Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Annual Report
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
ii
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
CONTENTS
National Directors Message ....................................................................................................... 3
LHR Celebrates its 30-Year Anniversary ............................................................................. 4
Refugee And Migrant Rights Programme ........................................................................... 5
Immigration Detention Monitoring Unit ............................................................................... 15
Strategic Litigation Unit .............................................................................................................. 18
Land And Housing Unit ...............................................................................................................24
Environmental Rights Project ................................................................................................. 30
Child Rights Project ....................................................................................................................... 31
HIV/AIDS Project ...........................................................................................................................32
Note of Thanks ................................................................................................................................33
Financial Statements ....................................................................................................................34
1
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
NATI ONAL DI RECTORS MESSAGE
Lawyers for Human Rights marked an important
milestone in 2009 by celebrating its 30-year
anniversary. In response to oppressive laws
and human rights violations by the apartheid
government, human rights lawyers, activists
and academics gathered in Cape Town for a
groundbreaking conference on human rights in
1979 from which LHR emerged. Thirty years later,
a new generation of LHR lawyers continue the
spirit of activism and commitment to protect and
enforce human rights in South Africa.
As part of its celebratory activities, LHR hosted
a conference on the role and impact of public
interest litigation in South Africa on 19 and 20
November 2009 in Parktown, Johannesburg.
The conference brought together
representatives from government, the judiciary,
civil society, legal profession and chapter
nine institutions to reect on the impact
and limitations of public interest litigation in
establishing a more equalitarian state and
enforcing human rights in South Africa.
LHR has brought a number of high prole
cases in the 2008/9 period. In the Zimabawean
Exiles Forum matter, LHR sought the release of
several Zimbabwean human rights activists who
were arrested and threatened with deportation
following a protest against the arms shipment
to Zimbabwe that took place at the gates of the
Chinese Embassy.
National director Jacob van Garderen addressing the Moutse
community during the provincial demarcation hearing in the Constitutional Court
2
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHRs Land and Housing Unit is involved in a
large number of eviction and land restitution
matters, including the highly publicised Schubart
Park and Kruger Park eviction cases.
This case made headlines when the North
Gauteng High Court issued an interdict
preventing the City of Tshwane from evicting a
large number of residents without following the
necessary procedure.
The Refugee and Migrant Rights Programme
continues to ofer extensive legal services in
Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Musina
to an ever-increasing number of refugees and
migrant workers. In recognition of its excellent
work, the UNHCRs regional ofce for Southern
Africa nominated LHR for the prestigious Nansen
Award, which is given annually by the UNHCR to
individuals or groups for outstanding service to
the cause of refugee protection.
The Strategic Litigation Unit has been busy
with a number of precedent-setting cases and
has been instrumental in the development
of refugee/migration law jurisprudence. Its
establishment has bolstered LHRs capacity to
provide litigation services to the communities
served by the organisation. The Unit has
conducted and supported an incredible amount
of impact litigation. LHR has been involved,
either as attorneys of record or as amicus curiae
in no less than four Constitutional Court matters
and two appeals heard by the Supreme Court of
Appeal.
The Constitutional Court handed down
judgment in the Merafong demarcation case
in June 2008. The case was brought on behalf
of the Khutsong community to declare the 12
th
Constitution Amendment Act, which transferred
that region from Gauteng to the North West,
unconstitutional. The court dismissed the
application, nding the case required political,
rather than judicial, intervention. However,
after the case had been decided by the court,
the ANC government made an about-turn and
introduced legislation to reincorporate Merafong
into Gauteng.
A new project focusing on environmental justice
was launched to assist people adversely afected
by environmental degradation. The project
focuses on access to clean water, sanitation and
the impact of mining on the environment and
livelihoods of poor communities.
It has been an exciting and busy two years and
we look forward to taking many of these cases
into 2010.
JACOB VAN GARDEREN
NATIONAL DIRECTOR
3
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
LHRs 30-year anniversary was celebrated in November with a two-day conference in Johannesburg
under the theme of the role and impact of public interest litigation in South Africa.
More than 200 delegates from civil society, partner organisations and the legal profession attended.
On the rst day keynote speakers, including Deputy Justice Minister Andries Nel, Yasmin Sooka
and Jody Kollapen outlined the key human rights challenges and the emerging use of litigation as a
strategy for ensuring change.
