Home Affairs sent back to drawing board on Refugees Act after legal setback
The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) must go back to the drawing board to align the Refugees Act with the Constitution, following advice against its proposed approach to sections 22(12) and 22(13) of the legislation.
This emerged during a meeting in Parliament of the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday, at which Home Affairs Minister Dr Leon Schreiber and other DHA officials updated the committee on progress in amending sections of the legislation that courts had ruled were constitutionally deficient.
In 2023, the Scalabrini Centre took the DHA to court over amendments made to the Refugees Act in 2020, specifically the introduction of sections 22(12) and 22(13).
These sections provided for the 'automatic abandonment' of asylum applications if an asylum seeker or refugee failed to renew their permit within one month of its expiry. In practice, this meant that if an asylum seeker did not renew their visa, the DHA could presume they no longer wished to seek refugee status or apply for asylum, and could be subject to deportation or required to leave South Africa.
Scalabrini brought the case before the Western Cape High Court, arguing that the provisions infringed constitutional rights, including the rights to life, dignity, and freedom and security of the person. The organisation cited the practical and systemic challenges that applicants face at the DHA when attempting to renew their permits.
Earlier this month, the court declared the provisions invalid and unconstitutional.
Following the judgment, the DHA consulted the Refugee Appeals Authority and the Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs. Both bodies supported the subsections declared constitutionally invalid, recommending their retention but proposing that the period for renewing an expired visa be extended from one month to 180 days, in line with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
However, the Office of the Chief State Law Adviser (OCSLA), which provides legal counsel to the executive and all government departments, declined to issue a preliminary certificate for the draft Bill.
It said the DHA's approach to the judgment and its attempt to amend the legislation failed to address the fundamental reasons that sections 22(12) and 22(13) were declared invalid, which were:
The provisions were arbitrary, as their introduction meant asylum seekers could be deported not solely on the merits of their claims but due to external circumstances.
The provisions did not account for external factors that might prevent the renewal of asylum visas, such as the location of the nearest Refugee Reception Office (RRO), the length of queues at RROs, or the workload within these offices.
The DHA has concluded that any amendments to the Act will need to be addressed through a supplementary white paper at a later stage.
DHA pivots on legal challenge approach
The DHA's next attempt at amending the Act is likely to comply with constitutional requirements, if Schreiber's address to the portfolio committee is any indication.
Schreiber noted that Home Affairs was among the most litigated departments in government, if not the most, and that this was something the DHA aimed to change.
He stated that the department no longer viewed litigation as something that must always be opposed at any cost, adding: 'We are looking at cases in a much more merit-based way, considering whether there are prospects of success and certainly not making decisions to oppose matters for the sake of it.'
Discussing the department's approach to legal challenges, Schreiber said the DHA's decisions were always anchored in legal advice, constitutionality and the requirements of the law.
'We have a high mountain to climb in terms of re-establishing the rule of law in this space of Home Affairs — whether it is civics, immigration or the asylum management system — and we cannot do that unless we ourselves are leading by example,' said Schreiber.
He emphasised that ensuring the DHA's operations and functions aligned with the Constitution was not merely about improving the department's image, but also about reducing costs.
