JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn a directive requiring refugee reception offices to accept asylum applications from peo...
JOHANNESBURG — South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn a directive requiring refugee reception offices to accept asylum applications from people seeking protection, following operational challenges and violent anti-immigration protests in Johannesburg and Durban.
The decision was announced on Friday, 9 October 2026, after the department said the implementation of the directive had overwhelmed refugee reception offices within days, placed officials at risk and raised serious concerns about public safety and order. The department said it would begin a fresh process to determine how best to comply with the Constitutional Court’s ruling on access to the asylum system.
The withdrawn directive was issued on 28 September by the office of the department’s director-general. It instructed refugee reception offices to receive applications from people who indicated that they wanted to seek asylum, including individuals who had entered South Africa unlawfully or did not meet certain procedural requirements.
The directive followed a Constitutional Court judgment delivered on 7 July 2026 in a case involving the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and the Minister of Home Affairs. The ruling found certain provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional because they created procedural barriers that prevented some people from accessing the asylum application process.
Home Affairs Explains Withdrawal
In its statement, the Department of Home Affairs said the directive had been introduced as an operational measure to support implementation of the court order. It said the instruction was issued by the director-general’s office without the knowledge or involvement of the minister or other political office-bearers.
The department rejected claims that the directive had been politically motivated, saying it was linked to the Constitutional Court proceedings, which the department had opposed.
However, the department said the practical implementation of the judgment had produced consequences that had not been anticipated when the court issued its order. These included overcrowding at refugee reception offices, risks to officials and threats to public safety.
The department said it would now develop an operational approach that would allow it to comply with the court’s ruling while ensuring that asylum services could function safely and sustainably. It also reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law and respect for the judiciary.
What the Constitutional Court Ruled
The Constitutional Court judgment concerned provisions of South Africa’s Refugees Act that imposed procedural requirements on people seeking asylum.
Before the ruling, certain applicants could face barriers linked to irregular entry into the country, the absence of an asylum transit visa or failure to report to a refugee reception office within the prescribed period.
The court found that such requirements could prevent people from having their asylum claims considered on their merits. The ruling therefore expanded access to the application process by removing certain procedural obstacles.
Following the judgment, the department instructed refugee reception offices to accept applications from people who expressed an intention to seek asylum, including those who had entered South Africa irregularly or lacked specified documentation.
The withdrawal of the September directive does not cancel the Constitutional Court judgment. The legal ruling remains binding, and the government must determine how to implement it while managing the asylum system.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration said on 8 October that the court’s decision should not be interpreted as automatically legalising irregular migration or granting every applicant the right to remain permanently in South Africa. Applying for asylum and being granted refugee status are separate processes. Each claim must still be assessed under the applicable law.
Protests Turn Violent in Johannesburg and Durban
The withdrawal came after protests over immigration and asylum processing turned violent in parts of South Africa on Thursday, 8 October.
In Johannesburg’s Soweto township, 10 vehicles were reportedly set alight. In Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, another 14 vehicles were torched, while foreign-owned shops were looted, according to reports by Reuters and the Associated Press.
The protests followed public opposition to the Constitutional Court ruling and demands for stricter action against undocumented foreign nationals. The unrest prompted police deployments in affected areas, with authorities reporting that the situation had stabilized by Friday.
The South African Broadcasting Corporation reported that police and members of the South African National Defence Force had been deployed in Soweto following clashes between foreign nationals and local residents. Police also maintained a heightened presence around the Marabastad Home Affairs office in Pretoria, where foreign nationals had gathered to apply for asylum.
Authorities have also warned against misinformation surrounding the court judgment. The Department of Home Affairs said the ruling did not automatically grant undocumented migrants refugee status, permanent residence or other legal rights. The distinction has been central to the government’s response to public concerns about asylum applications and immigration enforcement.
Government Considers New Approach
Before the directive was withdrawn, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration acknowledged that refugee reception offices had experienced a significant increase in the number of people seeking to lodge asylum applications.
The committee said the department had insufficient capacity to manage the number of people arriving at its offices under the new arrangements. It outlined measures aimed at strengthening processing capacity, improving identity verification and biometric screening, accelerating the assessment of applications and improving information-sharing between government departments and law enforcement agencies.
The government has also said it will continue enforcing immigration laws against people who do not qualify for protection under South African law. Its broader migration management plans include strengthening border controls, addressing human smuggling and trafficking, improving documentation systems and dealing with people who have exhausted their legal options to remain in the country.
The department’s next task is to establish an operational system that meets the Constitutional Court’s requirements without repeating the problems experienced after the September directive was introduced.
For asylum seekers, the legal position remains important: the withdrawal of the administrative instruction does not overturn the court judgment or remove the government’s obligation to comply with it. The immediate question is how the department will organise the intake and processing of applications under a revised approach.
The Department of Home Affairs has said it will begin a fresh process to determine the most appropriate and sustainable way forward. Further details of that process had not been announced in the statement issued on 9 October 2026.
