March and March Movement leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma has criticised South Africa’s reopened asylum application system, following a Constitutional Court judgment that removed several barriers that had prevented some foreign nationals from accessing the asylum process.
The Constitutional Court confirmed in July that provisions of the Refugees Act were unconstitutional and invalid because procedural non-compliance could prevent asylum seekers from having their claims assessed on their merits. The court found that the provisions were inconsistent with the principle of non-refoulement. (SAFLII)
Following the judgment, Home Affairs moved to implement the consequences of the ruling, including allowing people who indicate that they intend to seek asylum to access the application process even where they entered South Africa irregularly.
Ngobese-Zuma has responded to the development through a series of posts on social media, raising concerns about immigration control, crime, employment and access to government services.
In one post, she questioned the position of South Africans who struggle to access social assistance while raising concerns about foreign nationals.
“Refugees and Asylum Seekers get SASSA Grants from us … South Africans who don’t have IDs … can’t even get those grants but someone who lies about being a refugee or Asylum seeker … claim grants, job, tuckshop, school, hospital and whatever they want ‘FREE’ … taxes … we are so f***.”
She also alleged that foreign nationals could encourage relatives from other countries to travel to South Africa and claim asylum.
“They have started calling their brothers, cousins and family members from their countries who are criminals and some unemployed, telling them to … come to South Africa and claim to be refugees and asylum seekers…”
In another post, Ngobese-Zuma questioned the absence of police-clearance requirements for asylum seekers and raised concerns about people accused of serious crimes entering the country.
“Do you guys know that so called Refugees and Asylum Seekers don’t need any type of Police Clearance from their country?? A murderer, killer, rapist can now wake up … come South Africa … claim asylum … while you wait, stay and do whatever you want…”
Ngobese-Zuma subsequently described the development as a major change to South Africa’s immigration system.
“A Country with a High Crime Rate and High Unemployment Rate has just opened up the floodgates…”
She also wrote:
“Today we said Goodbye to our Immigration Laws completely…”
The comments are Ngobese-Zuma’s views and allegations. She did not provide evidence in the posts to substantiate the claim that criminals were being brought into South Africa through an organised asylum arrangement.
The Constitutional Court judgment itself dealt with access to the asylum process rather than automatically granting refugee status to everyone who applies.
The court confirmed the invalidity of sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i) and 21(1B) of the Refugees Act, as well as related regulations. It found that the provisions could prevent asylum seekers from reaching a merits-based assessment because of procedural issues such as irregular entry or delayed reporting.
The judgment therefore means that irregular entry, delayed reporting or the absence of certain immigration documentation cannot, on their own, prevent an asylum seeker from accessing the asylum process.
It does not mean that every person who applies for asylum is automatically recognised as a refugee. The person’s claim still has to be assessed under the refugee determination system.
Ngobese-Zuma has previously criticised government’s approach to undocumented migration. In June, she said government had no clear plan for dealing with undocumented migrants and questioned how foreign nationals with expired permits would be traced.
Her latest comments come amid an ongoing national debate over asylum applications, undocumented migration, border management and the enforcement of South Africa’s immigration laws.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling remains focused on ensuring that asylum seekers are not excluded from having their claims assessed on their merits solely because of procedural non-compliance.