'The contingent liability that comes from legal exposure, as well as the day-to-day cost of spending so much money on legal cases, is in and of itself, in the current budget environment, a very clear reason for us to focus on this area and make sure we reduce the burden of legal cases on this department,' he said. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Sanction Rosatom and send clear signal that occupation of nuclear plants will not be tolerated
The occupation by Russia of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and operated for over three years during active warfare. The deadline that US President Donald Trump had established for Russia to start a ceasefire, stop its aggression against Ukraine, or otherwise face the threat of sanctions was 8 August 2025. This was the sixth time that Trump had demanded that Vladimir Putin stop the war; however, Putin had previously declined such offers. The day passed uneventfully. During the 11 years of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, numerous peace initiatives have emerged, including the African Peace Mission. But analysts see little sign that Putin is prepared to abandon his intention to take control of Ukraine. In 2022, Russia declared in its Constitution that four Ukrainian regions were part of its territory, but failed to fully take over any of them militarily. Now Putin would have to amend the Russian constitution to halt the aggression at the current frontline — a highly risky political move that could bring about the end of his political power. Thus, he is demanding that Ukrainians leave their homes 'voluntarily' because the Russian army failed to take these territories by force. In July this year, Russia launched more than 6,000 drones and fired dozens of missiles targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, killing civilians far from the frontline. Just in the first half of this year, 6,754 civilians have been killed or injured, according to the UN. The war remains intense, and no one is safe in Ukraine. Nevertheless, hopes are high again for 15 August, when Trump is expected to meet with Putin in Alaska, the territory the US once bought from Russia. President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has previously spoken in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity, also spoke with both the Russian and Ukrainian presidents last week, raising expectations that a ceasefire may be possible. Sanctions The expectations are that Trump can speak from a position of strength and threaten sanctions. However, given Russia's negligible trade with the US, what sanctions could Trump introduce that would be meaningful? The Russian state budget used to receive about 50% of its revenue from oil and gas exports; this had already dropped to 30% in 2024. Further sanctions could seriously undermine the Kremlin's ability to fund the war, which is expensive to run. In 2025, a record 40% of Russia's state budget has been allocated to defence and security. Another 6%-10% of revenue comes from the Russian state agency Rosatom, which serves a dual role: developing civilian nuclear reactors and acting as a strategic arm of the Kremlin's military sector by producing parts for non-nuclear weapons and other defence technologies. Rosatom's subsidiaries supply components to Russia's military-industrial complex, including drone technologies. Some of these facilities, such as the drone production factory in Alabuga, have been accused by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime of recruiting African women aged 18 to 22 to drone production under allegedly false promises of a 'work-study programme'. Rosatom, whose regional office has operated in South Africa since 2012, plays a key role in the military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, seized by Russian military forces in March 2022 and turned into a geopolitical hostage. The occupation of the plant is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and has been operated for more than three years during active warfare. Rosatom plays a key role in this precedent. The violations of the International Atomic Energy Agency's seven nuclear safety pillars — the physical integrity of facilities, operability of safety systems, autonomy of staff decision-making, secure off-site power, uninterrupted logistics, effective radiation monitoring and reliable communication with regulators — have already been documented at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The detailed analysis of these violations and what they mean for the African continent is presented in the Policy Brief on Nuclear Safety during Military Invasion, presented ahead of the African Union's Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Accra in July 2024. The brief presents a comprehensive case study of nuclear vulnerability during wartime and calls for urgent action by African countries, including South Africa, to prevent similar situations on the continent. However, the challenges at the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant go beyond the risk of physical damage to the facility. In May 2025, the International Labour Organization (ILO) reported that 13 Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employees had been abducted, including three cases this year. The whereabouts of at least one detained worker remains unknown. The organisation also documented forced labour, coerced union membership and serious occupational safety risks for staff. Pressure to sign contracts More than 40 documented witness accounts by human rights organisations such as Truth Hounds suggest that since March 2022, Rosatom experts were fully aware of the pressure that the military personnel were putting on the nuclear operators to sign contracts with Rosatom. They were aware of interrogations, detentions, torture, psychological coercion and decisions to deny shift rotations. This is not a technical dispute. It is a systematic breach of international humanitarian law and nuclear safety norms, and of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. International mechanisms such as the UN have been powerless in the face of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant occupation. In July 2024, the UN passed a resolution — 'Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant' — condemning the Russian occupation of the plant and calling for the immediate withdrawal of military forces to ensure global nuclear safety. Many African countries supported this resolution, recognising the threat to international peace posed by the militarisation of a civilian nuclear site. In addition, 13 African states — including Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia — endorsed the Peace Summit Communiqué in Switzerland, affirming Ukraine's sovereign control over its nuclear sites. However, these international documents lack binding power. Torture Instead, sanctions or a refusal to cooperate with organisations that support torture could reduce the funding available for the war. Such sanctions can be implemented by any country that aims to promote human rights and nuclear safety. South Africa co-chairs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ukraine is one of the few countries that gave up its nuclear weapons, despite holding the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal prior to 1994. That year, it voluntarily disarmed, joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepted International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and allowed international inspections. In return, the US, the UK and Russia committed to respecting and protecting Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. The silence and acceptance of military risks, and the violations of international labour practices, corporate responsibilities and human rights, show why governments that want to protect their population must act — not in reaction to a European war, but in defence of their own nuclear future. DM Dzvinka Kachur is with the Ukrainian Association of South Africa. Volodymyr Lakomov and Ilko Kucheriv are with the Democratic Initiatives Foundation.
