The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has spent over R412.95 million in legal fees since the start of the 2018/19 financial year - with over R117.69 million of this spent between 1 April 2023 and 29 February 2024.
This was revealed by the Minister of Home Affairs, Aaron Motsoaledi, in a recent written response in parliament.
DHA has seen an exponential increase in the amount that it spends on litigation, with the current amount for 2023/24 (note these figures are until the end of February, several months short of the full financial year) nearly 16 times that of the amount spent in 2018/19.
Since 2018/19, DHA has spent:
•    R148.57 million on private legal firms;
•    R264.38 million on state legal services.
Looking at the breakdown of where the money is being spent, the department used to have a relatively equal distribution of the amount spent on state and private legal services back in 2018/19 - spending around R3.6 million on each.
DHA then exponentially increased the amount spent on state legal services in 2019/20 by around 18 times more than the previous year, with these eight-figure bills remaining ever since.
Spending on state legal services has been hefty yet sporadic, whereas expenditures on private legal services have consistently risen, experiencing proliferated costs from 2021/2022 onwards.
2023/24 has seen the department spend, for the first time in this period, considerably more on private legal services than on state -over 21 times more than it did in 2018/2019.
 iIncrease in litigation for the department
Home Affairs has seen a steady rise in not only the amount of litigation that the department initiates, but in the amount of times it (or the minister himself) has been dragged to court.
Among the numerous recent costly court battles for the DHA include the widely publicised Zimbabwe Exemption Permits (ZEP) case and disputes over blocked IDs.
ZEP
Back in 2021, the Cabinet made a decision not to renew Zimbabwean permits that are set to expire in December of the same year. After much resistance, the DHA then gave an extension vof one year for Zimbabwean nationals to apply for alternative visas.
The Zimbabwe Immigration Federation subsequently filed a lawsuit against the department regarding the termination of these permits. They requested that the termination be declared unconstitutional and invalid.
In June of 2023, the court ultimately ruled against Motsoaledi, and granted an interdict.
The Minister has since approached the Constitutional Court, seeking a leave of appeal after it was rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Blocked IDs
Back in 2023, the DHA sought to block nearly 1 million IDs over suspected fraud.
Various legal groups challenged this, arguing that no law allowed the department to block an ID number, bringing into question the legality of this action.
The Gauteng High Court aligned with this argument, saying that blocking IDs is an unjust and irregular administrative action that is inconsistent with the South African Constitution - ordering that the department pay the costs of the application.

Short on time? Here are the highlights: • Following recent announcements from British Columbia and Ontario, Nova Scotia becomes the latest Canadian province to declare how its quota of study permit applications for 2024 will be distributed across sectors and institutions • As in Ontario, private institutions and language schools stand to be the most negatively affected by the distribution arrangement, but some public universities will also see significant reductions in study permit applications • All Canadian provinces have now distributed their allocation of study permit applications for 2024, and all are now also issuing provincial attestation letters (PALs) • This means in effect that study permit processing has now resumed for cap-affected students in all provinces • The elimination of Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) rights for students enrolling in programmes delivered through Ontario Public-College Private Partnerships will now happen on 15 May 2024 - a few months earlier than initially announced Since the Canadian government’s announcement in January that it would be capping the number of new study permits issued to international students in 2024 and 2025 (with the exception of permits for graduate and K-12 programmes), more news associated with the broad cap has trickled in every week or two. We are committed to keeping readers informed of the developing immigration story in Canada given the large proportion of our readership affected in one way or another by changes in Canadian policies around international education. Nova Scotia joins the list of provinces announcing their study permit application approach The Canadian government’s cap on new international study permits for 2024 is playing out variously across the country. This is because each Canadian province has been allocated a different share of the total national volume of study permit applications and because each provincial government then decides how to distribute its allocation across its educational sectors and institutions. Last week we reported on the very different ways in which the provincial governments of British Columbia (BC) and Ontario distributed their allocated study permit applications. The BC government distributed its allocation relatively evenly while in Ontario, public universities and colleges received 96% of the total, leaving language schools and private universities with a mere 4% and private colleges with 0% of the quota. Nova Scotia was the next province to announce its handling of its study permit application quota, and as in Ontario, universities were heavily favoured in the distribution. Nova Scotia received an allocation of 12,900 applications for 2024, which is about 7,000 fewer than the total number of applications submitted in 2023. Of that total, 11,565 (90%) will go