Research Report: Enhancing Protection and Asylum: A South-South Dialogue for Rights and Solutions - Funded by EU Contracted by ICMPD

Project Funded by EU - Contracted by ICMPD

This report entails research that was conducted by the Scalabrini Institute for Human Mobility in Africa (SIHMA) as part of the Support Programme to the Africa-EU Migration and Mobility Dialogue (MMD III): Enhancing Protection & Asylum (EPA) implemented in partnership with the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CORMSA), Catholic Centre for Legal Aid Services (CCLAS) Uganda and the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Uganda. This project was made possible through the generous funding of the European Union and the implementation support from International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD).

The research was structured around two main objectives: (1) examining the general asylum process, and (2) analysing the processes for the protection of children on the move in South Africa and Uganda, with the aim of producing foundation content to inform the set of dialogues, conferences and multi-lateral symposia that are part of the larger EPA project. The research methodology was rooted in desktop review and key informant interviews with stakeholders from civil society organisations, refugee-led organisations, and other relevant stakeholders working with asylum seekers, refugees, and children on the move in South Africa and Uganda.

The report discusses some challenges that both asylum seekers in Uganda and South Africa  in relation to the general asylum processes. The prima-facie system in Uganda was highly regarded as seamless however applying for asylum in urban areas, under the non-prima facie system face more complex, procedures with strict deadlines and frequent delays. These, plus a lack of knowledge on the part of asylum and minimal legal support services mean that many refugees in urban areas are undocumented, resulting in denied access to certain services. Lack of documentation means limited access to formal work in urban areas, pushing migrants to the informal sector, exposing them to exploitation.

In South Africa, asylum seekers face severe barriers to accessing the asylum system, with bottlenecks at Refugee Reception Offices, lack of interpreters, and punitive treatment for undocumented entry. Although the legislation allows for undocumented migrants to access healthcare and education at the elementary levels, its application is inconsistent, making healthcare and educational access heavily dependent on documentation. These inconsistencies between law and practice have excluded a cross-section of refugees and asylum seekers from accessing services within the country.

Concerning the protection of children on the move, the report reveals that although there are legal provisions to document and protect children on the move in terms of birth registration, access to services (health and education), family tracing, and reunification in Uganda, there are several implementation challenges, including proximity to registration offices, hidden financial costs, and information gathering. While South Africa’s Children’s Act provides legal protections for vulnerable children, including unaccompanied and asylum seeking or refugee children, poor training, fragmented responsibilities, and documentation barriers hinder implementation. In South Africa, birth registration is a fundamental right but challenging for undocumented parents. Proof of birth is often withheld by health services and legal barriers complicate late registration. Despite court rulings affirming the right to registration, inefficiency and discrimination on the part of officials hinders access, risking children’s exclusion from education, healthcare, and legal status.

The rich data from civil society organisations, refugee led organisations and other relevant stakeholders contained in this report gives a graphic picture of the challenges faced by refugees and asylum seekers, including children on the move due to the gaps in the laws and the poor implementation by responsible authorities. The comparison between Uganda and South Africa, in spite of some fundamental differences in approaches to migrants, is useful, particularly when looking at the situation of urban migrants in Uganda. The comparative aspect of this report should allow for rich dialogue in forthcoming meetings that will discuss recommendations for legal, policy and implementation change.