whether or not to detain someone, and because of the harmful effects of detention, officers must do so in favour of liberty.58 Our research showed that in fact the opposite is the case: that officers’ discretion is in favour of incarceration and that where documentation is not immediately available to prove legitimate status, the suspected illegal is automatically detained. We interviewed seven refugees or asylum seekers in the Western Cape and Limpopo who had been deported. Five were arrested while in possession of their documents. None of these respondents were informed of their rights at the time of the arrest and only three were given a form to sign, but it was not translated for any of them. In February 2012, 52 Congolese people deported from Lindela reported abuse, citing that they were deprived of food and water, threatened, beaten and interrogated upon returning to the DRC.59 There is growing concern among Congolese in Cape Town and Johannesburg that deportation to the DRC of political refugees can be their death sentence. ii. Special Position of Zimbabwean Migrants: Deportations during Moratorium In April of 2009, in response to xenophobic violence that plagued South Africa in 2008, a moratorium on the deportation of Zimbabweans was implemented. Of the Zimbabweans we interviewed, 41 were deported between April 2009 and October 2011, despite the moratorium on deportation of Zimbabweans. While this was significantly less than the numbers both after and before, it illustrates a distinct lack of respect for the law and human rights that is so endemic in this system. iii. Deportation despite a Court Order for Release In addition, deportations occur even when the courts have ordered their release. It has not been possible to quantify how often deportations occur despite the issuance of a court order for release, but there are numerous examples of illegal deportation. Larry Mzamo, a private immigration lawyer tells of two of his clients who were given court orders for their release, but when the lawyer went to meet them as they were to be released from Lindela, they were not there. No-one from Lindela would give information on their whereabouts and the lawyer was left to assume that they had either been suspiciously released and rearrested, or had already been deported. He further explained that few of his clients in this situation can afford this initial cost to take the DHA to court if their court order is ignored, which makes it very difficult to challenge the DHA in court. He went on to say they are “frustrated as practitioners,” and describes the DHA as a “law unto themselves… with no respect for rule of law.”60 vi. Detainees paying to be deported 58 South African Immigration Act; upheld in Ulde v Minister of Home Affairs and others and Jeebhai v Minister of Home Affairs and others, 59 Tolsi, Niren. “South Africa ignores deportee torture claims.” 9 March 2012. http://mg.co.za/article/2012-03-09-sa-ignores-deportee-torture-claims. 60 Taken from interview with researcher 35