to the province’s 10 universities and Nova Scotia Community College. Of the remainder, 710 are reserved “for a dozen private career colleges” and 526 are slotted for nine language schools. Another 99 application spaces are left over “to respond to unexpected circumstances and new programs.” While universities fared the best overall in Nova Scotia’s disbursement of applications, some universities are facing a more difficult year than others as the province also allocated applications on an institution-by-institution level. CBC News reports that “Cape Breton University (CBU) is facing the biggest hit, a 52 per cent decrease to 5,086 applications … Mount Saint Vincent University (MSVU) will have access to 44 per cent fewer, for a total of 860, and Université Ste-Anne faces a 34 per cent cut to 962.” David Dingwall, CBU’s president, told CBC News that CBU “is facing a major financial problem unless it is able to convince immigration officials to grant more prospective students the permits they apply for” given that the university’s conversion rate is only 30%: `If the conversion rate doesn`t go up, it`ll be a big hit. If the conversion rate goes up in our favour, we should be OK. But you can`t take that as a given.` Further grim news for CBU came in the form of its affiliated language centre, Cape Breton Language Centre, receiving only 84 applications. CBU had asked for 500. Speaking broadly about the distribution of applications across Nova Scotian institutions, the province’s Advanced Education Minister, Brian Wong, said: “We’ve worked hard trying to make sure that 12,900 number is allocated fairly amongst the institutions. We also wanted to make sure that schools that were ready for some growth got the opportunity to be able to grow.” That thinking appears to have driven the decision to substantially increase some universities’ application quota. For example, Halifax’s Dalhousie University has been accorded 1,180 applications (+70% compared with 2023/24). St. Francis Xavier University also received a 19% top-up and Acadia University got a 14% boost. Mr Wong said that he “hopes” all schools will continue to be successful despite the fact that many may see sharp decreases in their revenues if international student numbers (and tuition) decline. He said it will be crucial for schools to recruit good candidates to increase their conversion rates. Saltwire.com reports that for the 2023/24 academic year, Nova Scotian institutions submitted 19,000 study permit applications, only 40% of which were approved. The national approval average was 60% for that year. As of this writing, the Nova Scotia government is not planning to provide financial assistance to institutions that may face operational crises if their international student enrolments plummet. But opposition party leader Zach Churchill said that might have to change: “The universities only get their money from government or students so the money is going to have to come from somewhere, and losing international students will certainly have a very serious financial impact on these institutions.” Recapping provincial allocations and PAL status While details and methods vary, all Canadian provinces have now distributed their allocation of study permit applications for 2024, and all are now also issuing provincial attestation letters (PALs). This means that study permit processing has now resumed for cap-affected students in all provinces. IRCC has stated previously that it would allocate roughly 606,000 study permit applications across all provinces and territories, with the goal of granting about 360,000 new study permits to commencing students in 2024 (not including those enrolled in K-12 or master’s/doctoral programmes). Based on provincial disclosures to date, we understand the following allocations are in place for new study permit applications in 2024. • British Columbia: 83,000 • Alberta: 41,000 • Ontario: 235,000 • Nova Scotia: 12,900 • New Brunswick: 9,400* • Prince Edward Island: 3,300* * Estimated based on media reports The total study permit applications allocated to the six provinces listed above total just under 385,000, meaning that there are a potential 221,000 study permit allocations remaining under the planned cap of 606,000 for provinces that have not reported as yet: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. IRCC has yet to confirm the allocations otherwise or if the original national cap of 606,000 study permit applications remains in place for 2024. Post-Graduation Work Permit eligibility will end sooner for students in college partnership programmes One of the major changes announced by the federal government in January 2024 was that international students enrolling in programmes delivered through a public-college private partnership (PCPP) would no longer be eligible for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP). The effective date announced for that change had been September 1, 2024, but it has now been moved up. Canada’s immigration department (IRCC) advises: “International students who begin this type of program on May 15, 2024, or later will not be eligible for a post-graduation work permit when they graduate.” By advancing the date, IRCC has cut off the ability of PCPP-modelled institutions to squeeze in one more recruiting cycle before the elimination of the PGWP eligibility for their students. However, IRCC notes as well that some graduates of institutions operating under a PCPP model can apply for a different kind of work permit: “For occupations that face a labour shortage in Canada, a graduate could apply for a work permit supported by an employer’s approved labour market impact assessment, for example.” IRCC states that the department “will continue to work with provinces and territories to proactively identify programme that have been affected by the clarification and will update this list as we receive additional information from them.”

