South Africa's Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Migration convened an urgent meeting hours after the Constitutional Court judgment on the Refugees Act triggered what the Department of Home Affairs calls a co-ordinated disinformation campaign. IMC chairperson and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Mmamoloko Kubayi confirmed the government is treating the matter with the utmost urgency.

"The IMC will convene an urgent meeting this evening with all relevant departments, legal experts and key stakeholders to carefully consider the implications of the judgment and to identify a lawful, practical and sustainable way forward," Kubayi said.

The meeting brings together government departments, legal experts and key stakeholders to assess the implications of the ruling and determine a lawful and sustainable path forward.

What did the Constitutional Court decide?

In July, the Constitutional Court upheld an earlier Western Cape High Court ruling declaring parts of the Refugees Act unconstitutional and invalid. The judgment strengthens procedural protections for asylum seekers by making clear that administrative requirements cannot automatically bar a person from accessing the asylum system.

The court found unconstitutional the processes used to deny some new asylum seekers access to the asylum system since around November 2023. Those processes resulted in arrest, detention and deportation without a refugee status determination interview.

The case dates to May 2023, when the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Lawyers for Human Rights brought the litigation. The organisations challenged the practice of arresting and detaining new asylum seekers based on preliminary interviews conducted by immigration officials about their entry into the country. They argued the process effectively bypassed the established asylum application system and undermined the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to countries where they could face persecution or serious harm.

What does the ruling change for asylum seekers?

The ruling changes how asylum applications must be handled at the point of entry. Specifically:

• An asylum seeker cannot be denied access to refugee protection solely because they cannot produce required documentation.
• An asylum seeker cannot be denied access solely for failing to report to a Refugee Reception Office within the prescribed five-day period.
• Asylum applications must be assessed on their individual facts and circumstances, not rejected solely on technical or administrative grounds.

The court recognised that people fleeing conflict, persecution and humanitarian crises may be unable to obtain documents or comply with procedural deadlines.

Importantly, the judgment does not grant asylum seekers South African citizenship and does not provide blanket legal status to foreign nationals.

How has the government responded?

The Department of Home Affairs rejected claims circulating online that the judgment grants citizenship or automatic legal status to foreign nationals, describing the claims as "categorically false."

The department said it had opposed the litigation and stressed that the changes arising from the judgment were not initiated by the department, the minister or political parties. Home Affairs stated it is legally required to implement the binding judgment of the highest court.

"An operational directive was subsequently issued solely to give effect to that judgment, as is standard practice to ensure compliance with rulings of the highest court in the land," the department said.

Home Affairs also raised concerns about a co-ordinated disinformation campaign targeting the minister and other officials, and said the matter would be referred to the Electoral Commission of South Africa for consideration under its newly published Code of Conduct on Countering Disinformation.

What happens next?

Kubayi said the committee will continue implementing the president's five-point plan to address irregular migration. The plan includes:

• Strengthening border security.
• Improving migration management systems.
• Closing legislative and policy gaps.
• Intensifying law enforcement against unlawful conduct.
• Strengthening co-operation with countries across the continent.

"We call on the public to remain calm, avoid speculation and misinformation, and allow the government the necessary space to address this matter in a manner that is constitutional, orderly and in the best interest of the country," Kubayi said.

The department warned that misinformation concerning asylum seekers and foreign nationals could have serious consequences if it fuels hostility or violence, and urged the public to verify information before sharing it. "Respect for binding court judgments is fundamental to the rule of law and our constitutional democracy," the department said.

Home Affairs added that it will continue to fulfil its constitutional obligations regardless of whether it had been successful in the litigation. Readers should follow updates from the Department of Home Affairs and the Constitutional Court for official guidance on the judgment's implementation.