On the second day, delegates were invited to attend parallel sessions on refugee and migrant rights,
land and tenure reform, environmental rights, international justice and child rights.
LHR CELEBRATES 30 YEARS
OF MAKI NG RI GHTS REAL
4
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
The protection of refugees and asylum-
seekers became a key human rights
concern during South Africas rst
decade of democracy. Since 1994,
approximately 200000 people, mainly
from the conict areas such as the Great
Lakes region, Somalia, the Democratic
Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe have
applied for asylum in South Africa.
Despite relatively modest gures, the
government has struggled to honour
its constitutional and international
obligations to provide sanctuary and
protection to refugees and asylum-
seekers.
LHR ofers free legal services to
indigent and vulnerable asylum-seekers,
refugees and migrants. Approximately
400 people are assisted on a monthly
basis through LHRs three law clinics. In
addition to direct legal assistance, LHR
undertakes strategic litigation, human
rights monitoring, policy development,
training and advocacy through research,
publications and participation in a
number of national and international
refugee and migrant advocacy networks.
Litigation is used to advance clients
rights and to develop African
jurisprudence in the eld of refugee and
immigration law. LHRs legal advocacy
focuses primarily on unlawful arrest,
detention and deportation practices,
facilitating access to asylum and
socioeconomic rights of refugees and
migrants.
LHR also carries out vigorous detention
monitoring throughout South Africa
at detention centres, police stations,
airports and prisons.
LHR is also an implementing partner of
the UNHCR.
REFUGEE AND MI GRANT
RI GHTS PROGRAMME
5
OVER SEVERAL WEEKS IN MAY 2008, A WAVE OF VIOLENT ATTACKS
AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR PERCEIVED NATIONALITY,
ETHNICITY OR MIGRANT STATUS LED TO THE DISPLACEMENT OF TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES AND COMMUNITIES.
6
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
REFUGEES MAKE MISTAKE OF KNOWING THEIR RIGHTS
BUSINESS DAY, 11 AUGUST 2008
The past three months have seen a
dramatic change in the public perception
of this countrys victims of xenophobic
violence.
From once pathetic victims of violent
wrath by SAs poor and disillusioned, refu-
gees - upset by the governments poorly
planned re-integration policy - have now
been branded as ungrateful rebels. This is
often what happens when you dont live
up to your brand name.
The public is quite used to seeing pathetic
refugees carrying their worldly belongings
on their backs while hiking over some
rugged mountain pass to reach a border
crossing.
In SA, our perception is more of desper-
ate people scurrying under our northern
border fence escaping from a crisis that
our government often pretends does not
exist.
What we apparently dont want to see are
politically aware adults who will not stand
idly by and watch their legal rights be
trampled on.
Two weeks ago, a group of those people
were cast away from their shelter in
Johannesburg when asked to sign a
paper, which any attorney practiced in the
law of contract would never allow their
client to sign. It stated that refugees and
asylum-seekers who registered at the
camps would lose their rights to social
assistance, among other benets.
Refugees and asylum-seekers have the
right to access certain social grants.
Indeed, many have been beneting from
social relief-of-distress grants since
everything they owned, including houses
and businesses, were destroyed or stolen
in the violence that caused the deaths of
65 people and displaced thousands.
Ofcials were quick to assure them
verbally that this provision did not apply
to refugees, but they were still required
to sign.
These assurances came from the same
department - Home Affairs - that has
done its best to erode any sense of trust
in the past 10 years by mismanaging its
refugee reception ofces and by allowing
the constant harassment and arbitrary
arrest of the people it is charged with
protecting.
But when people started to question the
legality of signing the paper, they were not
given the opportunity to consult a lawyer.
Rather they were herded onto trucks and
sent to the Lindela repatriation centre.
When it became clear that it was illegal
to deport refugees, they were released
to the side of the highway with no money
to go any farther. Those men not lucky
enough to have friends or family with a
bakkie were then hauled off to the police
station to spend a week in jail for alleg-
edly obstructing trafc.
These frivolous charges are being used to
detain people, actually just the men, who
would normally be allowed to pay a ne.
In fact, there was not even a mention of
bail at their rst appearance and pros-
ecutors are assured that the courts are
booked up for any new bail applications in
the coming weeks.
At least women and children were pro-
vided for by a local shelter although still a
long way away from their husbands and
fathers in jail.
