The New Egyptian Asylum Law and the fate of LGBTIQ+ Refugees in Egypt
Posted: 16 May, 2025 Filed under: Rehim Baharu Elala | Tags: asylum seekers, civil war, debauchery, deportation, detention, Egypt, equality before the law, gender identity, homophobic nature, human rights, LGBTIQ community, LGBTQ refugees, Memorandum of Understanding, non-discrimination, refugee population, rights to privacy, same sex relationship, sexual orientation, torture, voluntary repatriation Leave a comment
Author: Rehim Baharu Elala
Human rights attorney and women’s rights advocate
The refugee population in Egypt has significantly increased following the eruption of the Sudanese civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in mid-April 2023. Sudanese refugees and asylum seekers account for 68.7% of the total refugee population in Egypt[1]. Amid this crisis the Egyptian Government enacted a new asylum law in December 2024 without meaningful consultations with the refugee community, human rights organisations and other key stakeholders including UNHCR.
UNHCR was conducting the registration of asylum seekers and Refugee Status Determination (RSD) to offer protection on behalf of the government on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 1954. The MoU delegates a set of defined responsibilities to UNHCR including but not limited to registration, documentation, refugee status determination (RSD), resettlement (RST), voluntary repatriation, and support for vulnerable individuals, while the Egyptian Government retains the role of the issuance of residence permits for refugees[2]. Despite the backlogs in processing asylum applications, UNHCR Egypt has been the largest and most productive RSD mandate operation globally. The Egyptian government wants to take over the task without indicating a viable transition plan to establish an asylum management system in line with its international and regional undertakings.
The African Court: Need for a system-based approach to jurisprudential affirmation
Posted: 16 November, 2017 Filed under: Sègnonna Horace Adjolohoun | Tags: advisory matters, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Court, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ‘introspective’ jurisprudence, criticised, Inoperative Advisory Mandate, international human rights law, Memorandum of Understanding, Observer Status, raison d’être, Remedial powers, system, unconstitutional 5 Comments
Author: Sègnonna Horace Adjolohoun
Visiting Professor of international human rights law and comparative African constitutional law, Central European University;
Extraordinary Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria
Principal Legal Officer, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
This article is a summarised version of a much longer commentary which shall be published subsequently.
The views expressed below are exclusively those of the author and not of the African Court.
THE IMPERATIVE OF SYSTEM-BASED LAW MAKING
When the African Court became operational in 2006, the expectation was that it will affirm the then widely criticised African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights rather than merely “judicialise” the system. The Court therefore bears the historical duty to adopt a system strengthening approach to judicial law-making. As it makes law over the years, it becomes paramount to vet the Court’s pronouncements against that raison d’être. I attempt to do so with respect to its recent decisions.
ADVISORY MATTERS
Substantively, the requests related to a varied range of matters that are both current and novel, ranging from the meaning and scope of the role of the African Union policy organs to ‘consider’ the Activity Report of the African Human Rights Commission to the modalities of litigating the crime of unconstitutional change of government. Unfortunately, the Court did not assert jurisdiction to pronounce itself on the merit of those issues.
AfricLaw 