Latest news with #SAQA
Daily Maverick
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Zimbabwean Exemption Permit visa rejections expose legal uncertainty in SA's general work visa regime
For Zimbabwean Exemption Permit holders who have lived in uncertainty for years, this is just the latest wrinkle in their plight. As the government continues to grapple with the future of the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP), many ZEP holders have been encouraged to apply for mainstream visas such as the general work visa. Earlier this year, the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) received a report of a ZEP holder who applied for such a visa with the support of her employer. She had secured a ministerial waiver, issued through Immigration Circular 7 of 2024, exempting her from one of the technical requirements usually required to obtain a general work visa. Yet, to her surprise, the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) rejected her application, citing noncompliance with the very requirement that the minister himself had waived. When she wrote to the HSF, her story did not seem unusual – another case of departmental confusion about the status and policies of the ZEP. However, upon further investigation, a deeper concern revealed itself. She was rejected in terms of Immigration Regulation 18(3)(b), which requires applicants to submit proof of their qualifications as accredited by the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). But what if Immigration Regulation 18(3)(b) no longer exists? Regulations, like other forms of legislation, may from time to time be amended or repealed by the government. When governments intend to amend or repeal regulations, this is done via the publishing of Government Gazettes. The Immigration Regulations that control processes such as the general work visa application were originally issued in 2014. Under those regulations, applicants for a general work visa had to comply with five requirements, listed in Regulation 18(3)(a)-(e). Those requirements were: (a) a certificate from the Department of Labour confirming that the applicant's employer had been unable to find a suitable South African or permanent resident for the position, that the applicant was qualified for the position, that the salary was not below market standards, and that the contract met local labour norms and was conditional on visa approval; (b) proof of their qualifications as accredited by SAQA; (c) the full particulars of the employer; (d) an undertaking by the employer to inform the director-general of the DHA if the applicant breached their visa conditions; and (e) an undertaking by the employer to inform the director-general of the DHA if the applicant ceased to be employed or changed roles. In 2018, the Immigration Regulations were amended for the first time. Importantly, Regulation 18 was amended. The language of the amendment was: 'Regulation 18 of the Regulations is hereby amended by the substitution for subregulation (3) of the following subregulation.' The amendment then listed only a new 18(3)(a), with no sign of the previous requirements found in (b)-(e). On a literal reading, it would appear those requirements had been repealed, no longer existing in law. That, of course, would create an incredibly relaxed visa application process, something that seems unlikely to have been the intention of the DHA. But how would ZEP holders, or any other applicant, know this? The government does not frequently publish consolidated legislation and regulations which incorporate new amendments. Instead, it often publishes Government Gazettes containing such amendments and leaves it to the public to incorporate changes themselves. As such, the language of these Government Gazettes carries the authority of the law – they tell us in plain language what the law is. So why then is it the DHA's position that 18(3)(b)-(e) still exists in law? No further amendment to the Immigration Regulations has written these requirements in, yet the director-general of the DHA assures the HSF that 18(3)(b) 'continues to be operational and enforceable and was never repealed'. A quick search on the DHA's website confirms this position, where a document titled 'New Immigration Regulations' appears to incorporate the 2018 amendments into the 2014 Regulations. It is important to note that several amendments have been made since 2018, though none of those finds a place on this document. The document lists 18(3)(a)-(e), with an important footnote that states that the 'instruction in the Government Gazette is to substitute subsection (3), but the Department has informed us that the intention was to substitute paragraph (a) only'. The use of the third person ('the Department has informed us') suggests that this document was not compiled by the DHA. More importantly, there appears to be an admission by the DHA of the ambiguity here. It is, frankly, absurd that the only indication that these requirements have survived the amendment can be found buried in a document, unlikely to have been compiled by the DHA or any other government source, as a footnote. For seven years, general work visa applications have proceeded on uncertain legal footing. No Government Gazette has cleared the issue, despite several opportunities to do so. The latest