Home Affairs takes disinformation fight to IEC as asylum tensions erupt at refugee offices

The Department of Affairs has referred an alleged disinformation campaign surrounding a Constitutional Court ruling on asylum applications to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), as tensions over the reopening of the asylum system spill into protests and disruptions at refugee reception offices.

The department on Wednesday accused “nefarious actors” of deliberately spreading false claims the court’s July 7 judgment in the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town v Minister of Affairs matter.

This included allegations that Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber or political parties had decided to suspend so-called “good cause” interviews for asylum seekers.

“This is categorically false,” the department said.

“The Constitutional Court handed down a binding judgment, which the Department is constitutionally obliged to implement.”

The department said it subsequently issued an operational directive solely to give effect to the judgment.

It warned that the deliberate spread of disinformation designed to inflame tensions and violence posed a threat to social stability.

The warning came as implementation of the judgment became a flashpoint at the department’s Refugee Reception Centre on Che Guevara Road in Durban.

GroundUp reported that 15 anti-immigration protesters confronted asylum seekers queuing at the facility on Tuesday. Some were allegedly carrying sticks or traditional weapons, while police intervened after people in the queue were harassed and pushed.

Protesters gathered outside the facility again on Wednesday, demanding that asylum processing be stopped as hundreds of foreign nationals queued to submit applications.

The protests have been linked to the March and March movement, which has campaigned for tougher immigration enforcement and the removal of undocumented migrants.

March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma was also at the protest on Wednesday and criticised the reopening of the asylum system.

Speaking to IOL, she questioned the absence of police-clearance requirements for asylum seekers and alleged that the new process could be exploited by criminals.

These allegations have not been established as fact.

The dispute has also brought the issue of South Africans without identity documents into the debate.

South African First Forum CEO Xolani Zuma said the government should not focus only on refugees while millions of South Africans remain undocumented.

“We’re saying the government cannot only focus on refugees and not deal with South Africans who do not have documents,” Zuma said.

The organisation has given Affairs 14 days to produce a plan to document South Africans within 90 days.

The latest dispute follows the Constitutional Court’s July 7 judgment, which declared several provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional and invalid.

The case was brought by the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, a non-profit organisation assisting migrants and refugees, against the Minister of Affairs.

Under the framework, people without the required asylum transit visa, those who entered the country outside a designated port of entry, or those who failed to report to a refugee reception office within the prescribed period could be required to provide “good cause” or other reasons before being allowed to proceed with an asylum application.

The Constitutional Court found that the system created multiple and inconsistent thresholds, including “good cause”, “valid reasons” and “compelling reasons”, without sufficient guidance for officials.

The court held that the provisions created barriers to having asylum claims assessed on their merits and confirmed their invalidity.

On September 28, Affairs spokesperson Thulani Mavuso issued a directive instructing Refugee Reception Offices to accept applications from people who report in person and indicate that they want to seek asylum.

This includes people who entered South Africa unlawfully, entered outside a designated port of entry, did not declare an intention to seek asylum when entering the country, have no visa or failed to report to a Refugee Reception Office within five days.

Reception offices are also prohibited from requiring applicants to provide reasons for unlawful entry or demonstrate “good cause” as a condition for lodging an application.

“The biggest challenge I want to raise around this is that we are going to be overwhelmed by the numbers,” Mavuso said.

ActionSA has welcomed the implementation of the Constitutional Court judgment but criticised the practical implications of the new directive, saying the country’s asylum and border-management systems were already under severe pressure.

“The Scalabrini judgment removed unlawful entry and related procedural failures as barriers to lodging an asylum application,” party spokesperson Lerato Ngobeni said.

ActionSA warned that South Africa could face additional pressure if people who are not genuinely seeking international protection use the asylum system as an alternative immigration route.

Affairs also rejected claims that the judgment granted asylum seekers citizenship or amounted to blanket legalisation of foreign nationals.

“Claims that this judgment by the Constitutional Court grants asylum seekers citizenship or provides for the blanket legalisation of foreign nationals are also categorically false,” the department said.

Instead, the department said, the judgment removes certain procedural barriers that previously prevented people from lodging asylum applications.

At the Durban Refugee Reception Centre, asylum seekers have continued arriving in large numbers following the reopening of the application process, while anti-immigration activists have attempted to disrupt operations.

The confrontations have raised concerns that tensions around immigration could become increasingly hostile, against the backdrop of months of friction in Durban involving March and March and foreign nationals.

Affairs has urged South Africans to verify information before sharing it, particularly claims that could encourage hostility or violence against officials.

“Respect for binding court judgments is fundamental to the rule of law and our constitutional democracy,” the department said.

Inside Education E-edition August 2026

Inside Metros G20 COJ Edition