In a new episode, specialists caught a vigorously over-burden transport that was endeavoring to sneak more than 100 unlawful Malawian outsiders into South Africa. The transport was stopped at a barricade, featuring the continuous issue of unlawful migration and the outcomes of an open line strategy.

The people installed the transport had paid an expense to acquire unlawful passage into South Africa, exploiting the permeable line among Malawi and South Africa. The inundation of unlawful foreigners from Malawi has turned into a disturbing pattern, inciting specialists to make a move to resolve the issue.

The interference of the over-burden transport fills in as a distinct sign of the moves looked by South Africa because of its open line strategy. While such a strategy advances the free development of individuals, it likewise sets out a freedom for unlawful exercises, including illegal exploitation and unlawful movement.

The episode highlights the requirement for more grounded line control gauges and further developed authorization to check the unlawful section of people into the country. South African specialists have been working tenaciously to resolve this issue, perceiving the potential security gambles and monetary weights related with unregulated movement.

Unlawful migrants frequently resort to paying excessive charges to human bootleggers who vow to work with their entrance into South Africa. These runners exploit the distress and weakness of those looking for a superior life, taking advantage of their fantasies for individual increase.

To actually handle this issue, it is crucial for address the underlying drivers of unlawful movement. Upgrading monetary open doors and security in nations like Malawi can assist with lessening the impetus for its residents to look for unlawful passage somewhere else. Also, expanded collaboration between South Africa and adjoining nations, including knowledge sharing and joint tasks, can assist with keeping carrying networks from working uncontrolled.

South Africa should work out some kind of harmony between keeping an open line strategy and protecting its public safety and financial interests. By executing far reaching movement changes, including stricter boundary controls and designated help programs, the nation can address the difficulties presented by unlawful migration while as yet maintaining its obligation to philanthropic qualities.

The new episode fills in as a reminder for South Africa and features the squeezing need for a comprehensive way to deal with migration the board. Just through deliberate endeavors could the country at any point really tackle the issue of unlawful movement and advance protected, lawful pathways for those looking for a superior future.

The Constitutional Court has ordered Parliament to revise Section 4 of the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 to ensure equal access to the office of the family advocate by children, regardless of their parents` marital status. The case stems from a legal dispute between two former lovers who share two minor children. Their legal dispute over their children reached the Constitutional Court after the mother challenged the constitutionality of section 4 of the act.

The Constitutional Court has confirmed a Gauteng High Court ruling which declared Section 4 of the Mediation in Certain Divorce Matters Act 24 of 1987 is unconstitutional and invalid.

According to the apex court, the act precluded children of unmarried parents and married parents, who were not going through a divorce, from accessing the services of a family advocate in the same way children of married parents, who were divorced or going through a divorce, did.

The family advocate is a state office that helps parties resolve disputes over access, custody, and guardianship of children.

Under section 4 of the act, as it currently reads, children of divorced parents and parents going through a divorce can seek the services of the family advocate by completing a form and filing it directly with the office.

However, unmarried parents and parents who are married but not going through a divorce must petition the High Court directly for relief to access the services of the family advocate.

This can be costly and lengthy.

The Constitutional Court ruling, which was issued last week, followed an application by the University of Pretoria-based Centre for Child Law.

The parents cited in the case ended their relationship in 2014, having been romantically linked since 2007.

Their minor children were born in 2009 and 2011.

According to court documents, the children spent most of their upbringing at their mother`s home but the father, a professional rugby player, had full-time access.

Litigation history

In February 2020, the mother got married and started making plans to emigrate to Australia along with her husband and the two children.

However, the father of the children opposed the idea and proposed the children move to his home in George, the Western Cape.

`Unable to secure [the father`s] consent to relocate with the children to Australia, [the mother] approached the High Court for relief,` court documents read.

The mother`s application was in two parts, with Part A aimed at securing the services of the family advocate and Part B seeking authorisation to relocate.

Part A of the case was set for a hearing in August 2021 but was adjourned because the presiding judge had concerns with the constitutionality of section 4 of the act.

At this point, the Centre for Child Law joined the case as a friend of the court.

It argued the children of the two respondents should be able to access the services of the family advocate, regardless of their parents` marital status.

The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg agreed, and the case was taken to the Constitutional Court for confirmation.

