Home Affairs backtracks from attempt to comply with ConCourt refugee ruling, amid public safety concerns

Home Affairs backtracks from attempt to comply with ConCourt refugee ruling, amid public safety concerns
Following violent anti-migrant protests that rocked Durban and Soweto this week, Home Affairs director-general Livhuwani Makhode has withdrawn the directive relating to the intake of asylum seekers, citing public safety concerns.
Government blamed the violence on the deliberate spread of misinformation on social media following the recent Constitutional Court judgment declaring certain provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional.
On Thursday, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration (IMCM) warned that false narratives are being designed to create panic, fuel social tensions and undermine public confidence in government institutions.
Clarifying recent legal developments, the IMCM emphasised that the landmark decision by the Constitutional Court does not grant any new rights to asylum seekers, contrary to these widespread and false online claims.
The Court found that under certain provisions of the Act, individuals had been unfairly prevented from accessing the asylum system solely on procedural grounds. Under the previous regulations, individuals were blocked from seeking asylum if they entered the country irregularly, lacked an asylum transit visa, or failed to report to a Refugee Reception Office (RRO) within the prescribed period.
The Court ruled that such procedural barriers could result in asylum seekers being excluded from the process without their claims being properly assessed on their merits, reaffirming South Africa's constitutional and international obligations – particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning a person to a country where they may face persecution, conflict or serious harm.
Home Affairs noted on Friday that it had issued its intake directive to all RROs as a "purely operational attempt" in line with the Court's order with no interference from the Minister of Home Affairs or any other political office-bearer.
"Claims that it was a politically-motivated decision are therefore categorically untrue, as the directive emanated from a Constitutional Court case that the Department had opposed," the Department stated. It noted, however, that in its attempt to follow the court order, RRO operations had been overwhelmed and Home Affairs officials were placed at risk, with serious threats to public safety and order.
"With these new facts now at hand, the Department will embark on a fresh process to determine the most appropriate operational approach to ensure compliance with the Constitutional Court's order. The Department reaffirms its respect for the judiciary and the rule of law, as well as its commitment to determine an operationally appropriate and sustainable method to comply with the order," it said.