Blog post by Minilik Assefa Abisa*
For the first time in its institutional history, the Ethiopian asylum agency, the Refugees and Returnee Service (RRS), has been recently provided with a legislation defining its powers and functions. In April 2024, the Council of Ministers, the country’s highest executive organ, approved a draft regulation entitled the “Powers and Duties of the Refugees and Returnees Service Regulation No. 546/2024” (the Regulation), which came into effect on 5 June, 2024. In this article, I will discuss the salient features of the new regulation and its possible implications for the refugee response in Ethiopia.
Background
Ethiopia has a centuries-old history of maintaining an open-door policy towards refugees. As of June 2024, the country hosts more than one million registered refugees and asylum seekers from South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, and other countries of origin. The country is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention (including its 1967 Protocol) and the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. Yet, a modernized governance and administration of asylum and refugee protection in Ethiopia has only existed for less than five decades.
Formerly known as ARRA (Administration for Refugee & Returnee Affairs), RRS is the primary government agency in Ethiopia that is mandated for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Historically, the RRS used to function as a sub-office/division within the security and intelligence wings of the federal government. Before 1995, RRS was a small office under the Ethiopian Ministry of Internal Affairs which later became the Security, Immigration and Refugee Affair Authority (SIRAA). The refugee protection organ then came to be known as the Administration of Refugee and Returnee Affairs under the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS). In November 2018, the entity was officially established as a semi-autonomous Administrative Agency under the Ministry of Peace. However, as of 2022, RRS got its present name and was once again made accountable to NISS, but it retained its semi-autonomous status.
Under the Ethiopian legal system, the parliament enacts Proclamations as the foremost legal instruments, establishing general frameworks and principles for specific subjects. The Council of Ministers then develops Regulations, which are secondary legislations that elaborate on the rules set out by a proclamation in more details. Subsequently, various government entities such as Ministries, Authorities, and Agencies, further refine these rules by issuing Directives, which include detailed guidelines and instructions. Proclamations typically include a broad provision outlining the extent of authority granted to a designated government entity responsible for executing a specific duty. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Council of Ministers to promulgate Regulations that specify the detailed structure, organization, duties, and authority of government bodies, aligning with the corresponding Proclamations.
However, when it comes to the issue of refugee protection, neither the 2019 Refugees Proclamation nor the 2021 Proclamation that defined the Powers and Duties of the Federal Executive (PDFE Proclamation) provided a general clause to outline the mandates of RRS. The 2019 Refugees Proclamation has stipulated that ‘the Council of Ministers may issue Regulations for the proper implementation of the Proclamation per se, yet, such regulation has not been enacted by the government to date. Similarly, the 2018 PDFE Proclamation (which officially established RRS as a semi-independent agency) and its 2021 revision didn’t include any clauses as to the powers and functions of the agency. Rather the Proclamations only indicated that the Council of Ministers would issue a Regulation to outline the mandates of the agency in detail. Thus, throughout its history, save for a few administrative and RSD-related provisions contained within the 2019 Refugees Proclamation, no comprehensive legislation has ever defined the structure, powers, and functions of RRS in the Ethiopian legal system.
Despite the lack of legislation that outlines its official mandates, RRS has been functioning as the main governance body for the administration of asylum and the protection of refugees. Its main functions include the administration of refugee status determination (RSD), establishment and management of refugee camps, coordination of refugee response operations across the country, as well as support and maintenance of the physical safety and dignity of refugees. Additionally, RRS has been managing the reception and reintegration of returnees in Ethiopia, despite the absence of clear legislation authorizing it to do so, apart from its name which bears the term “Returnees”.
Yet, the scope of its powers and duties has been confusing for many stakeholders. This is mainly because RRS functions both as a service provider and as a coordinator in Ethiopia’s refugee response operation. Furthermore, its budget and its relationship with other government organs as well as UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations have been legally elusive. Therefore, the enactment of Regulation No. 546/2024 will be very significant for both the RRS itself and other actors concerned with refugee protection issues in Ethiopia. Therefore, it is important to analyze the salient features of the new regulation in light of some of the pressing issues that exist concerning refugee protection in Ethiopia.
Administration of Asylum and Refugee Protection
Oddly, the Regulation doesn’t explicitly recognize the role of RRS as the country’s sole agency to receive, process, and approve asylum claims. Even though such powers directly emanate from and are clearly stated in the Refugees Proclamation, reiterating such powers in the Regulation would have made the Regulation a more comprehensive legal document. The Regulation should have been used as an opportunity to summarize all the scattered clauses of the Refugees Proclamation that bestow different powers to the RRS. This would have paved the way for the enactment of comprehensive Directives by RRS concerning the administration of asylum. However, it should be noted that the Refugees Proclamation has very clear substantive and procedural RSD-related provisions that stipulate the role of RRS and other government organs.