We asked the major contestants of the 29 May elections about immigration. Illustration: Lisa Nelson Today’s questions and answers to the major political parties deal with immigration. We emailed our questions to the ANC, DA, EFF, IFP, FF Plus, ActionSA, PA, MK Party, and RISE Mzansi on 13 March and sent follow-up queries to those who did not respond. Some have still not responded. Answers are very lightly edited for grammar and typos. Does your party support continued extensions of the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP)? ANC: The ANC did not answer our questions. DA: The DA in government would introduce the following special dispensation with regard to our closest neighbours: • Allow ZEP holders, approximately 180,000 Zimbabwean nationals, to apply for any alternative visa for which they qualify, including permanent residency for ZEP holders of more than five years. • Allow visa-free entry allowing travel, study, and trade or establishment of a business to all citizens of Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, and Namibia with a path to permanent residency for postgraduates, those qualifying under the points system, and for those whose business has survived after five years. • Initially, this will not include the right to seek work, and separate work provisions will still govern the ability to work. • After three years of the roll-out of this special dispensation programme, review the evidence and consider setting out a clear plan with timelines for integrating Zimbabwe and the rest of SADC into the special dispensation. • The special dispensation programme should form part of South Africa’s custom roadmap to the progressive realisation of the African Union protocol by building implementation experience in the region. EFF: The EFF did not answer our questions. IFP: The IFP has supported the Minister throughout this process, focusing on concluding the current permit exemption system and urging Zimbabweans to regularise their stay in South Africa by applying for appropriate visas. Regarding the future of Zimbabweans in South Africa post-permit expiry, the expectation is clear: they should ideally return to their homeland, unless they successfully apply for and obtain alternative visa categories that allow them to stay. This directive applies broadly, including to children of Zimbabwean parents born and raised in South Africa, who are also expected to return should their parents do so, barring qualification for other visas. FF Plus: The FF Plus answered no. Asked what should happen to Zimbabweans in South Africa once their permits expire, the FF Plus responded: The holders of these permits should be allowed to apply for alternative visas and in the case of permit holders who have been in South Africa for more than five years they should be able to apply for permanent residency. Asked what about the children of Zimbabwean parents born in South Africa who have grown up here, the FF Plus responded: They should be allowed to apply for permanent residency. ActionSA: ActionSA has expressed concern about the extension of the permit and referred to their statement released in 2022, which provides broader insight on the matter. Essentially, ActionSA is opposed to the ZEP, stating the extension of the ZEP was “a mockery of our constitutional democracy”. PA: This government unforgivably put itself and all of us in a very difficult situation with these permits years ago. They now realise they had no business doing it, but it’s very difficult to turn back the clock. They’re trying to convince voters that they’ve suddenly become tough on illegal immigration, but we don’t think people are buying it. We do not support the continued extensions of the permit. Whoever has been given these permits must be processed properly by the system and if that means they need to go home, then so be it. Asked what should happen to Zimbabweans in South Africa once their permits expire, the PA responded: They need to be processed to determine if they should stay here or go home. We believe that the majority will not meet the criteria to stay. Asked what about the children of Zimbabwean parents born in South Africa who have grown up here, the PA responded: What about them? We would not want to separate families. They should go home too. MK Party: The MK Party did not respond to our questions. RISE Mzansi: RISE Mzansi believes that South Africa’s immigration system is broken and needs comprehensive reform. The challenge of the ZEP is one big symptom of the wider problem. We appreciate that holders of the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit have built lives in South Africa, including raising children in the country. It would be inhumane to expel them. It is also untenable to leave them in legal limbo. ZEP holders without criminal records should be enabled to apply for permanent residence to regularise the fact that they are now long term residents in South Africa. This regularisation must be coupled with wider immigration reforms to manage regional migration. These include: better management of our borders and ports of entry; engaging with neighbouring countries on migration to prevent irregular migration into South Africa; fixing the asylum seeker management system to resolve the multi-year backlog in asylum decisions and stop its use as a channel for economic migrants; and increasing immigration enforcement of industries so that migrants without legitimate visas authorising work find it difficult or impossible to work in South Africa, reducing pull factors. Many foreign nationals have been living in South Africa for years without the required documentation. Does your party support regularising their stay? If so, under what conditions? ANC: The ANC did not answer our questions. DA: In order to address future undocumented migration and the current undocumented population in South Africa, the DA will: • Explore the economic cost vs benefit of an e-verification system that would enable employers to check the work eligibility status of potential employees against a Home Affairs database. If feasible, this would mandate employers to verify that a prospective employee possesses a valid permit to work in South Africa. A