In a unanimous judgement, the apex court gave Parliament 24 months to remedy the constitutional deficiency so that all children can enjoy access equal access to the family advocate.

In commending the judgement, the Centre for Child Law said it was `extremely important`, adding `the function of the family advocate`s investigation and report is intended to establish the best interests of the child`.

The Constitutional Court judgement, however, is not to be applied retrospectively. 

Stanley Malemetja from the Centre for Child Law said this effectively meant it would not apply to cases that commenced prior to its issue.

I was a foster parent for young refugees who came to Kent via the Channel, but were too old to live on their own.

One of them, a young boy from Afghanistan, saw his family killed in front of him. He told me: “The Taliban finished my family. But one day, maybe I can get married and start a new family of my own.” For him, nothing was more important than finding a place to call home.

For a boy living with such trauma, the Rwanda plan would have been devastating. Imagine thinking you had found a safe place where you could put down roots, only to learn you could be sent to another country, thousands of miles away, all because you had been unfortunate enough to take a dangerous journey?

Actually, I don’t have to imagine, because I know. I am a survivor of the Rwandan genocide. Although I came to the United Kingdom by plane to live with my British in-laws, I was widowed and alone. I, too, know what it’s like to have your home taken from you and the importance of being secure enough to build another one.

If the treatment of refugees in Rwanda turns out to be less than advertised, how will they be able to speak out?

When I heard the Court of Appeal had ruled against the government, I was relieved for two reasons. Firstly, because no asylum seeker should live with the uncertainty of being sent on another long journey again, applying for asylum again, and as the judges noted  facing a real risk of being sent back to the country of persecution again. Worse yet, conscripted by your host government into armed groups destabilising the region as was the case of Burundian refugees in Rwanda.

Secondly, I was relieved, because the reality is that Rwanda is not a safe country for refugees. In 2017, when Israel tried a similar scheme, it was reported some of those deported to Rwanda were almost immediately expelled and pushed back into the arms of smugglers. In 2018, Rwandan police shot and killed 12 refugees protesting conditions. Even the accommodation supposed to house asylum seekers from the UK is tarnished with the repressive and cynical nature of the regime. Last year orphans of the Rwandan genocide were evicted from their hostel in order to make way for UK asylum seekers.

Reporters Without Borders call Rwanda’s media landscape “one of the poorest in Africa”  due to the levels of oppression. If the treatment of refugees in Rwanda turns out to be less than advertised, how will they be able to speak out?

According to the Home Office’s own estimates, the Rwanda plan would cost £196,000 per refugee deported. As someone who has experienced displacement and the icy grasp of oppressive regimes, I can tell you that the right to speak your mind and feel at home is worth more than that.

Although I have seen more horror and tragedy than most people encounter in their lifetime, in the UK I have thrived. I know this country is full of welcoming communities that can help other refugees do the same. I urge the government to accept the court’s decision, and focus on creating a more compassionate, fair and effective asylum system right here at home instead.

The Swedish Migration Court denied seven Cape Town soccer players travel documentation because their unabridged birth certificates do not contain their biological fathers` details. 

Getty Images. Seven teenage soccer players from Camps Bay FC could miss out on a trip to Sweden after the Nordic country denied them visas. The Swedish Migration Court denied them visas because their birth certificates do not have their biological fathers` details. The club appealed the denial at the Migration Court of Appeal and was again denied.

Seven teenagers who play for Camps Bay FC could miss out on competing in Sweden`s upcoming Gothia Cup youth soccer tournament after the government denied them visas. 

The Swedish Migration Court denied the players` travel documentation because their unabridged birth certificates do not contain their biological fathers` details. 

The club then appealed the decision at the Migration Court of Appeal, but learnt on Monday that the appeal had also been denied. 

Club chairperson Gina Isserow told News24 that the Swedish government required both parents` consent to grant the travel documents, which prejudiced seven teenagers born to and raised by single, unmarried mothers. 

Isserow said after the Migration Court`s decision, some mothers obtained affidavits from their children`s fathers consenting to the trip. 

The players are meant leave the country on Thursday for the tournament that will kick off on Saturday and return on 24 July. 

On 7 June, the club applied for an order with the Western Cape High Court which authorised the teenagers` trip to Sweden under the temporary guardianship of the club`s head coach, Mogamad Anees Abbas.

