Long queues at Refugee Reception Offices and conflicting claims about who may remain in South Africa have left many citizens confused. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni moved on Thursday to set the record straight, telling the public that government has been working for months to strengthen the immigration system and to manage the consequences of a recent court ruling on asylum.
Speaking at a briefing by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Migration in Pretoria, Ntshavheni addressed widespread misinformation surrounding the Constitutional Court judgment on asylum applications, handed down in July, and the subsequent influx of people at reception offices. For members of the public trying to make sense of it all, the Minister sought to clarify what the judgment does and does not mean.
The stakes are real. The IMC stressed that the judgment, in the matter of Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, must not be read as legalising unlawful migration or granting anyone an automatic right to remain in the country. The Court declared certain provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional because they prevented some people from accessing the asylum system solely on procedural grounds. These included people who had entered the country irregularly, did not hold an asylum transit visa, or failed to report to a Refugee Reception Office within the prescribed period. The Court found that such barriers could exclude people from the asylum process before their claims were properly assessed.
Much of the confusion, Ntshavheni said, stems from a misunderstanding of directives issued by the Department of Home Affairs to Refugee Reception Offices on implementing the judgment. Government will review those directives to ensure there is no further confusion. She also flagged allegations that broadcasting platforms were being used to spread misinformation, noting that complaints about broadcasters or presenters can be lodged with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa. She reminded the public that the public broadcaster is not a State institution and operates independently of government.
The first piece of misinformation, she argued, is the suggestion that the current situation stems from a government decision. “We must be clear; it is the Constitutional Court decision of the 7th of July 2026,” she said. She underlined the constitutional separation of powers: Parliament makes and amends legislation, the executive runs government day to day and sets policy direction, and the judiciary adjudicates matters before the courts. The Constitutional Court, as the apex court, must be respected, she said, while government nonetheless carries a responsibility to protect the interests of South Africans within the Constitution and the country’s legal obligations.
The IMC, she said, has recognised the unintended consequences arising from the judgment and is obtaining legal advice on the options available. “We have met and we continue to meet to process this issue so that we are guided by the law because, as the Chairperson [of the IMC, Minister Kubayi] has said in the statement, the Constitution of the country is supreme and therefore, we need to be guided,” Ntshavheni said.
The Minister also drew a distinction between people fleeing persecution or war and those who enter the country for economic reasons. South African law and United Nations refugee conventions do not recognise economic hardship as a basis for refugee status, she said. “There is no economic refugee that is provided for in our Constitution, our laws and in the international conventions of the United Nations.” She referred to the principle of seeking protection in the first country of safety, citing Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Eswatini, Namibia, Lesotho and Botswana, and said government will have to consider the implications of this within South Africa’s legal framework and international obligations.
On allegations of fraudulent asylum and refugee statuses, Ntshavheni confirmed that work arising from Special Investigating Unit (SIU) investigations has already led Home Affairs to begin revoking statuses granted fraudulently. Revocations are being done in batches as cases are processed, and figures will be provided. The IMC will support extending the SIU’s existing mandate to cover the asylum seeker and refugee system. “If you are going to try to defraud the system and apply for refugee status as an asylum seeker in the country and you know you do not qualify, the law will deal with you decisively,” she warned.
Meanwhile, she rejected suggestions that government had spent the three months since the judgment doing nothing. It had approached the Gauteng Judge President about contradictory High Court judgments and made submissions ahead of court proceedings later this month. The Judge President has instituted a panel to deal with the matter. “We have been doing work. There is a full submission that was done,” she said. The State is also considering the broader legal and policy implications of migration challenges.
Finally, Ntshavheni cautioned against calls to amend the Constitution whenever difficult consequences arise. The first step, she said, is to determine whether existing legislation and regulations can address the problem within the current framework, with amendment a last resort. She encouraged South Africans to raise concerns through Parliament, including via the Petitions Committee. “You must play your part and play your part in a constructive manner within the provisions of the laws and the Constitution of this Republic,” she said, adding that government will continue to act within the Constitution while pursuing measures to protect the country’s national interests, territorial integrity, safety and security.
What remains open is how the legal advice now being gathered will translate into concrete measures, and whether the directives under review will ease the pressure at reception offices in the weeks ahead.