eNCA
8 hours ago
- eNCA
Police fire rubber bullets at Germiston residents in housing stand-off
EKURHULENI - Police fired rubber bullets at residents who tried to block the eviction of scores of houses in Germiston on Tuesday by throwing stones and torching a municipal building, officials said. After police gained access to the housing complex in Ekurhuleni, a squad of men moved in and hauled furniture and personal belongings out of the homes. Shocked residents accused the government of failing them amid South Africa's housing crisis, saying they believed the homes were part of a scheme to provide houses for black South Africans disadvantaged by the previous racist apartheid system. Two people were arrested for setting alight the nearby offices of the municipal home affairs department, police said, adding they were acting on a June court order to evict people from the complex, which was reportedly home to 450 families. "Unfortunately, the people got wind of the eviction and closed the road. Innocent people and the police were thrown with stones and we had to retaliate to ensure that we dispersed them," Major General Fred Kekana, the deputy provincial police commissioner, told AFP. "Somebody allegedly threw a petrol bomb at the Department of Home Affairs. Two arrests have been made so far," he said. Some residents insisted they had not been issued an eviction order and had been paying rent for years. "Our government is failing us. They are chasing us yet we have titles for these houses," 37-year-old resident Akhona Mbadi, a mother of four children, told AFP. After taking power following the end of white minority rule in 1994, the African National Congress-led government adopted a Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) to provide subsidised housing and other services to black South Africans disadvantaged by apartheid. By 2017 nearly 14 percent of South African households lived in RDP or government-subsidised homes, according to government figures. However, homelessness has risen dramatically from 13,000 in 1996 to more than 55,700 in 2022, according to government statistics.
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- The Citizen
Judgment reserved on Ngwathe application
During a virtual sitting on Tuesday, the court reserved judgment on the Ngwathe Local Municipality's application for leave to appeal against an earlier Free State High Court ruling ordering urgent provincial intervention in the municipality. This means that Judge J.P. Daffue's earlier ruling on June 20, in which he ordered, among other things, that the municipality be placed under administration and that the municipal council be dissolved — still cannot be implemented until the court decides whether another court might reach a different conclusion. If not, Judge Daffue's order, previously granted in favour of the civil rights organisation AfriForum, will stand. Should the appeal application succeed, however, the court order will remain suspended until the case is heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Judge Daffue previously found that the Ngwathe Municipality no longer meets its constitutional, legal, and administrative obligations toward its residents. The court therefore ordered the dissolution of the municipal council and instructed the Free State provincial government to intervene immediately. The ruling follows years of neglect, incompetence, and decline, during which residents of Parys, Heilbron, Koppies, Edenville and Vredefort, were left without reliable service delivery. According to the landmark judgment, the Free State Executive Council must, within the framework of Section 139(5)(a) of the Constitution, draw up a recovery plan to restore services and meet debt obligations, dissolve the Ngwathe Municipal Council, and appoint an administrator. Progress reports, under oath, must be submitted to the court every three months. The Ngwathe Municipality, along with eight other respondents in the matter — including the Free State Premier — was also ordered to pay AfriForum's legal costs.
