Johannesburg — AN INQUIRY has blamed misunderstandings over the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for charges that its South African office mishandled the humanitarian crisis that resulted from last year's wave of xenophobic violence.

The investigation by the UN says many of the concerns listed in a 25-page formal complaint by South African civil society organisations resulted from misconceptions of both the scope of the UNHCR's mandate as well as its failure to address the misunderstandings.

A number of civic society groups laid a strongly-worded complaint with the UNHCR's head office in Geneva in October, saying the Pretoria office had "remained uncooperative and isolated" from requests for assistance and information in the aftermath of the attacks on foreigners.

Among the complainants was the South African Council of Churches whose general secretary, Eddie Makue, last week said they were looking to the UNHCR to clarify what exactly its role is. "We have very clear expectations on what we think the UNHCR could be doing to bring relief to victims of displacement," he said.

Other petitioners were the Black Sash, the Aids Law Project, the Treatment Action Campaign, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Jewish Community Volunteer Action Group and Sonke Gender Justice Network.

Their letter alleged the UNHCR had failed to advocate for the rights of refugees and migrants "in the face of a South African government that has become increasingly ignorant, abusive and careless under both South African and international law".

The letter, copied to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, led to an "ad hoc inquiry" whose report was circulated to stakeholders in SA this month.

The report acknowledged that the UNHCR's Pretoria office could have handled the crisis better, particularly through improved communication on the limitations of its mandate and its resource shortcomings.

The four-member investigation panel also questioned why the Pretoria office had not formally activated a "cluster approach". This would have led to a broadening of the UN's capacity in responding to the crisis.

However, it suggested that the quality of the UNHCR's response was "conditioned" by the response of the UN country team whose focus was development activities rather than humanitarian work. "Governmental capacity and sovereignty is high, and the UN's role is largely advisory," it said.

The Pretoria office's support of the government-led response was perceived as support for government policies which many civic groups deemed inappropriate. The panel believed the office "should have conducted a more public advocacy role with the government with regard to the lengthy waits for asylum seekers for a decision on their determination claims".

Other charges were that the UNHCR hotline went unanswered while the office and its staff were not reachable after hours. "It supported the consolidation of intolerable camps and provided little or no meaningful oversight over the rapid status determination process," the complainants argued.

Several temporary shelters were opened in Gauteng and Western Cape soon after last May's violence. These were closed weeks later. In Gauteng, only one of them still exists.

The camp in Pretoria is the subject of ongoing discussion to determine whether the refugees there should be resettled, re-integrated or repatriated.