An article on 5^th December on nehandaradio.com (http://nehandaradio.com/2011/12/05/
zimbabwe-vigil-should-consider-their-position/) repeated several malicious accusations against the Zimbabwe Vigil and our sister organisation the Restoration of Human Rights in Zimbabwe (ROHR). The article is a cut and paste job from discredited Nehanda Radio articles, some dating back two and a half years, when the Vigil was blamed for Tsvangirai being booed at Southwark Cathedral in London. The latest attack is in response to our diary of 3^rd December suggesting that Tsvangirai should consider his position as leader of the MDC, partly because of his lack of political acumen in having a relationship with a woman with known Zanu PF connections. The Nehanda Radio article hardly addresses the issue brought up in our diary: it is just an excuse to have another go at the Vigil and ROHR.

Because misinformation like this may hurt our supporters seeking asylum here we feel the need to yet again set the record straight. 

The Vigil has had a letter of apology from the UK Border Agency for misuse by its case workers of articles from the Nehanda Radio website as evidence that Vigil letters in support of asylum seekers are not reliable. For text of the UKBA letter check: http://www.zimvigil.co.uk/vigil-news/campaign-news/323-text-of-letter-from-ukba-to-the-zimbabwe-vigil and for the background to this situation check Vigil diaries of 25^th June and 23^rd July (http://www.zimvigil.co.uk/the-vigil-diary/315-home-office-a-disgrace-objective-evidence-zimbabwe-vigil-diary-25th-june-2011 and http://www.zimvigil.co.uk/the-vigil-diary/324-uk-border-agency-says-sorry-to-vigil-zimbabwe-vigil-diary-23rd-july-2011).  

Most of the latest Nehanda Radio piece was directed at ROHR and they wish to set the record straight as follows: 
·         ROHR is a properly constituted organization formed to fight for human rights in Zimbabwe. Members complete a form on joining and commit to paying £10 a month membership subscription (normal for political parties and civil society organisations) to help fund ROHR’s administration costs (staff salaries, office rentals, utility bills, etc) and human rights campaigns in Zimbabwe.
·         ROHR does not charge for letters in support of asylum claims. It will issue letters of support only to deserving members who have shown their commitment to opposing human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. While members may from time to time be asked to contribute towards the administration cost, ROHR letters are strictly not for sale.
·         Allegations of financial irregularities against ROHR President Ephraim Tapa were made by then suspended (now departed) members of the Board of Trustees (check: http://www.rohrzimbabwe.org/Latest-News-from-ROHR-in-Zimbabwe/rohr-zimbabwe-public-notice.html). Mr Tapa commissioned an inquiry into ROHR financial matters by the UK National Executive. Checking of moneygram transfer vouchers to Zimbabwe, original bank statements and confirmations of receipts from ROHR head office in Harare in a long and assiduous process established that the allegations were not only false, but malicious and calculated to cause maximum damage to Mr Tapa and ROHR Zimbabwe as an organization. The inquiry noted that Mr Tapa used his personal funds for telephone bills transport costs and other expenses involved in running ROHR Chapters in South Africa, Zimbabwe and the UK. It was also established that Mr Tapa occasionally used his personal funds to subsidize ROHR operations in Harare. ROHR operates a transparent accounting system and its records are available for inspection by bona fide members through Head Office.
·         The assertion that Mr Tapa was sacked by ROHR is laughable. For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Tapa is still the President and Board Chairperson of ROHR Zimbabwe and is very much in control.
·         Neither ROHR nor the Vigil initiated the Zimbabwe We Can (ZWC) movement. It was a global initiative involving a number of organisations, members of various political parties, prominent and ordinary Zimbabweans alike, and all lovers of a free, just and peaceful Zimbabwe.  Ephraim Tapa was approached by many to lead the movement and was elected President at the first meeting.  After that the Zimbabwe Vigil Management Team met and agreed to support ZWC. The ZWC continues to attract the attention of not only Zimbabweans abroad but also at home and all are welcome to come on board.

