Applying for critical skills work visa in South Africa as an artisan has been a challenge for the longest time. In 2014 when the current amendments to the Immigration Act were gazetted several gaps were identified in the Act which included the absence of a SAQA accredited professional body to register artisans.

ECSA was not an option due to their minimum NQF criteria of 5 which was a notch above the rating being given by SAQA for artisans. There was a time letters issued by the National Artisan Moderation Body, (NAMB), were sufficient and then they were not. There was a time when registration with the South African Institute of Draughting was good enough and then it wasn’t. The latest dispensation saw applications being rejected because Home Affairs required a South African trade test. This of course is absurd for two reasons; the artisan is already trade tested and secondly a South African trade test requires a minimum experience in South Africa.

This inconsistency was a direct result of the absence of a key legislative instrument, namely the National Register of Artisans. In terms section 26C of the Skills Development Act 97 of 1998 as amended, the Minister of Higher Education is required to establish a register of artisans. This register unfortunately could not be implemented as the regulations were not yet in place to establish this register, therefore the NAMB letters were acceptable as they pointed to the absence of the National Register of Artisans. In the absence of a clear framework on how to recognise foreign artisans in the republic it meant that the
Department of Home Affairs was left to its own devices hence the constant changes in approach.
Fortunately, that gap has now been closed and a clear process of registering artisans is now in place. The National Register of Artisans Regulations was gazetted the 19th of March 2021 and provides a framework for the registration of all artisans, local and foreign. There 4 categories of artisans, Practising Artisans, Non – Practising, Foreign Practising and Foreign Non-Practising Artisans. Under regulation 3 it is mandatory for all artisans to register with the
Department of Higher Educations National Artisan Development Support Centre (NADSC).
The registration requirements for foreign National Practising Artisans are the following, a certified passport copy, evidence of legal visa for entrance into the country, certified copy of trade test whether conducted locally or abroad, SAQA evaluation of foreign trade test, proof of address and proof of previous registration for a renewal.

Importantly regulation 6 has some consequences for visa applications by artisans. 6.5 Provides that all foreign national artisans must register with DHET before applying for critical skills work visa or any work visa with DHA. 6.6 goes on to state that foreign national artisans will not be granted critical skills work by DHA if they are not registered with DHET. This means that as of 19th March 2021 it became impossible for an artisan to get a visa without first registering the NADSC

How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com or whatsapp message me on: +27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com

SA’s Home Affairs grants temporary relief to visa, ZEP holders
South Africa has extended the deadline for Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP) holders and other visa applicants whose documents expired at the end of March, citing delays in processing applications.
The new deadline, now set for 30 September, provides temporary relief for thousands of Zimbabweans who have been left in limbo as authorities work through a backlog of visa and permit applications.

Home Affairs Minister Dr Leon Schreiber announced the extension on Tuesday under Immigration Directive Number 4 of 2025. He acknowledged that despite efforts to clear outstanding applications, many remain unprocessed due to administrative delays.

“The Department of Home Affairs has been working to resolve the backlog in its visa and permitting system. However, many applications will not be ready for collection before the 31 March deadline due to delays in printing and processing,” Schreiber said.

The decision is particularly significant for Zimbabweans on the ZEP, a special dispensation permit that has been in place since 2009. Originally introduced as the Dispensation of Zimbabweans Project (DZP), it was later restructured into the Zimbabwe Special Permit (ZSP) in 2014 and the current ZEP in 2017.

The ZEP has provided a legal pathway for Zimbabweans who moved to South Africa, but its future remains uncertain. The South African government has indicated plans to phase out exemption permits, urging Zimbabweans to apply for mainstream visas or consider returning home.
Around 178,000 Zimbabweans were eligible to apply for new exemption permits, which are set to expire at the end of November. However, processing delays have left many waiting for clarity on their legal status.

Under the latest directive, ZEP holders and other affected visa applicants will not be declared undesirable if they choose to leave South Africa before 30 September. Those awaiting the outcome of waiver applications can travel in and out of the country without penalty until then.

However, non-visa-exempt individuals with pending waiver applications must apply for a port of entry visa before re-entering South Africa. The directive also applies to long-term visa applicants but does not cover those awaiting permanent residence decisions.

Only foreign nationals who have legally entered South Africa and submitted their applications via VFS Global, with verifiable proof of submission, will qualify for this concession.