In cells, the men were then asked to
sign an afdavit relinquishing their
refugee status, depriving them of the only
protection afforded to them at this point:
international protection.
When the afdavits didnt work, they were
hauled back to Lindela for more inter-
views, once again without their lawyers.
This is most likely the next attempt by the
government to deport these documented
refugees and asylum-seekers to avoid the
protections provided for by Parliament in
the law.
And as this was happening, the local re-
sponse showed the true extent of how far
we still have to go toward re-integration
and reconciliation. Many described them
as ungrateful and uncooperative,
without asking why or whether there was
a valid reason for doing so.
No one should make the mistake of
idealising this group. A few among them
tried to capitalise on the situation to make
political gains, although the majority were
simply stuck at the side of the road with
nowhere to go.
But the real crime that they committed
was speaking up for themselves and their
rights. They did not live up to the expecta-
tion that a grateful refugee would have
been more cooperative with a poorly
implemented government plan.
All the more considering that the govern-
ments reintegration plan is nothing more
than vague assurances that it has spoken
to the hostile communities and that it is
now safe to go back.
This is cold comfort, especially after
recent reports that ve refugees were
murdered when they attempted to return
to their homes.
Little wonder then that these people are
standing up for their rights and dignity in
a country that belongs to all who live in it.
Perhaps the rst mistake was allowing
refugees in the rst place to get the feel
for how a democratic society works.
David Cote heads the Strategic Litigation
Unit at Lawyers for Human Rights.
7
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
Outbreak of xenophobic violence
Over several weeks in May 2008, a wave of violent attacks against people on the basis of their
perceived nationality, ethnicity or migrant status led to the displacement of tens of thousands of
people from their homes and communities.
Over 60 people were killed and more than 600 others were injured. The attacks, which appeared
to have been structured and organised by community leaders, began in the Alexandra township of
Johannesburg and quickly spread to other areas of Gauteng. The violence ared briey in Durban
and led to the ight of an estimated 20 000 people from their homes in the greater Cape Town area.
Over 30 000 people ed to Mozambique and other countries of origin.
Although the geographical areas afected were relatively small, the impact was severe as thousands
were gripped by fear and experienced the trauma of being aggressively evicted from their homes,
physically assaulted, burnt and even killed.
The scale and intensity of the May 2008 violence was unusual and caused widespread shock but
there had been sporadic attacks on refugees and migrants leading up to the outbreak of violence,
including in Mamelodi, Atteridgeville, Soshanguve and Cape Town as well as a number of serious
incidents in previous years in the Eastern and Western Cape.
Inquiries by human rights organisations highlighted contributing factors, including strong xenophobic
sentiments among South Africans, feelings of resentment towards and competition with foreigners
over jobs, housing and social services combined with anger and frustration over the slow pace of
delivery, persistence of high unemployment levels, perceptions of corruption among the police
service and Home Afairs in relation to refugees and migrants and a lack of efective policies on
migration, the role of criminality - of an organised (politically-motivated) element - behind the
violence and limits on the police services organisational capacity to respond to large-scale violence.
While the national governments response was initially slow, members of the public, humanitarian
and UN agencies, local charities and other civil society organisations ofered immediate assistance
to those displaced and sheltered at police stations, community halls, churches, mosques and other
temporary shelters.
Provincial government and local municipalities mobilised disaster management services to
coordinate a humanitarian response. The situation was declared a disaster in Gauteng, leading to
the establishment of ofcial sites referred to as camps. These camps were established to provide
temporary protection and safety for displaced individuals. There was a need for training on the
establishment of these camps and development of a budget from the humanitarian community. The
government, with the advice and support - including nancial - of UN agencies, humanitarian and
charitable organisations and a wide range of other civil society organisations, largely funded the
response to this emergency.
LHR began a process of camp monitoring to ensure displaced foreign nationals, who were limited in
their ability to move around, were informed of their rights and could access legal assistance.
LHRs legal team deliberating during the Moutse demarcation hearing in the Constitutional Court
22
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
BLIND DAD REUNITED WITH BABY
PRETORIA NEWS, 16 FEBRUARY 2008
A blind father has nally been reunited
with his nine-month-old daughter after
a bitter legal battle. And now lawyers
want the courts to prevent social work-
ers from taking children away from their
biological parents on imsy grounds.
