2004, the Appeals Board has only ever accepted one appeal: they rejected 265.
In an attempt to prune their load of migrants faster however, the new legal formality is feared could be tantamount to the forcible repatriation of persons to a country in which they fear persecution or face the risk of torture – contrary to international law.
But on both sides of the House, agreement exists that ‘manifestly unfounded’ applicants are de facto abusers of the system, as Gavin Gulia, a lawyer and Labour’s spokesperson on home affairs says:
“Certain asylum seekers genuinely believe they qualify for protection so they try our institutions by making a formal application which eventually fails. Others however know from the very start they do not qualify, and abuse our institutions by making a manifestly unfounded application. The amendment only aims at curbing these latter abuses.”
But does the amendment dent the right of appeal at the cost of human lives who are presumed to be ‘abusive’ asylum seekers – just for a faster repatriation?
The Jesuit Refugee Service and the Catholic Church’s emigrants commission have been unequivocal about the proposed regulation, ultimately intended to speed up repatriation.
“The grounds proposed for the Refugee Commissioner to determine an application as ‘manifestly unfounded’ are too weak to warrant the loss of a real right to appeal. To send even one person back to a country where he will face persecution or other serious human rights violations is too high a cost to pay.”
Government has attempted to sweeten the new rules by allowing repatriated migrants whose appeal is subsequently accepted to return to Malta – without a visa. But NGOs say the guarantee “rings hollow”, fearing it might be too late to provide protection for the person sent back to the country they fled in the first place.
Gulia, squarely in agreement with the new bill, says the amendments are there to stop “abusers” from prolonging their stay unjustly in Malta by lodging an appeal: “the idea is to eliminate a second chance for abuse at appeals stage. Some immigrants try to appeal to unjustly prolong their stay in Malta. If you are against abuse you should support the amendment. If you condone abuse then oppose it.”
But what will constitute a manifestly unfounded application now depends on the wisdom of Refugee Commissioner Charles Buttigieg.
“It will ask a high commitment for serious appreciation of the applications,” Gulia says on Buttigieg’s new edict. “Maybe more than ever before. Without saying that he is infallible I have confidence in his sense of judgement and discretion.”
But Buttigieg, who is also the PRO of the Maltese Catholic Church, is sheepish about the new powers he is about to be bestowed upon: “the proposed amendment has yet to be considered at Committee stage by the House of Representatives. The Office of the Refugee Commissioner will first have to see what the enacted law states and requires of it.”
Speeding up repatriation is also high on the agenda as the incoming flow of boat people increased exponentially this year shooting asylum seeker numbers to well over 1,600.
The Maltese government now has to face down a proposal by the EU council of ministers to reduce detention periods to six months. The European Parliament approved the proposal by a hairline majority backed by socialists, greens and liberals. Malta’s Nationalist MEPs voted against – Labour’s abstained, just three out of four MEPs who did not follow the example of their socialist colleagues who voted in favour.
“Government should resist it at all costs,” Gulia says, who says the new proposal risks undermining the system of refugee protection: “it goes against our national interest and does not affect any other member state but Malta because it is next to impossible to vet all applications in that period and you will have abusers roaming about free with impunity.”
mvella@mediatoday.com.mt
|
