Inter Ministerial Committee on Migration to outline a legal response to the Constitutional Court judgment on asylum applications

The Inter Ministerial Committee on Migration to outline a legal response to the Constitutional Court judgment on asylum applications

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the media Fellow South Africans

Thank you once more for honouring our invitation to this important briefing to our Nation. You need not be reminded that we both have an enduring obligation under these circumstances, to keep the nation informed not only about developments in the public space but also the tireless efforts that government is putting to return the situation to normal.

We also wish to extend our sincere thanks to most of you who have made commendable efforts in seeking to educate the public about the true nature of the challenge we are facing and also appreciate South African who have used Social media to give feedback to the IMC on some of the challenges experienced daily. I

n a true spirit of patriotism, we should continue engaging on these important matters that concern the truthfulness and honour of the country we hold dear. We are all South Africans, loyal in spirit, steadfast in purpose and collectively committed to securing a brighter future for generations to come. We further appreciate the meeting held between the IMC and representatives of civil society (Operation Dudula, March and March,United Civic Movement, SACC, South Africa First, Alexander Fiela Movement).

 The representatives expressed their frustrations, feedback from their stakeholders and communities, and they also tabled proposals on how government should handle this matter. As we previously said the IMC welcomes engagements and feedback from South Africans.

So today, we are convened here to update the public following our recent media briefing on the Constitutional Court judgment relating to asylum applications and the administration of the asylum system in the country. We are also here to talk to South Africans about the need to work with us as government in our efforts to resolve this issue and most importantly to exercise restraint in their justifiable protest against the unintended consequences arising from this judgment.

In the same vein, we reiterate our acknowledgement of the judgment of the Constitutional Court and reaffirm Government's unwavering commitment to upholding the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and South Africa's national and international obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers. We have carefully considered the implications of the judgment and various options to respond to the challenge arising from its subsequent order as promised in our last briefing.

Following detailed legal consultations, we have been duly advised that Government can approach the courts to seek a supervisory order in this regard. A supervisory order, in practical terms, would enable the Court to retain oversight of the implementation process and provide guidance on how the order should be operationalised. Such an order may also include a suspension period to allow the Department of Home Affairs the necessary time to develop and strengthen administrative, human resource, infrastructure, and processing capacity required to implement the judgment effectively and sustainably.

We believe that this approach represents a responsible and lawful mechanism to ensure that constitutional obligations are fulfilled in a manner that is orderly, practical, and in the public interest. It will allow Government to avoid administrative disruption while ensuring that the rights recognised by the Court are progressively and meaningfully realised.

Accordingly, Government will request the Court to provide guidance on the nature and scope of the supervisory measures that may be required, as well as the appropriate duration of any suspension period necessary to build the operational capacity required for implementation. The objective is not to delay compliance, but to ensure effective and sustainable compliance that serves both the administration of justice and the broader public interest.

Parallel to this process, the IMC has directed relevant government departments that are cited and entities to participate at the court hearing on the 29 October 2026 which will be heard by a panel of judges setup by the Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court. The panel will review two conflicting directives on the same legal question regarding asylum seekers which are set out in two different judgments in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. The High Court panel hearing will consider submissions that have the same bearing on the administrative implementation of the 7 July 2026 Constitutional Court judgment.

We emphasise that while we are waiting for a decision on the above legal process of approaching the court and a decision, we are legally bound by law to comply with the court order otherwise we are in contempt of court. We are in a situation where as the IMC must find a balance between Complaince with the court order and listening to the concerns of many South Africans and we believe we will be able to find that balance though we need time and patience that we will request formally from the court and that we are requesting today from our citizens.

Introduction of a structured intention-registration and appointment model

The IMC welcomes the introduction of a phased structure intention-registration and appointment model that will be introduced by the Department of Home Affairs for asylum seeker applications by the 10th of November 2026.

How it would work:

The process will be implemented as follows so that there is no gap in intake (access):

• Online platform. A receipt will be issued online, with an appointment booked at Refugee Reception Offices (RRO). Assisted registration is available at every RRO and, on request, for persons in police or immigration detention, through officials, legal representatives and civil society partners, in the main languages.
   