Below is a letter received by a member of the Vigil management team in response to her request for access to the contents of her file held by the UK Border Agency.  She paid £10 for this service. The letter is from the UK Border Agency’s Resource Management Group, Data Protection Unit, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY. 

“Disclosure from UKBA records under the Data Protection Act 1998 

Thank you for your Subject Access Request concerning yourself. We have now completed the processing of that request, but, unfortunately, we have been unable to locate all of the UKBA records relating to yourself.  

We have searched across our IT databases, identified the records in question and requested these records from our file storage unit. We have further chased for these records on a number of occasions, but with no success. We are therefore satisfied that we have made all reasonable efforts within the statutory time limits of  the Data Protection Act to locate these records and that, regrettably, it is now simply not  possible to supply copies of records that we can’t locate. 

The enclosed disclosure bundle therefore represents a disclosure of all the available records we have managed to locate. 

For your information, in your particular case, we have been unable to locate the following records: Home Office file (number supplied). 

As we have said above, supplying copies of the above-mentioned records is not possible because the records are missing and should be shortly be designated as lost by the Agency. To continue to try and locate the records for the purposes of our obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998 would, in our opinion, be unreasonable and involve disproportionate effort as per Section 8 (2) (a) of that Act. 

Please note that the enclosed disclosure of records you have received may have data blacked-out – this is because UKBA records sometimes include other information that we are not able to release to you under the Data Protection Act 1998, (for example another person’s data), so this is blacked-out. The document bundle may also contain copies of rough notes that may lack clarity, but this is because we aim to provide the fullest disclosure we can by making available copies of the original records whenever possible. 

Why do we hold your data? Because we are responsible for securing the UK border and controlling migration in the UK and we manage border control for the UK, enforcing immigration and customs regulations. We also consider applications for permission to enter or stay in the UK, and for citizenship and asylum. Therefore the data we hold, including your data, may be used for any, or all, of these functions. 

Any information / data provided to the UK Border Agency may also be disclosed to other government departments, agencies, local authorities, the police, foreign governments and other bodies for immigration purposes or to enable them to perform their functions. Personal information may also, in certain circumstances, be passed to fraud prevention agencies to prevent fraud and money laundering.  

The UK Border Agency will only ask for the data we need to fulfill the above functions and we will not collect too much or ask for irrelevant information; we will protect your data and make sure nobody has access to it who shouldn’t; we will only share it with other organisations when the law allows; we will make sure we don’t keep it longer than necessary and we will not make your personal information available for commercial use without your permission. 

Please quote the DPU reference at the top of this letter in any future correspondence, but please be aware that general enquiries regarding the handling of your immigration status with UKBA, or any comments regarding the missing files, should not be directed at this office – we cannot comment upon points regarding case handling nor why files have gone missing. 

For such questions, if you know the name of the Unit handling your case, then you should write to them at the UK Border Agency, Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY, quoting any Home Office reference and giving the name of the Unit in the first line of the address. For other general contacts, you should use the contact avenues as detailed on the UK Border Agency website. 

We request that should you send correspondence to the Unit, you do not send both hard copies and fax copies, it only serves to double the amount of correspondence we have to handle and, as a result, expends resources that can be better used on caseworking activities and providing a better service overall. We thank you for your understanding in this matter. 

We are sorry that we have been unable to give you a complete disclosure of the records held by the UKBA in this instance, but trust that the above explains that we have made all reasonable efforts to do so.”

Thank you for your email to the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding his recent visit to Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, and many apologies for the delay in replying.  As you will appreciate, the Archbishop’s post-bag is substantial, and he very much regrets not being able to reply personally to every item of correspondence, much as he might wish it.  He has therefore asked me to write to you on his behalf.

