Rundale

Doyin Titilayo 

Ireland has long cherished its tradition of hospitality and compassion, particularly towards those escaping war, crisis and political-cultural persecution. However, reports from Direct provision and Emergency Reception and Orientation Centres (EROC), where international protection applicants reside, reveal a contrasting reality characterised by fear, division, and misuse of power against vulnerable residents. Through my journalism work, I have been speaking with international protection people (IPPs) from some Direct provisions and EROC centres in Dublin, Galway, Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal. Their description resembles that of the Oyo Empire under the reign of Alaafin Sango.

Emperor? Yes, in the heart of a vast empire of Oyo, where cities gleamed with gold and armies stretched beyond the horizon, sat Emperor, Alafin of Sango in old Oyo State in Southwest of Nigeria , the supreme ruler. His word was law, and his desire was destiny. One morning, as he stood upon the marble balcony of his palace, Madiba declared, “Today, the sun shall rise later, for I wish to dream longer.” And though the heavens paid no heed to his command, the empire did. Every clock in every tower was ordered to be turned back, and the people, obedient to their emperor, began their day only when he rose from his bed.

In this story, the emperor is one who rules with absolute authority and acts according to his own will as he pleases, mostly in unjust ways. IPAS centre managers often act like Emperor Madiba. These IPAS centre residents described a regime of manipulation and control from the very individuals that should be responsible for their daily welfare, those IPAS outsourced accommodation services to, the private service providers.

My conversation with these residents revealed that Center managers exacerbate tensions between nationalities, withhold essentials, and subject residents to unfair treatment. A Liberian asylum applicant, who wished to remain anonymous, recounted how food shortages were deliberately created: “When some of us reached out to the manager, he said other residents have taken more, which is not always the case. This prevents unity and collective demands for better conditions”.  

Evidence from my own experience, residents’ testimony and external investigations clearly reflect inhumane treatment, lack of objective supervision of management by IPAS and the mental frustration that centre management causes for residents.  This evidence includes lack of timely restocking of milk and other materials in the general kitchen, rooms being allocated which are below standard and the manner in which the center team responds to the concerns of residents.

Residents face arbitrary rules, such as restricted access to laundry facilities or threats of reporting minor infractions to Garda authorities—a frightening prospect for those already dealing with legal issues and constant threats. Staff threaten to report issues to IPAS while they themselves do not follow the IPAS House rules, particularly regarding complaint procedures. Recently, a family experienced a distressing incident when their 18-month-old baby lost consciousness due to dangerous room conditions. If it wasn’t for the promptness of the ambulance service, it could have been fatal.

Despite the family’s repeated complaints regarding the room’s extreme temperatures, which resulted from its partial glass construction, the centre’s management failed to take any corrective measures. Instead, the centre manager reportedly issued verbal threats to the parents, indicating an intention to cause them mental pain. Some Irish individuals that felt concerned in the community, including a councillor, played a crucial role in advocating for the family, escalating the issue particularly after the young child fainted. As of now, no disciplinary actions have been taken against the centre. IPAS responded by relocating the family to a different facility. This raises concerns about the possibility of similar incidents affecting other resident well as the importance of having community with the Irish outside of IPAS, which is lost when the family is moved, as no preventive measures have been implemented against the centre’s management.

This story echoes the situation at another centre, where management, despite receiving funds to hire a specific number of workers based on service level agreement with IPAS, chose not to employ sufficient manpower. Instead, they strategically relied on some residents who act as management proxies to pressure other residents into performing unpaid tasks, particularly in common areas intended for employed centre staff only.

In another facility, the manager is reportedly employing a “divide and conquer” strategy to manage the residents. This approach involves creating divisions among residents from various countries, dismissing or redirecting their grievances, and swiftly undermining any efforts to foster solidarity by labelling them as “aggressive.” According to one resident, “The information we receive is dependent on our country of origin and if you are in closer in relationship to the centre manager, you tend to receive more and timely information.”

The “divide and conquer” strategy is particularly harmful, as it fosters distrust among refugees and makes complaints easier to ignore. This is not mere negligence but a deliberate means of maintaining control, adversely impacting the residents’ progress, harmony and even integration.

A pressing issue is the reluctance of residents to report to IPAS or engage with the IPAS welfare team during visits due to fear of identity exposure, leading to either mistreatment by centre managers or unjust transfers based on unverified misconduct communicated to IPAS by centre managers.  The IPAS Inspection report 2024 includes a question for the inspector to answer based on residents’ feedback under the heading “If you were approached by any residents regarding general/personal issues while in the centre please outline the details below”.  The report reveals that residents are more hesitant to discuss personal matters related to personal treatment or relationships, addressing only general issues that are more apparent. This reluctance persists despite the inspector’s assurance of anonymity, but resident perception differs, suggesting that residents perceive possible repercussions for voicing personal concerns.

Furthermore, at one facility, the manager financially incentivises residents to inform him about the actions and activities of other residents, while in another centre, preferential treatment – such as room allocation – is blatantly given to manager informants. This results in unfair room allocations and partial interventions in residents’ disputes, contributing to irregularity in bed allocation in some centres.

Other residents report punitive measures and threats used to silence them. Those who speak out risk abrupt relocations, often to isolated areas, hindering access to education, healthcare, and legal support in some cases. Complaints may trigger threats of reporting to the International Protection Office. As a resident in Galway noted, “just be silent at this period”.

These situations should not be seen or interpreted as a total failure of all centres.  There are positive aspects in terms of experience of some residents in some centres, according to a recent one-year overview report of monitoring and inspection of International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) centres conducted by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), maintenance of facilities, quick response to residents matter, provision of toiletries promptly, prompt disbursement of weekly payment etc. which some residents acknowledged during my discussion .

The challenge does not solely lie with IPAS, but rather with unsupervised centre managers using a kind of Machiavellian management style, which IPAS might not be aware due to lack of proper scrutiny or investigation of residents reported issues over time.  This shows that not all accommodation centre managers act this way; some perform their duties compassionately and professionally, such as at a centre in Sligo County that is known to give the most humane treatment to residents.

Relevant bodies, such as the Departments of Children, Disability and Equality, HIQA, human rights organisations, and concerned individuals, must address this issue. If Ireland truly honors the “céad míle fáilte” principle, exploitative management styles that take advantage of residents’ vulnerabilities should not be tolerated. IPAS and HIQA must ensure that centre managers are not only Garda vetted as required but also have substantial skills and experience in community development, or voluntary service with vulnerable groups or those at risk of social exclusion. Individuals with such backgrounds are likely to show empathy, possess interpersonal communication skills, and understand how to work with diverse communities.

Intercultural training from the Immigrant Council of Ireland or similar organisations would further equip centre managers in effectively managing a diverse community as centres are. IPAS should ensure adherence to IPAS House rules and the reporting procedures should have a place designated for residents to co-sign in the incident report form; to be certain that before centre staff send a one-sided report as is always the case, residents are aware of the content of the reports.  IPAS must also ensure staff act professionally and in line with the House rules and regulations.  The unverified belief among residents is that each centre has an IPAS officer, especially at helpdesk units that act according to the dictate of the centre managers without respecting House rules.

The issues arising from IPAS centres serve as a sobering reminder that systems designed to offer protection, when devoid of impartial oversight and accountability are prone to become mentally harmful spaces.

One message must remain clear: IPAS centre managers acting in the same manner as an emperor will not be in the interest of a dignifying and fair reception system.