SA Migration International

Articles

06-11-2023 Groundup

High Court declares sections of Refugees Act unconstitutional

The Western Cape High Court declared sections of the Refugees Act unconstitutional.
Masixole Feni
• Western Cape High Court Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath has declared sections of the Refugees Act unconstitutional.
• According to the act, asylum seekers who do not renew their visas within one month of the date of expiry are considered to have abandoned their asylum applications.
• The judge said that the essence of the minister of home affairs’ argument was that most asylum seekers are not genuine and use the process to “avoid meeting the requirements of immigration laws”.
The Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town has won a significant victory against the minister of home affairs in the Western Cape High Court, which has declared sections of the Refugees Act unconstitutional.
The sections in question provide that asylum seekers who have not renewed their visas within one month of the date of expiry are considered to have abandoned their asylum applications.
This, Scalabrini argued in its application before Deputy Judge President Patricia Goliath, meant that delinquent asylum seekers were considered to be undocumented, treated as “illegal foreigners”, without access to jobs and social services, and faced deportation.
Scalabrini launched a constitutional challenge against two sections of the Refugees Act as well as parts of the act’s regulations.
In her ruling this week, Goliath deemed these sections and regulations unconstitutional. This ruling, however, will still have to be ratified by the Constitutional Court.
Scalabrini’s core mandate is to assist and safeguard immigrants and displaced communities, including asylum seekers and refugees. It is also a member of the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants South Africa (CoRMSA) which comprises 26 organisations with similar objectives.
Scalabrini previously obtained an interdict against the minister, suspending the implementation of the relevant sections of the act and the regulation, pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge which then was heard by Goliath.
The organisation argued that those who did not reapply within the legislated time-frame were deemed undocumented. Even though they had a valid refugee claim, they could be sent back to their countries where they may face persecution, death, torture, sexual violence and other threats. It said that home affairs officials had a duty to ensure that people were given a reasonable opportunity to apply for a visa.
This, it was argued, violated the right to non-refoulement (a fundamental principle of international law which forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be likely to be in danger of persecution).
CoRMSA, admitted as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the matter, made submissions about the impact of “abandonment rules” on asylum seekers, particularly their children and ability to protect themselves. The consortium said the provisions in the act were counter to the protective goals and purpose of domestic and international refugee law.
Goliath said the minister acknowledged that the abandonment provisions violated the Constitution, but argued that they were rational and justifiable due to the fact that asylum seekers behaved in a recalcitrant manner and failed to renew their visas in good time. This created backlogs and imposed an administrative burden on the department.
It was not disputed that it took, on average, five years for asylum seekers to be recognised as refugees, and therefore had to renew their visas between 10 and 20 times in that period.
“Asylum seekers are permitted to work, study, and use social services … Without a valid permit, they, as well as their children, become vulnerable to deportation.”
Goliath said the essence of the minister’s argument was that most asylum seekers were not genuine and used the process to “avoid meeting the requirements of immigration laws”. The abandonment provisions incentivised them to finalise their applications.
The judge said, however, that the provisions were certainly not in the best interests of affected children, as was required by law and international conventions and charters. “The provisions take effect automatically after the expiry of 30 days with no individualised regard to the impact of affected children,” she said.
“The mere fact that representations can be made to the standing committee, after the fact, once a child is already rendered undocumented for extended periods is of no use or assistance. This is aggravated by the absence of formal procedures to make representations, let alone any procedure to ensure that the voices of the children are heard.”
She said South Africa is obliged to establish systems and allocate resources to ensure “the international human rights law protection of refugees and asylum seekers”.
She said the provisions were clearly arbitrary because asylum seekers would no longer be deported based on the merits of their claims, but on external circumstances, such as the nearest refugee centre, the length of the queue there and the workload of home affairs officials.
“At the heart of [the minister’s] justification is an unlawful presumption and prejudgment that most asylum seekers have no valid claims and no interest in pursuing these claims. This violates the core principle of refugee law that asylum seekers must be treated as presumptive refugees, with all the protections this entails, until the merits of their claims have been finally determined through a proper process.
“The right to non-refoulement is of great importance in the overall constitutional scheme as it recognises human beings’ right to dignity.”
Goliath directed that the legislation be amended to rectify the defect and that the minister pay Scalabrini’s legal costs.

V.5058

Deprecated: Function strftime() is deprecated in /home/samiglpg/public_html/article_full_V01.php on line 324
27. Aug. 2024 Sowetan Live

Court rules in favour of traditional wife and nullifies civil marriage

Hilda Sedinjane turned to the Limpopo High Court in Polokwane for an order that she be recognised as the true wife of deceased Seabela Malatji. The parties concluded a customary marriage in 1988 as evidenced by a lobola certificate and four children were born of the marriage. V.5574

Articles

Articles

High Court declares sections of Refugees Act unconstitutional

Court rules in favour of traditional wife and nullifies civil marriage

�Outdated systems expose Home Affairs�

Home Affairs committee wants inspectorate unit strengthened to track foreign nationals

Two more people caught over IDs-for-sale scam

How to apply for Greece tourist visa: A step-by-step guide

Austria Job Seeker VISA With Family VISA Application Process

Deadly Marabastad stampede sheds light on struggles of undocumented migrants in SA

New Zealand: Emigration soars amid economic woes

New Zealand: Emigration soars amid economic woes

Visa backlog: Portfolio committee welcomes overtime approval for Home Affairs officials

While Schreiber wants to bring dignity to Home Affairs, xenophobia rears its head in budget debate

Judge slams law firm for misleading court with `cut-and-paste` applications targeting refugees

How to get your new Smart ID at a bank

How stolen home affairs stamp led to cleaner`s bust

Spaza shop owners cry foul regarding Gauteng government funding

Identity fraud rockets in SA

Father unable to register his son because he is not the mother

People leave New Zealand in record numbers as economy bites

De Lille calls for concerted efforts for tourism to grow SA economy

Driven by a desire for a luxurious lifestyle

Visa Categories

Head Office

Cape Town, Tel : +27 (0) 82 373 8415

South Africa , Tel : +27 (0) 74 036 6127

Articles

Court rules in favour of traditional wife and nullifies civil marriage

Testimonials

Testimonials are the best way we can show how satisfied our clients are with us and they are our best advertisement. Just look what our clients have to say about SAMI!

Jennifer and Jimmy Wahlberg - Sweden

Free Newsletters

Newsletters are always the best way to keep our clients informed of the rapid changes in the immigration world and we can update you in this regard by you subscribing to our free newsletter.

Enhance your knowledge