The undersigned human rights organisations express their categorical rejection of the draft law “regulating foreigners’ asylum in Egypt”, which was recently approved by the Defence and National Security Committee of the Egyptian Parliament. This bill is expected to be discussed and voted on in the next plenary session of the House of Representatives. This is happening against the backdrop of the hasty promulgation of a number of laws that will fundamentally reshape an important part of Egypt’s legal and infrastructure, including the criminal procedures code. This is happening without real community participation or wide consultation with stakeholders and experts.
The refugee bill, and the swift and almost secretive parliamentary process of drafting and discussing it, presents an extension of exclusionary policies that ignore stakeholders, including refugee communities and their representatives, human rights organisations as well as UN organisations. It was drafted and tabled without the involvement of international partners or civil society organisations that work in the field of refugee protection and those who have been managing the refugee status determination system on behalf of the government and providing assistance to refugee communities for decades, in cooperation with – or on behalf of – the state.
Failure to adhere to international standards
The bill lacks clear criteria for the selection, training and capacity building of staff of the proposed Committee that will have sole power to oversee the asylum process, as well as the criteria and procedures that govern the work of the committee specifically in making decisions on asylum protection. This raises concerns about the compatibility of the modalities that will ultimately govern the committee’s work criteria with international refugee protection conventions that form the backbone of the current asylum system supervised by UNHCR (the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, as well as the 1969 Organisation of African Unity (OAU) Refugee Convention). The failure to include provisions outlining standards and modalities could potentially result in a reduction of protection levels available to refugee populations in Egypt.
A transitional vacuum
The main lesson learned from previous experiences in which countries of a similar profile to Egypt managed a successful transition from a UN mandate to a national asylum system is that it is absolutely necessary for the government to work in parallel with the UNHCR for a transitional period, until the national system builds the infrastructure and capacity needed to carry out this task in a manner consistent with legal and humanitarian obligations. The draft law omits any mention of a transitional period, let alone one that is adequate for the magnitude of the task. In fact, it completely ignored the existence of an asylum system that has been operating for decades. The draft law does not include any reference to procedures to manage a smooth transition to the new system, seemingly assuming that the transfer of asylum cases to the national system is an instantaneous process that takes place automatically upon enactment of the law. However, the practical reality is that creating a legal structure for registering asylum seekers, determining refugee status, and managing and protecting data is an extremely complex legal and logistical process. One that will require a long preparatory period before the assumption of its task, as well as close co-operation with the bodies that have performed this task for nearly five decades once the system is launched.
Independence of the Commission
The draft law raises concerns about the independence of the proposed Committee, which is headed by the Prime Minister and representatives of cabinet ministries, as well as being funded from the state’s general budget. This makes its members non-independent public servants, in contrast to the current situation in which the somewhat independent UN system implements refugee status determination based on laws and international standards, independent of the political orientation of the government in place.
This lack of impartiality, coupled with the unchecked powers provided to the Commission, threatens current refugee protections a. The bill gives the committee the right to take “whatever measures it deems necessary” towards refugees, including those who had been granted protection by the same committee, in emergency situations that are vaguely defined in the text. This leaves most people in refugee communities feeling precarious, especially considering that they have suffered from forced deportations, targeting of specific communities and a host of other legal violations even under the current system which offers more protection.
Concerns about fundamental rights
The draft includes an unjustified expansion of the Commission’s powers to revoke refugee status for reasons related to vague terms such as ‘national security’. Due to the overly broad and vague nature of the term ‘national security’, this exclusion clause could be used to overly restrict the rights of refugees without any real oversight or legal recourse. This and other, similar provisions that provide for very broad exclusionary grounds in the bill could put individuals at risk of refoulement or other abuses, and effectively renders meaningless the protections afforded to recognised refugees in other parts of the bill.
Moreover, the bill restricts basic rights, such as education, health care, and housing, to those with refugee status. This excludes asylum seekers granted temporary protection from these rights until their status is resolved, making them vulnerable to exploitation or extortion from service providers, on top of protection concerns.