The Regulation has an article with 24 sub-articles detailing RRS’s powers and duties. These provisions have bestowed RRS with different types of functions that will, for the most part, maintain the status quo or do not provide clarity or directly address some issues that have been the concern of many stakeholders.
One significant issue with the mandates of RRS is its dual role as a government regulatory body and a service provider for refugees and asylum seekers. For instance, when it comes to the issue of education, the RRS has been acting both as a coordinator and the lead provider of primary education in the refugee camps. RRS has been delivering primary education for refugee populations in most refugee camps across Ethiopia. While State (Regional) Education Bureaus are responsible for the provision and administration of primary Education in the country, RRS has created a parallel structure where primary schools in refugee camps are administered by itself with little involvement of such authorities or even the federal ministry of education.
This dual role of RRS could be problematic in two forms. One, the existence of such a parallel structure outside of the national education system makes it very hard for Educational Regulators (State Education Bureaus) to evaluate and monitor the provision of primary education in refugee camps. Secondly, as a refugee protection agency, RRS has a mandate to monitor the provision of socio-economic services for refugees, including education. Yet, the parallel structure makes it difficult to ensure accountability as RRS will be both the service provider and the regulatory body when it comes to the provision of primary education in most refugee camps in Ethiopia. However, it should be noted that in the past few years, there have been initiatives to transfer primary schools from RRS management to NGOs and bring on board Federal and Regional authorities into the picture.
Similarly, civil registration and documentation is also another area where there is a parallel structure in which RRS undertakes registration and documentation services for refugees outside of the national system that is run by the Immigration and Citizenship Service. The only thing that makes this different from what is happening concerning education is that this parallel system is established by law where a civil registration proclamation has assigned the mandate to undertake civil registration for refugees to RRS in 2017.
Refugees’ inclusion into national systems is the preferred approach endorsed by UNHCR and other actors as opposed to the provision of services and responses in parallel structures. On the contrary, one may argue that, in the context of Ethiopia, where 90% of refugees are settled in refugee camps, the parallel structure by RRS may be the best approach to make services more accessible to refugees. As the majority of the camps are located in peripheral regions with the scant presence of government agencies and service providers, refugees may be required to travel tens, if not, hundreds of kilometers to access basic services if we opt for a full-fledged ‘inclusion approach’. Thus, a centralized provision of services by RRS may be in the best interest of refugees, as RRS will be serving as a one-stop shop for all services required by refugees. Nevertheless, this argument prioritizes accessibility at the expense of accountability. The argument could be refuted by pointing out that the same resources used to build RRS’s parallel structures in refugee camps could be used to increase the presence of other government agencies and service providers in such refugee camps and settlements.
Setting aside this debate on the most effective approach for the specific refugee context in Ethiopia, it is reasonable to anticipate that the new Regulation will clarify the government’s stance on this matter. Yet, it is disappointing to find out that the new Regulation has made no effort to address such issues in a proper manner. The regulation recognizes RRS’s role to provide basic and essential social services for refugees and asylum seekers, as well as to carry out development activities to enhance the protection of refugees. Similarly, it also maintains RRS’s regulatory role to oversee, coordinate, and regulate the refugee response in the country. Nonetheless, the Regulation does not provide a mechanism to reconcile these conflicting mandates.
Thus, it is obvious that the government has missed an opportunity to legalize its policy commitments to set aside parallel structures and promote the inclusion of refugees in national systems. The regulation would have been a perfect opportunity to address the issues surrounding RRS anomalous mandates by redefining RRS’s role only as a regulatory body that administers asylum and monitors the protection of refugees in the country. Otherwise, the regulation could have, at least, come up with mechanisms to ensure and enhance accountability in situations where the RRS is expected to provide socio-economic services while also acting as the regulatory body.
Organization, Budget and Coordination
The regulation does not outline a detailed organogram for RRS. It also does not establish and define the distinct roles and functions of the different departments such as the Protection and Program Units, other thematic units, etc. Furthermore, the regulation doesn’t outline the Refugee Coordination Model that is currently in use by RRS and UNHCR to coordinate the refugee response across the country. The national coordination mechanism is a multi-sectoral platform that involves federal and local government actors, international organizations, and implementing partners. Even though the mechanism has been effective in coordinating responses for refugees in the country, some government agencies and local governments lack proper commitment to engage in the process.