amendment to the Immigration Regulations, gazetted in October 2024, even amends later subsections of Regulation 18, but does not mention subsection (3) – if the department knows about the ambiguity, why hasn't it clarified the law through a Government Gazette? For ZEP holders, who have lived in uncertainty for years, this is just the latest wrinkle in their plight. Regardless of the legal footing of 18(3)(b), they have been granted a waiver which clearly prohibits the department from rejecting their general work visa applications for noncompliance with 18(3)(b). The DHA has assured the HSF that such rejections should not be taking place, and that aggrieved ZEP holders may simply exhaust the internal appeals process to rectify such decisions. In the case of the above ZEP holder, her carefully crafted appeal citing the minister's waiver has not been adjudicated – despite her lodging it more than two months ago. Her example is not an isolated case; the HSF has received several similar reports from ZEP holders facing rejections in terms of Regulation 18(3)(b). She, along with thousands of other ZEP holders, must continue to live under extraordinary pressure, with the ever-looming possibility of deportation hanging around her neck. But this issue is bigger than the ZEP, it implicates every single general work visa decision since 2018. The simple question is: what is the law? If Regulations 18(3)(b)-(e) have not survived, what is to be done about those seven years of decisions? Retroactively invalidating every general work visa decision since 2018 would create an administrative nightmare, at great cost to the state. This ambiguity may even confound our courts – what order would serve justice on aggrieved applicants without crippling state capacity? Ultimately, it cannot be up to individuals to guess at the true intentions of the DHA. In a constitutional democracy, the law must be accessible and comprehensible to all. It should not require deep investigation and guesswork. In this circumstance, the DHA must clarify the law in the appropriate manner through a Government Gazette which clearly reintroduces the requirements into Regulation 18 of the Immigration Regulations. More importantly, this country must reform the manner in which laws are presented to the public so that individuals have easy access to consolidated legislation and regulations. DM
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
c/side Media Alert: What E-Commerce Businesses Must Know About Recent PCI DSS Updates
The new requirements add client-side security attestation for e-commerce merchants using third-party payment providers SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- c/side, a cybersecurity company with tools for monitoring, optimizing, and securing vulnerable browser-side third-party scripts, today highlighted new self-attestation requirements introduced in recent PCI updates ahead of the March 31, 2025, compliance deadline. The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) introduced significant changes to Self-Assessment Questionnaire A (SAQ A) on January 30, 2025. While SAQ A has traditionally offered a simplified compliance path for low-risk merchants not storing cardholder data, the update adds a crucial requirement: merchants must now confirm their e-commerce systems are protected against client-side script attacks to maintain their SAQ A qualification status. 'E-commerce businesses must now self-attest that their site is secure against client-side web script attacks,' said Simon Wijckmans, CEO and founder, c/side. 'This change presents compliance challenges, especially for merchants relying on third-party payment providers, as many lack the expertise to assess client-side risks. Without the right protections, they may no longer qualify for SAQ A. The best way to ensure PCI DSS 4.0.1 compliance is to continuously monitor the client-side environment in real-time and stay ahead of evolving threats.' What e-commerce merchants must know: Critical March 31 deadline: Merchants must verify (and attest to) their protection against client-side attacks to maintain SAQ A qualification under PCI DSS v4.0.1. Expanded merchant responsibility: While requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1 are no longer mandatory, merchants must now actively demonstrate client-side security measures. Hidden vulnerabilities in modern e-commerce: Third-party payment providers do not automatically protect against script manipulation, leaving payment data exposed to sophisticated attacks. Escalating risk environment: Client-side attacks have been rising fast and affecting merchants both large and small. Additional resources: c/side blog with more detail: PCI SSC Updates SAQ A for PCI DSS 4.0.1 – What you need to know c/side press release on PCI compliance capabilities: c/side Launches PCI Compliance Dashboard for New PCI DSS 4.0.1 Requirements PCI Security Council blog: Important Updates Announced for Merchants Validating to Self-Assessment Questionnaire A About c/side c/side is a forward-thinking cybersecurity startup focused on browser-side detection and protection. Led by industry expert Simon Wijckmans, c/side is pioneering technologies to shield against sophisticated cyber threats, ensuring unparalleled security standards for users across the web. ContactKyle Petersonkyle@