Parts of the Refugees Act and its regulations that allowed for Home Affairs to "filter" asylum seekers who do not have valid transit visas, have been declared unconstitutional.
• The Western Cape High Court agreed with the Scalabrini Centre that this put asylum seekers at risk of being sent back to their home countries, where they could face persecution.
• The matter will now go to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

The Western Cape High Court has struck down sections of the Refugees Act which allowed for the deportation of asylum seekers even before they could access the asylum system.
But the court declined to issue a temporary interdict preventing the deportation of affected people, saying that until the Constitutional Court considers the matter, asylum seekers will have to individually approach courts if they believe they have been unlawfully shut out of the system.

The matter was taken to court by the Scalabrini Centre in Cape Town. It argued that amendments to the act and regulations, which took effect from January 2020, put refugees at risk of persecution because they could be returned to their countries of origin without having their asylum applications even considered.
The amendments allowed for asylum seekers who have entered the country unlawfully and do not have a valid asylum transit visa, to be denied full access to the asylum system after an initial "filtering" interview with an immigration officer. Scalabrini wanted the court to declare this unconstitutional.

These officers had the "sole discretion" to determine this unless they were presented with "compelling reasons" to decide otherwise, Scalaibrini argued.
This was the second part of Scalabrini's court case. In the first part, in August 2024, Scalabrini secured an interim interdict stopping the deportation of asylum seekers. The second part, its main application to have the sections of the act declared unconstitutional, was heard in February in the Western Cape High
Court before Judges Judith Cloete, Lister Nuku and Acting Judge Shami Kholong.

During that hearing it emerged that since the granting of the interdict, the Department of Home Affairs had effectively shut off access to the asylum system for new applicants. But arrests of people who wanted to seek asylum but who did not have valid visas continued, filling up prisons with asylum seekers.
Writing for the court, Judge Judith Cloete said while in the initial interdict application, the applicant had relied on specific instances of how certain refugees had been treated, it was now relying on "an abstract constitutional challenge".
"As we understand it, the crux of the applicant's complaint is that if a foreign national is not in possession of a valid five-day asylum transit visa (whether due to illegal border crossing or it having lapsed), and that foreign national cannot persuade an immigration officer that he or she has valid reasons for this, then he or she will not get to the next stage at all.

"In other words, so the applicants say, given the overarching principle of non-refoulement, it should not be incumbent on such an individual to satisfy a bureaucratic official of the 'valid reasons' requirement in order to exercise the rights of an asylum seeker," Judge Cloete said.
Non-refoulement is a principle in international law that prohibits governments from sending or "refouling" people back to countries where they face persecution or danger.

The government respondents, including the Minister and Director-General of Home Affairs, argued against Scalabrini's interpretation. They claimed that rather than depriving foreigners unlawfully in the country of their rights, the provisions created a "safety valve" so that such people are not shut out as long as they can show valid and compelling reasons.

But Scalabrini argued that it was the process that was the problem and that requiring people to undergo the so-called "safety valve" exercise before they are able to formally access the asylum system, after which they could be arrested and deported, violated the principle of non-refoulement.
It was not a safety valve, but a "threshold", Scalabrini argued.

Judge Cloete said that according to the plain wording of the law, immigration officers are required to "ascertain whether valid reasons exist" as to why an applicant is not in possession of the transit visa.

Cloete said it is undeniable "that a determination of this nature which is unfavourable to an illegal foreigner may result, without more, in deportation. This defeats the very purpose of the non-refoulement principle enshrined in the Act. It also falls foul of international law. "
She said the regulation's guidance on "compelling reasons" for not having a valid visa included hospitalisation, institutionalisation or any other compelling reasons but did not include that the person concerned may be persecuted if sent back to their home country.

This was contrary to the multiple international treaties that South Africa had ratified since democracy.
The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), which had been admitted along with other human rights organisations as friends of the court, had correctly argued that the effect of the provisions was aggravated by the harm on children who would be deported with their parents, Cloete said.

"The first underlying principle is that children are individual right bearers and not mere appendages of their parents. The second is that, even if it can be justified that a parent ought to be barred from applying for asylum for procedural missteps -- which we have found cannot be countenanced -- children are not to be penalised for the missteps of their parents," Judge Cloete said.

Turning to the relief, Judge Cloete said in terms of the Constitution, a court which makes an order of constitutional invalidity may grant a temporary interdict or other temporary relief, pending confirmation or otherwise by the Constitutional Court.
Scalabrini had asked for a temporary interdict.
But, Judge Cloete said, this would be too far-reaching and would effectively "have the consequence that we step into the shoes of the legislature for an indefinite period".

"This does not sit comfortably with us."
She noted that since the initial interdict was granted the "unintended consequence" was that the asylum system had been shut down.
"We have also taken into account that the constitutional challenge is an abstract one. There is nothing preventing any affected individual from approaching the court in his or her own right given our findings and the pending confirmation, or otherwise, of the Constitutional Court."