Therefore, regulation would have been a strong legal document to formalize the national coordination mechanism by bestowing RRS with the power to lead the coordination mechanism and by forcing other government and non-governmental actors to a mandatory participation at all levels of the coordination mechanism. In addition, the Regulation could have outlined RRS’s relationship with other sectoral government agencies in dealing with crosscutting issues such as mixed migration, on-ward movement, human trafficking, and others.
Unsurprisingly, the Regulation also maintains RRS’s power to directly get involved in the process of selection of implementing partners in the country’s refugee response operation. This process is mainly carried out by UNHCR where it identifies implementing partners through open calls (bids) for the implementation of its specific programs and projects. These are projects fully administered by UNHCR and funded by different donors through different funding arrangements. Though the practice has not been fully established yet, the Regulation could have also opened the gate for the possibility of RRS getting involved in the selection of partner organizations for IOM-funded projects that are directly linked to refugee protection and returnee integration (as opposed to projects that target migrants and migrant-returnees).
The Regulation also seems to maintain the status quo in relation to RRS’s budgetary status. Throughout the years, RRS has been operating with a 100% funding from UNHCR and other donors, yet with almost zero contribution from the Ethiopian government. Such funding is not only for the provision of socio-economic services as discussed above but, rather for all regulatory and administrative functions of the agency. The regulation makes it clear that RRS will remain to be funded by partner organizations and through ‘miscellaneous sources’ (Art. 9). There is no indication as to the contribution of the federal government in at least, funding the basic functions of RRS.
This arrangement seems to be contrary to the principle of primacy state responsibility in the protection of refugees, where international burden sharing and cooperation are supposed to be taken as a complementary mechanism to support state efforts. Formalization of a practice where the state asylum agency has no government-allocated budget is poor draftsmanship by the lawmakers. Even though the country is not in a position to accommodate the needs of over one million refugees, laws are expected to lay down ideal scenarios with flexible and pragmatic arrangements to adjust to the realities on the ground. The regulation could have at least indicated the government’s commitment to allocate budget to the best of its capacities and its responsibility to mobilize humanitarian funding to match the unmet needs of the refugee population.
One interesting provision in the new Regulation is the one that gives RRS the power to take over properties or assets upon completion or termination of particular programs and projects. This could be controversial in light of the property rights of implementing organizations (local and international NGOs) and the mandates of the Federal Civil Societies Organizations Agency which exercises extensive powers in relation to the assets of local and international NGOs as well as humanitarian operations.
Protection and Integration of Returnees
One of the positive features of the new Regulation is that it has outlined RRS’s mandate concerning returnees. First and foremost, it has clearly indicated that RRS’s power is only in relation to returnees who have been refugees in other countries. This will effectively clarify the confusion as to RRS’s role over the issue of migrant returnees. However, the phraseology of the Regulation limits the definition of returnees to registered refugees only. The regulation states that RRS’s responsibility is to those returnees who have been registered as refugees in other countries. This may in effect exclude several deportation cases where Ethiopian asylum seekers whose asylum requests have been declined despite having international protection needs.
In this regard, the Regulation has mandated RRS with the power to facilitate the repatriation of Ethiopian refugees from other countries. This includes the mandate to oversee and coordinate their rehabilitation, establish rehabilitation centers, provide psycho-social support, and coordinate the transition of returnees to their former places of residence. Once again, the duality of RRS’s role is evident, as it is tasked with providing various socio-economic services to returnees while also overseeing and facilitating their smooth reintegration into the country.
Conclusion
Overall, the new Regulation is a positive step in formalizing and legalizing the refugee and returnee governance frameworks in Ethiopia. It is an overdue step in providing the legal framework for the functions of RRS, the country’s asylum, refugee, and returnee protection agency. However, the Regulation has also passed an opportunity to address some of the pressing concerns raised concerning refugee governance in the country. There are still opportunities to address such issues via the long-awaited Refugees Regulation based on the 2019 Refugees Proclamation, or even through PDFE amendment proclamation that the government is very flexible to revise/revisit frequently. There may not be a burning need to amend or revise the Regulation immediately, however, if there comes the time to do so, some of the abovementioned issues are worth considering; not only for the sake of enhancing the quality of the regulation but as major policy considerations in Ethiopia’s refugee governance framework.
* Minilik Assefa Abisa (LL.M) is an independent researcher and human rights lawyer with a specialization in refugee law and policy. He has worked with humanitarian, refugee protection and research organizations working in Ethiopia and across Africa. Minilik has been actively involved in legal and policy research, teaching, training as well as the development of various refugee-related policies in Ethiopia.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author/s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Refugee Law Initiative. We welcome comments and contributions to this blog – please comment below and see here for contribution guidelines.