were tortured before you left. However, in the opinion of human rights lawyers in South Africa, in the case of those tortured before fleeing, the case for asylum should be unambiguous.63 The official position in South Africa maintains that only a very few Zimbabweans are eligible for asylum. There is not a general acknowledgement that “events of public disorder” are taking place on a consistent basis in Zimbabwe. Barry Gilder, Director General of Home Affairs, in October 2004, was asked why he thought so many millions of Zimbabweans were leaving their nation: …I would imagine a large number of them are [leaving] for economic reasons. It is a well known fact that the Zimbabwe economy has not been healthy of late… It’s as straightforward as that… This refusal to go on record acknowledging there are legitimate political reasons for leaving Zimbabwe is a cause for concern considering Gilder is in charge of Home Affairs and refugees; this position seems to portray the same ambivalence that his officers show. Gilder consistently told us that RROs are under strict instructions to give ASPs to Zimbabweans, but he himself seems very reluctant to acknowledge there are more than a very few genuinely deserving of them. Paradoxically, the South African government’s stance that there is no public disorder is facilitated by the almost total shut down of the independent press and civil society activities, which has meant that there is ever less news in the international forum drawing attention to state repression, including torture and organised violence, in Zimbabwe. However, there is a very qualified acceptance that some Zimbabweans are deserving of refugee status, although even this limited space has been hard-won through the courts by South African human rights lawyers acting on behalf of Zimbabweans. The general assumption is that the vast majority of Zimbabweans in South Africa are illegal economic migrants, who have not suffered political victimisation and who should be rounded up and deported.64 In the words of Barry Gilder, “the UN Convention and our own laws do not allow for economic refuge”.65 While there are unquestionably many economic migrants, the scale of the political problem and the number of politically displaced persons seems to be underestimated by Home Affairs. Furthermore, the destruction of the economy has been wilful and avoidable and done for the political gain of the ruling party.66 This, too, makes today’s economic migrant different to yesterday’s – whether or not the laws are capable of distinguishing this. Political denial of food – a threat to physical safety? It seems there is an opening for a test case in the South African courts to determine whether or not being denied the right to purchase food because of your presumed political affiliation constitutes a “threat to physical safety”. Home Affairs officials seem not to be aware of the fact that at times who has access to food – and who does not - is a highly politicised business in Zimbabwe and not a simple case of poverty and economic collapse.67 As discussed earlier in 63 Interviews with lawyers at Lawyers for Human Rights and Wits Law Clinic, 2003 and 2004. The issues of xenophobia and deportation are dealt with separately and in more detail ahead. Legal cases are outlined in section following. 65 Interview with Dir Gen of Home Affairs, 18 October, 2004. 66 AI, October 2004, op cit. 67 See previous sections and footnote 26 for some of the many documents and media cover of politicisation of food. 64 36