self-check mechanism must also be provided to allow persons to check their status and resolve any discrepancies. • Investigate and drastically improve conditions and treatment at holding facilities for those arrested or awaiting deportation, and prevent unlawful arrests, human rights violations, and poor treatment of irregular migrants. • Provide an amnesty period for all undocumented migrants, giving them an opportunity to either return home and attempt to re-enter legally without prejudice or to apply for the relevant visa from within South Africa (provided they have the required documentation). If the application from within South Africa is unsuccessful, then the same rules as a failed visa renewal apply. EFF: The EFF did not answer our questions. IFP: South Africa is home to many undocumented migrants. The IFP has dedicated a section in its manifesto to illegal foreigners. We propose a six-month exemption period in which we are in favour of regularising their stay under specific conditions and subject to our laws. For individuals who meet these criteria, we believe in creating a pathway to legalising their stay, ensuring they can continue to contribute positively to our society without the fear of deportation. For those who do not meet these conditions, we propose an amnesty period of six months to humanely and orderly address an undocumented migrant’s status and process repatriation to their country of origin. This includes assistance in applying for the necessary documentation or, in cases where staying in South Africa is not an option, support for voluntary repatriation to their countries of origin. Our approach is guided by a commitment to uphold human dignity while ensuring the security and prosperity of South Africans. FF Plus: Regularising is important and illegal immigration should be eradicated through efficient border control. ActionSA: ActionSA did not answer this question. PA: If they entered the country in a criminal fashion, they will need to leave. If they don’t leave, we will mass deport them. If we arrest them again, they will be criminally charged and jailed. Your question suggests that just because someone has been doing something wrong for a long time, they should be treated differently. Imagine if we treated other crimes the same way. You’d end up not prosecuting people who’ve been defrauding their employer for many years. Or maybe if someone has been robbing cash-in-transit vans for 20 years, should we say: “Let’s go easy on him, he’s been doing this for a long time?” MK Party: The MK Party did not respond to our questions. RISE Mzansi: We would apply the same principles outlined above in relation to the ZEP. Children born to undocumented immigrant parents in South Africa are effectively stateless. Should they automatically be given South African citizenship? ANC: The ANC did not answer our questions. DA: The DA is committed to preventing the occurrence of child statelessness and mitigating its consequences through appropriate interventions, such as: • Strengthening the institutional capacity for the management and protection of stateless persons. • Promoting partnerships between government and development partners, civil society, and NGOs to strengthen the response to statelessness. • Removing the requirement for a South African citizen to witness the birth to receive a notice of birth. • Allowing children to apply for naturalisation at the age of 18 where they have no proof of birth registration. • Proactively working with the Department of Basic Education to address the large numbers of learners without birth registration through increased deployment of mobile units and opening of Home Affairs offices on Saturdays to accommodate school learners. EFF: The EFF did not answer our questions IFP: When discussing whether a child born to undocumented migrants is stateless, it’s important to clarify a common misunderstanding. A child born under these circumstances is not stateless. Every child comes from a country, and is therefore affiliated with a country through their parents’ nationality. For instance, if a child’s parents are undocumented migrants from Mozambique, the RSA government will still issue a notice of birth for the child. This certificate is a crucial document that acknowledges the child’s birth. This process ensures that the child is recognised by their parents’ home country. The misconception that these children are stateless arises from a lack of awareness about this procedure. However, the truth is they are not stateless; they have a country of origin determined by their parents’ nationality. FF Plus: They should be allowed to apply for permanent residency. ActionSA: ActionSA did not answer this question. PA: Your assumptions are untrue. The USA is one of the few countries that practises this idea of rights of the soil, meaning you have some claim to statehood just because you were born there. South Africa, like most other countries in the world, recognises statehood by family lineage. Therefore, in South Africa, you are not “effectively stateless”. Home Affairs gives you a certificate of recognition of birth, which your parents are meant to take back to their country, with you, to have your birth registered in their country, so that you can get citizenship where you belong. We have no intention of changing this approach. MK Party: The MK Party did not answer our questions. RISE Mzansi: No they should not automatically be given SA citizenship. This would undermine our citizenship laws which do not grant citizenship based on place of birth, but rather on the condition that one of a child’s parents is South African, wherever they are born. We believe there are relatively few cases of immigrants in South Africa with no documents whatsoever. Most immigrants in South Africa have passports from their home countries. Unless a migrant is granted asylum, Home Affairs should work with their embassy or consulate to verify their citizenship, find relatives and register their children’s birth. Only in exceptional cases where an undocumented immigrant minor cannot be reunited with parents or guardians and assume their citizenship, should South African citizenship be granted to prevent statelessness.