The draft law also fails to protect refugees’ data, putting their personal information at risk of disclosure and misuse. Data confidentiality is a fundamental right that must be protected, and is especially sensitive for refugees and for individuals who may be in a vulnerable position because of security threats in their countries of origin..
We are also concerned that the draft bill does not take into account the real protection issues faced by refugees in Egypt. Instead of including articles that encourage the integration of refugees into society and the local economy. Rather, the bill limits opportunities for integration and imposes harsh penalties for acts that are not clearly defined, such as so-called breaches of public security and public order or “failure to observe customs and values of Egyptian society”, or political or trade union activity, denying many rights guaranteed to refugees by international law.
External context
The draft law cannot be seen in isolation from the ongoing agreements and partnerships between Egypt and the EU and its evolution since 2014. Adopting a national asylum system does not stem from a genuine Egyptian will to resolve refugee issues or to establish a comprehensive legal framework that allows for their integration into society. Beginning from the Khartoum Agreement through cooperation projects on ‘migration governance and border control’ and finally the €7.4 billion Strategic Partnership Agreement, of which more than €200 million is dedicated to migration control, it is clear that these legislations are responding to and engaging with external pressures. These partnership agreements, which the Refugee Platform in Egypt has previously described in one of its reports as “complications of a failed and deadly partnership” lack transparency as their details are almost never made public, and none of them include clear clauses that commit the parties to basic human rights commitment.
Conclusion
In light of the above, the undersigned human rights organisations express their categorical rejection of the draft law regulating the asylum of foreigners in Egypt in its current form. The bill does not provide real solutions to the basic challenges faced by refugees, but rather increases the complexity of procedures and reduces their access to protection and services. It also completely ignores the need to plan for a transitional phase that allows for a coherent legal and logistical transition of the asylum system, without disrupting the legal procedures currently overseen by the UNHCR, which could create legal a vacuum and undermine the rights and protections of the refugee community before the law is passed and while the new asylum bodies are being built.
The undersigned organisations call for the draft law to be returned to the relevant committee, and for a real and meaningful debate on the provisions of the draft law with participation from experts and relevant bodies. The aim of this improved process would be to produce a new bill with articles that ensure the protection of the rights of refugees and that adheres to international standards. We emphasise the need for clear and transparent provisions that govern the working mechanisms of the decision-making committee proposed in the draft law, and a comprehensive transition plan that would guarantee the rights of refugees and the uninterrupted provision of existing services.
The human rights community is keen on constructive engagement with the proposed Egyptian legislation, despite the Egyptian authorities’ constant disregard for this positive engagement. The Refugee Platform in Egypt and the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights issued a detailed analytical paper analysing every aspect of the bill and the potential ramifications of its implementation, in addition to a policy brief reviewing the most important issues contained in the draft law and the most serious concerns about some of its key provisions. The ECRF also issued a legal commentary on the draft law. We hope that these efforts by civil society organisations will find a constructive engagement from the legislative authority and will inform future drafting processes.
Signatories:
- Refugees Platform in Egypt
- Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights
- El Nadeem Center
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
- Sinai Foundation for Human Rights
- Egyptian Forum for Human Rights
- Egyptian Human Rights Forum (EHRF)
- Law and Democracy Support Foundation – LDSF
- The Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy (TIMEP)
- Center for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance (CEWLA)
- ANKH association
- EgyptWide
- HuMENA for Human Rights and Civic Engagement
- Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Economiques et Sociaux
- Intersection Association for Rights and Freedoms
- The Regional Coalition for Women Human Rights Defenders in South West Asia and North Africa (WHRDMENA)
- REDWORD for Human Rights & Freedom of Expression
- National Representative Council of Eritrea-GIE
- Sea-Watch e.V.
- MV LOUISE MICHEL PROJECT
- Maldusa Projectmigration-control.info project
- Femena
Share this Post