Recently, the Ugandan government decided to ban the recruitment and deployment of Ugandans as migrant workers in any foreign country. The decision came as a result of multiple cases of ill-treatment of Ugandans who went to the Arab world in search of greener pastures. The menace faced by Ugandan migrant workers is not an isolated case, but abuses that have been going on against many migrants who went to the Arab world in search of menial jobs. A barrage of cases of inhuman treatment has widely been reported by the media where some of migrant workers have been subjected to servitude. For example, some migrant workers were sexually abused, forced to have sexual intercourse with dogs, subjected to slave labour with unbearable low wage or no payment at all, coerced to work without a rest and so forth. These abuses are very common particularly in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates to name but a few. As has been widely reported, in the afore-mentioned countries, they first confiscate the migrants’ travel documents (e.g. passports), which makes it extremely difficult for them to return to their home countries, if life there becomes utterly unbearable.

Today, there’s a growing xenophobia virtually across the world. For example, in 2015, in South Africa, a wave of xenophobic attacks against foreign nationals occurred in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. It was reported that the Zulu king once said that foreigners "should pack their bags and go back home”. Many immigrants were forced to live in refugee camps, afraid for their safety and wanting nothing other than to return to their home countries.

As well, xenophobic animosity is common in Asia, namely in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Yet, many countries signatories to International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all migrant workers and members of their families. The Convention obliges state parties to treat all migrant workers and members of their families without distinction of any kind such as sex, race, colour, language, religion or conviction, political or other opinion, national or social origin, nationality, age, economic position, property, marital status, birth or other status, especially in matters related to occupation and employment.

More importantly, the above-mentioned countries also submitted to ILO relevant conventions. First, the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Forced or Compulsory Labour prohibits forced labour in all forms, whether it is exacted by the State or by individuals who have the power to threaten workers with severe deprivation, such as withholding food, wage, physical violence or sexual abuse, restricting their movements or locking them up.

Besides, the Convention prohibits forced labour situations exacted to domestic workers, where the head of a household takes away identity papers (e.g. passport), which forbids the worker to go outside and threatens him or her with, for instance, non-payment of salary in case of disobedience; and, or, when a domestic worker’s wage is unbearably low.

The ILO Convention on elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation prohibits discrimination whatsoever. The Convention enumerates prohibited grounds for discrimination, such as sex, race, skin colour, national extraction or social origin, religion or political opinions. Discrimination appears in a direct or indirect way. No matter its form, it is an infringement to the migrant workers’ rights.

For some Rwandans who would covet going abroad to seek greener pastures, they should think deeply and hard to begin with. The above examples are just a tip of the iceberg of how the xenophobic phenomenon is growing exponentially. As such, government should take measures to restrict migration of less-skilled job-seekers abroad, especially in countries where there is a poor record of human rights. Of course, any such measure cannot apply to externalisation of other occupations that require skilled workers. A consideration of country, where to seek new pastures matters a lot! The reason being, the level of protection and promotion of human rights varies from a country to country. North America and Europe have a fair standard of protection and respect of human rights.

Interestingly, Rwanda, as well, treats foreign migrant workers in the same way its to the nationals.

Surprisingly, most recently, the Danish Parliament passed a controversial amendment to the Aliens legislation giving police the power to search and confiscate the property of asylum seekers to contribute to expenses associated with their stay in Denmark. The confiscation of asylum seekers’ assets violates several human rights.

First, it breaches the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Second, the 1951 Refugee Convention requires States to respect asylum seekers’ property rights based on the principle of non-discrimination. Specifically, Article 13 provides that States must afford refugees the same rights to moveable and immoveable property as other foreigners. Stripping people in search of international protection of their assets to pay for the costs of their reception does not reflect a fair treatment of asylum seekers. This is especially so when one considers that the amount of money collected by seizing the assets of asylum seekers is likely to be modest.

Fred K. Nkusi is a lecturer and international law expert