Home Affairs withdraws directive on asylum seeker applications

The department said the attempt to practically implement the judgment immediately 'led to serious consequences that could not have been foreseen in the Court order'. The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn the directive his office issued on 28 September regarding the intake of asylum seeker applications. In July, the Constitutional Court ruled that refugees and asylum seekers must be given the opportunity to access processing centres, regardless of whether they entered South Africa illegally. The case between the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and the Minister of Home Affairs concerned the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Refugees Act relating to the asylum application process. The Constitutional Court confirmed the Western Cape High Court’s declaration that those provisions are unconstitutional and invalid. At the time, the department said it would study the judgment carefully “to consider its implications, including the reasons provided by the Court, before determining the appropriate way forward”. Directive on asylum seeker applications On 28 September, Home Affairs issued the directive regarding the intake of asylum seeker applications. It has sparked protests across the country, with South Africans voicing their frustration. This after foreigners flooded Home Affairs offices across the country in an attempt to submit their asylum seeker applications. In Soweto, residents clashed with foreign nationals, torching vehicles belonging to foreign nationals. Social media platforms are also abuzz with criticism of the directive. On Friday morning, Home Affairs said it issued the directive to all Refugee Reception Offices (RROs) as a purely operational attempt to support implementation of the Court’s order, “without reference to, or knowledge of, 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.” ‘Consequences’ The department said the attempt to practically implement the judgment immediately “led to serious consequences that could not have been foreseen in the Court order”. “This includes, amongst others, the fact that RRO operations were overwhelmed within a matter of days since the directive was issued, Home Affairs officials were placed at risk, and that serious threats to public safety and order had emerged,” said the department. “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.”