TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECTS OF MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS IN 2001

Sunny Omwenyeke, an asylum seeker from Nigeria, and member of the refugee organisation THE VOICE, describes living with movement restrictions in Germany.

I came to Germany from Nigeria and claimed asylum in June 1998. I was put in a transit camp in Hanover and told I cannot go beyond that locality. After a couple of months I was transferred to a permanent camp in Wolfsburg. On getting to the permanent camp, I was made to sign a document which compelled me, like all other asylum seekers to accept the law restricting my movement. In it, it is stated that an individual could be made to pay as much as 5000 DM for travelling without a permit. If I want to leave the permitted area, I need to go to the local Foreigners Office and tell them the address of where I want to go, why and for how long. Even if it is 5 minutes drive away, you still have to answer these questions. Sometimes they grant you a permit to go beyond the permitted area and sometimes you are refused on the grounds that you are supposed to remain in the camp. In some places, asylum seekers who only receive 80 DM cash in a month are also compelled to pay as much as 10-20 DM for such permission.

This system causes a number of difficulties for asylum seekers. For example, in the camp I knew a woman with two children whose husband arrived later and was put in another camp in another district. She was refused permission to travel to visit him. The only way they could meet was by travelling illegally and eventually she was caught by the police. She was given a warning only, but I know of many other cases where people were fined and even sent to prison for travelling without permission. I had a friend who needed to visit an African shop in a nearby city to get some African foodstuffs. He was denied permission and although he defied it he was controlled in the process and had to pay some fine. I remember asking if I could have a permit to visit some friends who lived about 10 minutes journey away and being refused. I asked the officials under what conditions might I be allowed to visit them and was told - none. The official told me that I may only leave in an emergency. On another occasion I asked if I could leave to visit my lawyer. I was told that permission would only be granted if I could show a letter from my lawyer confirming the meeting or ask the lawyer to call the office and inform them of my appointment. In Germany asylum seekers have to pay their own legal costs and paying the lawyer to write such a letter is expensive. In such cases you feel compelled to travel illegally and when you are controlled by the police in the process, you are recorded as having committed a criminal act. This will be later added to the statistics of 'foreigners with high criminal records' by the police and the politicians.

Many problems arise because, whatever the general rule is meant to be, the decision is made by the officer on duty acting alone and whether or not you get the permit depends on his mood. Once the officials think that you might be travelling for political reasons, they become antagonistic. It is impossible to travel to meetings of your country organisation because if you say you want to meet with other Nigerian people in another city they are likely to say that is political. It seems to me that the authorities are concerned that asylum seekers might be involved in political campaigns for human rights in their home country which will damage German business interests in that country.

When I arrived in Wolfsburg towards the end of 1999, I sought and obtained permission to attend meetings and activities of THE VOICE which is an African community group and a member organisation of the anti - fascist alliance “The Caravan For the Rights of Refugees and Migrants in Germany”. After a while, the authorities realised I was seriously involved in the organisation of the group as well as being vocal in terms of the refugee situation here in Germany. From then on I was refused a travel permit irrespective of the reasons given for the trip. I decided to continue to travel whether I had a permit or not.