She said the respondents had highlighted a number of possible practical difficulties if another temporary interdict were granted.
"We deliberately adopted a cautious approach because, as indicated, the ramifications to hundreds of thousands of individuals in this country, as well as the respondents, are potentially both too risky and too great.

"We shall thus simply suspend our declaration of invalidity pending the outcome of the Constitutional Court proceedings".
The court struck down the relevant provisions as being unconstitutional, discharged the interim interdict granted in August 2024 and ordered the government respondents to pay 80% of Scalabrini's costs.

The short answer
You should qualify for a spousal visa, but you will probably need legal help

The whole question
I have lived in South Africa since 2006, albeit illegally. Since 2012, me and my South African girlfriend have cohabited and we have a five-year-old son. I did a DNA test for Home Affairs to give him my surname. Is there anything i can do to fix my status?

The long answer
Thank you for your letter asking what you can do to fix your status in South Africa.

If you applied for a spousal visa, you would need to show Home Affairs the following:
Proof of your partner’s South African citizenship.
For a permanent spousal visa you need to prove that you have been married or living together for at least five years and are dependent on each other financially, emotionally and physically. For a temporary spousal visa there isn’t a minimum period you need to have been married or co-habiting.

A letter of support from your South African partner.
Proof of your good mental and physical health ie a medical report.

A completed temporary residence application form.
Since you have lived with your South African partner since 2012 and have a five year-old son together, one would think that you should qualify for a spousal visa, and permanent residence but the problem you will likely encounter with Home Affairs is that you have been here illegally.
For this reason I think you need to get some legal advice on how best to proceed. You could contact us

How can we help you , please email us to info@samigration.com or whatsapp message me on: +27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website : www.samigration.com

The Hawks are investigating allegations that officials at the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria are issuing fraudulent notices to help illegal foreigners evade deportation. Three officials have been arrested following a Hawks raid on Tuesday, 13 May 2025.
The three court officials have been accused of issuing fraudulent notices of motion to help foreigners evade deportation proceedings.
Three officials at the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria have been placed on precautionary suspension days after the Hawks raided the court during an investigation into the issuance of fraudulent notices of motion.

On Friday, 16 May, the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) said the three officials, whose identities have not yet been released, are suspects in an “ongoing investigation by the South African Police Service’s Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation [the Hawks] looking into fraudulent and corrupt activities in the court”.
“The OCJ takes a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and corruption and the officials were therefore placed on precautionary suspension to allow investigations to proceed without being compromised.”

On Tuesday, the Hawks conducted a search and seizure operation at the court, where officials are alleged to have been issuing fraudulent notices of motion to help foreigners avoid deportation. A notice of motion verifies that a party is going to court over a specific matter.
The Hawks’ investigation had focused on one employee.
“It is alleged the employee has been issuing fraudulent notices to undocumented foreign nationals to prevent their deportation. This matter was formally reported to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in March,” the Hawks said.
Speaking to Newzroom Afrika on Thursday, Hawks head Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya said the unit had received information about the scheme involving the deportations of illegal foreign nationals.

“Based on that, and with the affidavit that we had, we had to go and conduct a search so that we could gather evidence so that we can deal with this individual. He is a Level 5 individual in terms of ranking,” Lebeya said.
Lebeya said Level 5 referred to a junior rank. He said the Hawks believed that the individual was working alone at the court, but said they would cast their net wide.

“Because there were others who went to fetch some of these documents, some of whom work in certain [law] firms,” Lebeya said.
“We believe that he is part of a syndicate; he can’t be operating alone. You cannot and go and serve them in some other environment where they need to be produced. There were others who were fetching these documents,” he said.
“We don’t know whether they are working with the firms […] or individuals associated with this specific person. But evidence will assist us in that regard,” he said

“We appreciate the information that came forward so that we can be able to stop this cancer,” Lebeya said.

Mthatha allegations
The suspension of the three Pretoria officials follows a number of recent allegations against court officials.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya visited the Mthatha High Court this week following claims of systemic corruption, with court officials allegedly soliciting bribes to do tasks that should be normal parts of their jobs.

Following her visit to the Mthatha court, Justice Maya said she “was assured a case had been opened with SAPS, and that the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation had launched an enquiry into the matter. This process is running concurrently with internal investigations by the department.”
Maya requested that the implementation of the court online system be expedited, which is aimed at “protecting the integrity of court operations, enhancing access to justice, minimising manual processes and curbing the allegations of improprieties”.