Leading pro-democracy activist refused entry to UK

A leading pro-democracy activist who has been invited to address an
international conference in London has been refused a visa by the UK High
Commission in Harare. John Bomba has been a key student leader in Zimbabwe's
volatile political scene for the last four years, and has drawn the
attention of many of the most prominent figures in the country's turbulent
opposition politics. His reputation as a voice of student and youth
struggles in Zimbabwe led to his invitation to the annual conference held at
the University of London. The High Commission has refused his application
for a visa on the grounds that he is unable to prove his 'returnability' - a
term invented by the complex bureaucracy that now deals with visa
applications to the UK.

John Bomba has been prominent in every struggle for democratization in
Zimbabwe, starting with the formation of the MDC in 1999. He has
concentrated on work within the student movement nationally. Bomba - or
Briggs as he known by his fellow activists - has been key to successful
campaigns launched by ZINASU, the national student union, since 2000. As a
central player in the National Constitutional Assembly, he has helped to
spear-head programmes to educate youth on the necessity for a new,
democratic constitution.

The breadth of his activism is even more extraordinary considering that he
also been able to sustain a full-time degree course at NUST, the country's
second university based in Bulawayo. For two years John was the president of
the Student Representative Council, ensuring students could express their
diverse opinions onto a national platform.

Like many leading activists John has suffered greatly. Last year on a NCA
demonstration he was arrested and beaten, he was held for five days and
singled out for 'special attention' by the police. He was also detained
immediately after the stolen presidential election and wrote immediately
after that detention, with characteristic courage "my detention has
redoubled my determination to continue the fight for a genuinely democratic
Zimbabwe. The fire must keep burning."

Considering the support of the UK government for the democratic struggle in
Zimbabwe it was assumed that his application to visit the UK - to speak at
an international conference - was simply a formality. This was a naïve
assumption. After almost two weeks waiting for a response from the agency
that today deals with UK visa applications, he was informed that he had been
turned down. The reason from the officer responsible for the rejection was
clear, "I am not satisfied that there are sufficient funds available for
your maintenance." This is easy enough to contest and the conference
organizers asked the question, "What would be a sufficient amount?" They
were not given a response; if they had been they could have deposited the
required sum. The second argument is altogether more obtuse: "you have not
shown, on the balance of probabilities, sufficiently strong family, social
or economic ties to Zimbabwe to satisfy me that you intend to leave the UK
on the completion of your visit. I am not satisfied that you are genuinely
seeking entry for the purpose and period as stated by you."

This is the killer. How does John prove his 'returnability'. In the
conditions stated by the rejection letter it is impossible. For John to
prove that he will return he has to cease to be John Bomba - a demanding
request even for the British High Commission. Because for John to acquire
'returnability' (assets, income, family, children etc) he would need to
metamorphose into what he is not. So the conditions stipulated by the UK
make entry effectively impossible for anyone in John position: 99% of
Zimbabweans.

These are an extraordinary set of circumstance. As Patrick Bond - the world
renown scholar - who has written in defense of John's application,
explained "I think the decision may reflect very poorly on Mr. Blunketts's
and Mr. Straw's policies if word was to get out that Mr. Bomba was rejected
for a short-term visa; in fact, I think it may be considered rather
scandalous." Despite the international appeal for the HC to review its
decision by leading academics and a prominent Labour MP in the UK, the visa
office remain steadfast and stubborn, "we are sticking to our initial
decision'.

This situation poses a serious problem, not simply for John Bomba but for
many people seeking to travel to the UK. But more profoundly perhaps where
does it leave the British government's out-spoken support for the
'democratic struggle' in Zimbabwe. If their sincerity is indeed genuine then
why is the system they have crafted to allocate visas arbitrary and absurdly
unjust?