Inspectors criticise use of armed wardens to escort refugees

The agency responsible for transporting failed asylum seekers has been strongly reprimanded for letting civilian wardens carry guns while escorting a group of refugees to a deportation flight.

The prisoner transport service DV&O “deliberately” exceeded its powers by using armed wardens (boa’s) when it had no authority to do so, justice ministry inspectors wrote in their annual report.

The guards accompanied 83 Syrian nationals who were being deported to Damascus on a government-chartered flight in September last year.

It was the first mass deportation flight to be arranged under a voluntary scheme for Syrians, who receive a one-way ticket and €1,000 in cash if they agree to drop their claim for asylum irrevocably. The wardens were deployed as security for the group and to protect the cash reserves.

The DV&O’s illegal use of civilian wardens, rather than military police, “put its staff in a vulnerable position” because they were not authorised to use their weapons while travelling with the detainees.

“They could have been held personally liable if they had had to use force in the execution of their duties,” the inspectorate said.

Second infringement

The flight was arranged by the repatriation service DTenV, but the transfer of refugees to the airport was the responsibility of the DV&O. In all other respects the flight complied with the rules on deporting refugees, the inspectors said.

The report is published at a sensitive time for asylum minister Bart van den Brink, who wants to extend the powers of civilian wardens to deal with disruptive and rejected asylum seekers.

It is not the first time the transport service has been criticised for using armed wardens without authorisation to supervise refugees.

Three years ago the inspectorate found they were being used to enforce detention rules in the high-security refugee centre in Hoogeveen even though there was no legal basis for deploying them.

In its response to the report, the DV&O questioned why the inspectors had referred to the previous incident in a footnote.

The inspectorate replied that it had included the reference to explain why it took a “very serious” view of the most recent incident.