During his visit, the Archbishop was able to engage directly with the local Church in the countries he travelled to, and this was felt to be deeply significant and encouraging for all concerned.  In particular, in Zimbabwe the Archbishop was able to meet with clergy and Church members in two of the dioceses where congregations have suffered harassment and persecution at the hands of the Zimbabwean police.  Archbishop Rowan met the President of Zimbabwe and was able to raise these issues with him.  I attach a copy of a statement issued by the Archbishop together with the Archbishops of the Provinces of Central Africa, Southern Africa and Tanzania, and the Zimbabwean bishops following that meeting.

The Archbishop was conscious throughout the visit of the support and prayer of very many people, and he has asked me to convey to you his deep and sincere gratitude for your own support.

The situation in Zimbabwe is one which the Archbishop continues to follow assiduously, and we remain in close and regular contact with the bishops and dioceses of the Anglican Church there.  Since the Archbishop’s visit, there have already been some encouraging developments in terms of favourable court rulings, although the situation remains worrying.

Thank you once again for writing, and for your own continuing dedication to these matters.  It is vital that we keep the Church and people in Zimbabwe at the forefront of our prayer and practical action at this time.

Open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from the Zimbabwe Vigil
12th September 2011

Dear Dr Williams

The Zimbabwe Vigil welcomes your planned visit to Zimbabwe next month in support of besieged Anglicans under the rod of the unelected president Mugabe.

We have been bearing witness outside the Zimbabwe Embassy in London every Saturday for nine years against human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. Most of us are Christians, many Anglicans.

The Vigil is disappointed that Mugabe has been consistently received with honour by the Vatican when he has gone to Rome on his shopping trips.

We disagree with those who question the wisdom of your visit. We are encouraged that you share our pain, though we have no doubt that Mugabe will seek to use your visit for propaganda purposes.

We do not believe his regime – steeped in lawlessness, terror and greed – will make any meaningful concessions at your request. But we pray that your visit will highlight to the world the plight of our suffering brothers and sisters at home.

From Sandra Goppy, Country Specific Litigation Team, Appeals and Removals Directorate, Home Office dated 6^th September 2011

All applications for asylum, including those from nationals of Zimbabwe, are considered on a case by case basis. Where it is found that an applicant is at risk of treatment amounting to persecution under the terms of the 1951 Convention, the grant of asylum is made. If an applicant's particular circumstances are found to engage the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, then a form of subsidiary protection is granted. Applicants who are found, by the Home Office and the independent appeals process, not to be in need of international protection are deemed to be safe from persecution, and are therefore liable for return to their country of origin.
 
On 14 October 2010, the Immigration Minister announced in Parliament that we would be resuming enforced returns of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe. Such returns have now commenced, reflecting changes in Zimbabwe and ending the anomaly of failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe being treated differently to those of all other nations. Those facing return will join the hundreds who have returned voluntarily, responding to calls by the Zimbabwean Prime Minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, to return home and help rebuild their country.

When making that announcement, the Immigration Minister said that, for practical reasons, we would not actually enforce any returns until after the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Unified Tribunal Service had issued its judgment in a further country guidance case on the general safety of returns to Zimbabwe. That way, we can ensure that those being forcibly returned have had their case considered against the full range of the latest available country evidence as well as risk factors identified by the independent Courts.

That judgment has now been handed down. Amongst other things the Tribunal specifically considered the likelihood of elections in Zimbabwe and the possibility of a return to violence when such elections are called. The Tribunal, nevertheless, found that not all asylum seekers from Zimbabwe are in need of international protection and that the situation has improved significantly since 2008. We also welcomed the Court's findings that all asylum applications from Zimbabwe should continue to be considered on their merits and, as always, continue to consider each individual case with enormous care in accordance with the guidance given by the Courts about current conditions in Zimbabwe.

We will continue to grant protection to those Zimbabweans who need it and take our international responsibilities seriously. Each application for protection will continue to be considered on its merits. Our returns policy will be kept under review and will be reassessed should the situation in Zimbabwe change significantly.