The Department of Home Affairs is going through a torrid time. As The South African reported earlier this year, naturalised South Africans are being refused smart ID cards. This is despite having the same constitutional rights as every other South African citizen. Now, Home Affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi has decided to clarify the reasons behind lengthy delays for spousal visas. Business Tech reports that some spousal (and relatives) visas are taking up to two years to process. The minister of Home Affairs says this is because documentation and claims need to be verified. Replying to a parliamentary Q&A session, the minister says the issue is being addressed by the Home Affairs ‘Backlog Eradication Plan`. As part of its efforts, 117 additional officials have been pulled in to work through the backlog of applications. The minister also says his department is looking for skilled partners in the private sector to help speed up these proceedings. Applicants for spousal and relative visas are waiting as long as two years. This is due to notarial agreements and documents such as birth certificates, bank statements and marriage certificates that need to be verified. In order to establish the legitimacy of any relative and/or spousal relationship, a stringent adjudication process is required. Adding insult to injury in spousal visa downtime, says the Home Affairs minister, contact numbers of the purported spouses/relatives are often not provided. Moreover, Home Affairs is jointly developing an Application Programme Interface (API) to further manage and streamline this labour-intensive data verification process, confirmed Motsoaledi. Motsoaledi says the department hopes to expand its service channels. This includes more service kiosks, mobile offices, new offices at banks and shopping malls and connectivity through online and mobile apps. This includes the modernising of five new offices with the adoption of live-capture systems. A reminder that Home Affairs is also opening its offices for five extra hours on Saturdays, from 6 April to 25 May 2024. They will be open from 08h00 to 13h00 for ID collection services, new applications and Temporary Identity Certificates. You’re encouraged to book appointments online to collect ID documents before visiting offices in person. This can be done at the link HERE through the Branch Appointment Booking System (BABS).

Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi has blamed visa backlogs on the growth in the number of notarial contracts being instituted by foreign nationals using non-existent spouses.
Motsoaledi was speaking at a media briefing in Pretoria, on Tuesday on the amended immigration regulations, over which he said there seemed to be some misunderstanding.
He said as a result of the confusion, the department would be withdrawing the gazetted amendments to clear up the misconceptions and would re-gazette them as early as next week.
The minister admitted that his department was experiencing a backlog surrounding dependants, spouses and relatives’ visas being sought by foreign nationals who had been approved to come into the country after successfully obtaining employment.
He said in most cases while the approvals were easily obtained, they did not include spouses and dependants, which many were decrying as they were not willing to be separated from their families.
Despite understanding this need, Motsoaledi said there was a situation which allowed foreign nationals to obtain a spousal visa should they marry a South African citizen, which was causing a problem for the department. He said they were finding that, in many cases, spouses that did not exist were being created through notarial contracts simply to obtain visas.
“Through the notarial contracts you come with a partner, and go to the notary general to write you a contract stating that you are staying together as partners and when you bring that to Home Affairs, they regard you as a spouse.
“The number of notarial contracts is increasing day by day but when we send immigration officers to visit such families, they don’t find any spouse,” Motsoaledi said.
The minister said what was even more alarming was the fact that the number of these kinds of contracts were growing in “leaps and bounds”, resulting in the backlog. “This backlog is changing every day because the notarials are growing daily. Now we have a situation where immigration officers visit families for six months, with no spouse in sight, so what are we to do? Unfortunately, it’s a problem we are going to have to change because it’s in the law.”
He stressed that his department usually did not experience backlogs on critical skills, general work and business visas “but people with critical skills may be complaining of delays referring to delays in obtaining spouses for their visas”.
“The only way to know that indeed we have delayed giving someone a critical skills visa is for companies to provide us with a name of the employed person, because once you appear in the gazette and give us a letter of employment from your employer we issue it (the visa) immediately.”
Motsoaledi said that while several complaints been received from Chamber of Business units and allegations were made in the media, when requested to provide a list of names to verify, none were forthcoming.
“The reality we face is that you might be an engineer with a PhD but if no company gives you a job in South Africa, why should we allow you to come?
There must be a company that needs you and then we can come in and facilitate entry into the country.
“The change we are bringing in these amendments is to do away with the requirement of having to go to the Department of Employment and Labour and replace it with a point-based system.”
The minister said they were unable to expand more on the point-based system because it still needed to be gazetted as they wanted to hear what the public would say about the scoring or points awarded.