What the receipt is, and does:

• The receipt will record the holder’s particulars, biometrics, the declared intention to apply for asylum, the reference number, and the appointment. It states that it is not a section 22 visa and not recognition of status, that section 2 of the Act applies to the holder, and what the holder must do. Non-refoulement attaches by operation of law to any person who has declared an intention to seek asylum; the receipt is the proof of that intention and the means by which the Department operationalises the protection. The Department will further instruct all officials and the Border Management Authority (the Inspectorate, port, border and RRO staff) that a holder of a valid receipt is not to be removed or refouled, and is not to be arrested or detained solely for being in the country without a visa, pending lodging and final determination. Further, the SAPS, the Department of Correctional Services, the National Prosecuting Authority and the courts will be informed accordingly.
• The position of a person whose earlier claim has been finally rejected is different: he or she has no right under the Act to make a subsequent application and does not reactivate the protection of section 2 by declaring an intention again. The Court expressly left open whether the Act is under-inclusive in making no provision for a genuinely new claim arising after final rejection. Until that question is resolved, a specific and new claim that removal would expose such a person to persecution or serious harm should be referred for legal advice before removal.
• The receipt protects only those who have registered an intention, and that deportations for other contraventions of the Immigration Act continue; officials must still receive an intention to make a first application expressed by anyone at any stage, including in detention. If the appointment is not attended, and no extension is sought, it falls away. Further, those rejected will be flagged and cannot abuse the system by logging new applications.
• the platform protects confidentiality (section 21(5)) and personal information (Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013) and is accessible to persons without devices or documents; and
• there is monitoring and reporting: published service standards, a complaints route, and statistics available to the courts.
   

Parallel to the above, the Minister of Home Affairs is in the process of drafting legislation in line with the Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection approved by Cabinet, which draft legislation is envisaged to be processed through Parliament in the next financial year. The legislation will, amongst others, allow for remote lodging of applications awaits. We have requested the Minister to fast track this process. This is the legislation that will include the matter of the first Safe country from country of origin as articulated by the white paper and correctly so being reminded by our citizens.

Home Affairs have reported advanced process in bringing into effect the pronouncement by the President in June that refugees centres will move to our ports of entry stating with Beitbridge by this December. Many South Africans have suggested that government reconsider its position of not setting up refugees camp especially for those who are still being processed. We will process this suggestion from legal and financial implications.

Our work on enforcing the law will continue, this therefore means deportations will continue. Protection applies only to people who have asked to make a first application for asylum. Those who are in the country illegally and have not, and those whose claims have been finally rejected, after any review or appeal, will continue to be deported as the law requires.

The IMC is acutely aware that public discussions surrounding the judgment have generated uncertainty, speculation, and, in some instances, heightened tensions within communities. We therefore call on all members of the public, civil society organisations, community formations, and political stakeholders to exercise restraint and allow the legal processes now underway to run their course.

South Africa remains a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. Matters relating to asylum, migration, and border management must be addressed through lawful processes and not through misinformation, intimidation, incitement, or acts of violence.

At this point, we can report that 30 people have been arrested since Thursday for public violence and instigation of instability in our communities. Of the 30 arrests, 25 were made in KwaZulu-Natal and five in Gauteng for offences including public violence, illegal gathering, obstruction and resisting arrest. Those arrested include individuals identified as ringleaders who allegedly threatened to disrupt planned football matches in Durban this afternoon.

We reiterate that law enforcement will not allow threats, intimidation or unlawful conduct to undermine public safety, disrupt sporting events or destabilise communities. We support the la w enforcement in the resolve to protect lives, safeguard property and uphold the rule of law. We will indeed act decisively, professionally and within the confines of the law against anyone who threatens public order.

The National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure (NATJOINTS) and Provincial Joint Operational and Intelligence Structures (PROVJOINTS) continue to coordinate effective, efficient and intelligence-led operational responses. The deployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in KwaZulu-Natal forms part of the broader stabilisation interventions undertaken through cooperation between the SAPS and the SANDF.

Police remain on high alert across all provinces. Sporadic incidents reported in the Western Cape, Eastern Cape and Limpopo were swiftly addressed through operational interventions.

We want to emphasize that the Constitution protects the right to assemble, demonstrate and present grievances peacefully. However, this right does not extend to intimidation, looting, malicious damage to property, public violence or the obstruction of lawful activities. Such conduct constitutes criminality, and the police will respond firmly and impartially in accordance with the law.

We are also concerned about the increasing circulation of inflammatory and misleading content on social media platforms that seeks to provoke hostility, mobilise unlawful actions, or incite violence against foreign nationals, public officials, or institutions of the State. Freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution; however, the incitement of violence, intimidation, hate speech, and criminal conduct are not protected and will not be tolerated.

Law enforcement agencies are monitoring developments closely and will act against any individual or group that seeks to encourage, organise, facilitate, or commit acts of violence or public disorder, whether online or offline. Those who use digital platforms to incite criminal conduct should be reminded that such conduct may constitute a criminal offence and will be dealt with in accordance with the law.