In 1999 it was agreed that The Caravan would hold an International Refugee Congress from 20th April to 1st May, 2000. THE VOICE was chosen to organise and coordinate the Congress in conjunction with The International Human Rights Association, Bremen-which is the Coordinating office of The Caravan. THE VOICE has its headquarters in Jena, Thuringen (East Germany.) As an active member of THE VOICE I travelled from Wolfsburg to attend many preparatory meetings and was Secretary of the Organising Committee. After one of the preparatory meetings in Jena, I was stopped inside the train by the police when I was returning to my camp. This was after my application to obtain a permission had been refused. My identity was copied and reported to the Foreigners Office who sent me a letter warning me that I would be fined as much as 5000 DM or one year in prison or both if I continued to travel without permission. I ignored the warning and decided to apply again for permission, this time with a supporting letter from the head of the Federal Office in charge of Foreigners (Auslanderbeauftragte) who urged all local foreigner offices to grant permission to all asylum seekers who wanted to attend the Congress. My request to attend the Congress was refused. I asked my lawyer to take my case to court to ask for a permit but the court refused saying that they were right to have refused me permission as it was not important for me to attend the Congress. I was very disappointed but I went to the Congress anyway, without a permit. At the same time, some politicians threatened that asylum seekers who attended the congress without permits faced being put in prison, but many defied them. At the Congress which was attended by about 1000 people from 40 countries, refugees and migrants were able to exchange ideas and experiences. In the process, it became very clear that the restriction of asylum seekers' movement was inhibiting their ability to meet and discuss their common problems-both in their home countries and here in Europe. I was becoming more and more aware of the suffering caused by freedom of movement problems. Asylum seekers couldn’t be happy, couldn’t be with their family or friends and couldn’t live a normal life as a human being under these restrictions. Consequently, after various workshops which were held on the topic during the Congress, it was recommended that asylum seekers protest against this restriction by engaging in civil disobedience. This recommendation was unanimously adopted and thence, asylum seekers decided not to ask for permission anymore.

In July 2000 President Khatami of Iran visited Berlin and Weimar and a protest was organised in support of the many refugees from Iran living in Germany, which I attended. For travelling to Weimar without a permit I was controlled again and my papers were confiscated. The City of Wolfsburg then wrote to inform me that I had been fined the sum of 300 DM and if I couldn’t pay, I would spend 30 days in prison. I appealed against the decision to the court and a date was set for the hearing. The hearing was in The Lower Court (Amtsgericht) in Wolfsburg on 6th February, 2001. The press gave it good coverage and a lot of people were mobilised to attend the court hearing. I had support from many different people and organisations, there was African drumming outside the courthouse and 70 people attended the court hearing to show solidarity and protest against the restrictions - it was overwhelming.

My lawyer moved that the prosecutor had no case against me since I had sought and obtained permissions before from the same office but that now, the officers there deliberately refused to issue me a permission (6 previous copies of permissions were exhibited) because they wanted to stifle my political activities by preventing me from travelling and talking about the problems in Nigeria as well as the deplorable condition of asylum seekers in Germany. The case was closed without formal discussion because of a lack of public interest in punishment. My lawyer secured the consent of the presiding Judge that the State should be responsible for my legal fees because, according to her, the case involved a violation of my rights. The Judge said that there are provisions for any asylum seeker to obtain a permit and if the local foreigners office refused to grant a permission it was my right to seek redress through the courts.

Since then I have continued to break the rules and the City of Wolfsburg has not restricted my movement. I am committed to do so because I am not someone who accepts injustice. I campaigned against injustice in Nigeria although it was difficult to do so there because then it was a military regime. Germany is a country where you are supposed to be able to express your views but the authorities do not want to hear about the injustices of their system when they feel they are being generous in accepting you as an asylum seeker.

Of course I worried that my campaigning would affect my asylum application but I couldn’t let that deter me. I believe in acting according to a good conscience. I have been told that in my case the Judge has granted me UN refugee status but until now, the written and official decision has not been communicated to me. The protests against movement restrictions have continued, for example we held demonstrations in Berlin for three days in May 2001. Before then we also staged a very successful demonstration in Hanover, on October 3rd 2000. Here, we were showing that while the entire world was being invited to participate in Expo 2000 in Hanover, asylum seekers were being denied the opportunity of crossing the government-set boundaries. We also wanted to show that while the Germans were celebrating the unity of East and West Germany as well as the fall of the Berlin Wall, stronger walls were deliberately constructed for the confinement of asylum seekers. These protests have been successful in raising public awareness. Many German people have told me that until now they did not know about the way in which the authorities treat asylum seekers. My case has also had a positive outcome in encouraging other asylum seekers to stand up and fight for their rights. Our efforts have failed to influence the position of the German authorities, who remain committed to freedom of movement restrictions. One of our main concerns is that under the anti - terrorism measures our rights will be further curtailed so that we are unable to continue to protest.

2001 http://www.ecre.org/policy/research_papers.sht
see more info: http://www.thecaravn.org
link: http://www.thevoiceforum.org