Uganda should not force Kenyan refugees to return to their country

The commissioner for refugees in the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr Apollo Kazungu, is wrong on Kenyans who fled to Uganda during the 2007/2008 post-election violence in Kenya.
The Daily Monitor of April 30 reported that Kazungu “told this newspaper that since there is calm in Kenya, there is no need for the refugees to stay in the country.”
However, the newspaper also quoted Mr Patrick Mwangi, one of the refugees, as saying the Kenyans “were informed at short notice hence are unprepared to go back to Kenya.”
These views suggest that Uganda is possibly contravening international conventions it is party to regarding the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Article 1 of the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees defines refugees as persons residing outside their country of nationality, who are unable or unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of persecution.
The fear could be linked to matters of race, religion, nationality, membership in a political or social group or holding of political opinions. In many instances, such fear makes it difficult for forced migrants to rely on the protection of their own government.
The matter of post-election violence in Kenya is not a settled one. Individuals suspected to have masterminded the generalised violence, including Kenya’s Deputy President, William Ruto, are still on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague.
Even President Uhuru Kenyatta, whose charges were dropped late last year, could find himself back in the dock if ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, adduces fresh evidence against him.
I am not an alarmist to say the ruling of the ICC on this case could trigger another wave of generalised violence in Kenya. Which means that fear is still there in the minds of these refugees.
The fundamental human rights principle of “non-refoulement” holds that people should not be returned to a country where their lives or liberty are at risk.
I am assuming that the 1,350 Kenyans now living in Kiryandongo in Masindi District were all officially recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. If, however, there are some who were not, then those ones have a right to seek asylum in a third country.
Whatever the case, only voluntary repatriation or resettlement in a third country seem to be the proper solution, not some vague Memorandum of Understanding between Kenya and Uganda.
These people lost land, housing and other properties in 2007/2008. Appropriate interventions, such as skills training or access to credit can help them to reestablish livelihoods back home.
Yet Mwangi reportedly complained that, “We are forced to go back … we do not have an option but to go into the IDP (internally displaced persons) camps in Kenya.”
That complaint should be addressed from the perspective of refugees as agents of development. In the seven years those Kenyans have been in Uganda, what was their contribution to the local economy in Masindi, especially since they reportedly had gardens there?
It is safe to assume that these refugees spent money, time and physical effort to cultivate their gardens since the onset of the rains in March; only to be told on April 10 that they would be going home on May 5. If this is not an act of cruelty to foreigners, what is it?

Mr Akwap is a lecturer at Kampala International University. okodanakwap@yahoo.com