The girl was taken away from her father
in November last year, shortly after her
mothers funeral. The father, who cant
be named to protect the child, looked
after his sickly wife during the months
preceding her death and also cared for
the baby and his wifes two teenage
children.
A social worker, however, decided to
remove the children ostensibly because
the father is blind. It was stated during
childrens court proceedings that he did
not have the nancial means to look
after the children.
The father said the two teenagers
could make up their own minds about
whether they wanted to return to him,
but he wanted his baby back.
The children were placed into the care
of his sister-in-law.
I may be blind and I may not be rich.
But I love my child with all my heart and
I make ends meet as I am a rst-class
handyman. I can do anything, even x
computers, he said. The man said that
during the childrens court proceedings
an ofcial commented: He cant even
walk into court on his own, how can he
take care of his baby?
Lawyers for Human Rights and local
attorney Louise du Plessis, with the
nancial help of the SA National Council
of the Blind (SANCB), took on the
fathers case.
SANCB also arranged for an assess-
ment of the blind fathers ability to func-
tion independently. This was done by
two social workers - a blind professor
and an occupational therapist.
SANCB said it opposed any attempt to
discriminate against the human rights of
blind people.
Judge Pierre Rabie at the time com-
mented that nancial difculty was
never a reason for keeping the child
from her biological father. He also said
there was nothing to suggest that the
man was a bad father.
He turned down an application by the
babys relatives, who tried to keep the
baby from returning to her father.
Experts met before the child was
handed over to her father to make the
process easier for the child. It was
decided that the parties would all attend
counselling and that the relatives may
visit the baby.
I am delighted. I cant believe my baby
is back. She is happy and coping well.
The ght to get her was worth it, the
father said.
He has remarried in the meantime to a
woman he met through his church. She
is helping to look after the child. The
father said his new wife worked with
children at an aftercare centre every
day.
Meanwhile, Du Plessis said she had
received instructions from her client to
lay a charge against the social worker
who removed the child. She said the
discretion of social workers in terms of
the Child Care Act is extremely wide.
While it may be necessary to remove
children from the care of their parents in
most cases, there are instances where
they exercise this discretion very poorly
- like in this case. We would like the
council governing social workers to
investigate this matter, Du Plessis said.
The lawyers are also looking into the
possibility of approaching the court to
establish guidelines on how social work-
ers should exercise their discretion. Du
Plessis said the moment a social worker
was confronted with something differ-
ent - blindness in this case - the rst
reaction is to remove the child.
She said rst ordering an investigation
in the matter would be a lot less painful
for all concerned.
23
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
The Land and Housing Unit represents a large number of people faced with evictions or forced
removals in urban and peri-urban areas.
LHR also assists communities involved in land reform and restitution processes, including post-
settlement support for communities.
Shortly after 1994, the government identied a target of 25-million hectares for transfer. This was
apparently done in conjunction with the World Bank and represented 30% of agricultural land. At the
time, land prices were typically between R2 000 and R4 000 per hectare. Averages would suggest
the estimated total cost would be around R75-billion. Ination adjusted, that would be about R165-
billion.
Around ve to six million hectares of land has been transferred to land claimants and land reform
beneciaries but most of this was state land and not really part of the 25-million hectares originally
envisaged.
Land restitution
LHR often helps communities nalise land restitution claims. These issues are used to test the validity
of claims and processes.
Richtersveld
LHR played a small but important part in the settlement of the Richtersveld land claim. The Legal
Resources Centre had been working on the case since the 1990s and had brought a number of cases
to reach a nal settlement.
The century-long narrative of the Richtersveld community involves a semi-nomadic people who
were dispossessed of their land and boxed into reserve settlements by a succession of South African
governments during the pre-apartheid and apartheid eras. Their displacement was a result of a
number of factors. The discovery of diamonds and the complete lack of respect for the land rights of
indigenous people lie at the heart of their dispossession.
LHR assisted with the nal implementation and agreement to the settlement, which involved 180 000
hectares of land and a settlement of approximately R300-million.
LAND AND HOUSI NG UNI T
24
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
F
O
R
H
U
M
A
N
R
I
G
H
T
S
A
N
N
U
A
L
R
E
P
O
R
T
2
0
0
8
/
9
TEARS OF JOY AS RICHTERSVELD LAND CLAIM IS SETTLED
MAIL & GUARDIAN