The court order included a teenager whose father is a foreign national who had absconded and was untraceable. 

The court ordered that the mothers had full parental rights and responsibilities to consent to their children`s travel.

It said:

The minor children are granted authorisation to travel to Sweden on 13 July and return to the Republic of South Africa on 24 July to participate in the Gothia Cup soccer tournament in Gothenburg. The biological mothers of the children have parental rights and responsibilities for obtaining all travel documents, including visas, and shall include their consent for their minor children to travel to Gothenburg, Sweden.

An appeal letter from the lawyers representing the teenagers addressed to the Swedish Embassy and Migration Court stated that, for children born out of wedlock, it was not compulsory for both parents to appear in a child`s birth certificate.

It said where the children`s best interests were concerned, the high court superseded the biological parent`s authority as the upper guardian of all minors.

Isserow said the teenagers play in the Under-13, Under-14 and Under-16 teams.

She said it was unfortunate that the seven could miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to represent South Africa abroad. 

`It is heartbreaking because none of these boys has ever been overseas, let alone represented South Africa overseas. We don`t know what to say to these kids. They have been training for 18 months. They worked hard and we`ve raised the funds. It`s not a matter of funding but an issue of the visas, even though we have a high court order,` said Isserow.

Camp`s Bay FC executive committee member Fiona Hart told News24 that this was not the first time the Swedish government had denied players visas.

She said the Club had exhausted all avenues for assistance without success and they would seek a permanent solution after this year`s tournament.

Hart said:

This happened last year as well, and we need this to be addressed because this is a tournament [the players] are invited to by Sweden. They need to find a way to not make it discriminatory for single mothers. We had to go to the high court and they still didn`t accept. We`ve lost all the flights and money [spent in preparation to get the players to Sweden], but it`s also about the children.

Immigration lawyer Gary Eisenberg said the visa denial may reflect the Swedish government`s distrust of South Africa`s judiciary.

`How do you punish a child with one parent? Maybe the one parent absconded and left the other to deal with the child, which is common in many countries. Their visa denial may reflect a jaundiced view of the Swedish government on South African high court orders.` 

Nombuso Mashangu, the mother of one of the teenagers, said she travelled to Johannesburg from Cape Town to clear the consent issue with her child`s father, who consented via an affidavit. 

Mashangu said she hoped the situation would change in favour of the teenagers, as her son `eats and breathes soccer`.

`These boys have been practicing and it would be disappointing if the others don`t go. I have been praying and I don`t know what it is, but I haven`t said to him `you`re not going`,` she said.

The gridlock affecting work-permit applications in South Africa is limiting expansion by German companies in the country and threatening operations that support 100 000 jobs, an industry association said.

While South Africa is taking steps to improve an approval system and make it easier and quicker to get permits, the snarl-up that was exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic has limited the entry of skilled workers into a country that has a dire shortage of them. Between 2014 and 2021 only 25 298 skilled-worker permits were approved by the country, which has a population of 60 million. 

`The visa matter spans the entire hierarchy of German business in South Africa` ranging from chief executive officers to technicians, the Southern African-German Chamber of Commerce and Industry said on Thursday in a response to questions. `This is of course not only a concern to German business but also to the country itself` as German companies operating in South Africa provide jobs for 100 000 people along their supply chains, the chamber said. 

Companies operating in South Africa struggle to find skilled workers, a result of a dysfunctional education system and exacerbated by emigration. Volkswagen AG and Bayerische Motoren Werke AG operate factories in the country and the chamber has over 600 member companies. Andreas Peschke, Germany’s ambassador to South Africa, has previously estimated that German companies account for 10% of South Africa’s export income. 

Germany is South Africa’s third-biggest single-country trade partner after China and the US, with two-way movement exceeding $20 billion last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Companies not being able to get permits for executives at local subsidiaries is endangering investment and `the same goes for technicians not being able to enter the country, while at the same time there are no skilled workers available in South Africa to service machinery,` the chamber said. 

The group said that while there have been improvements this year, its members had more than 100 open work permit applications in the second half of last year. In one case it took about 18 months to get a permit for a managing director and the owners of one company sold up after their visa was rejected despite 30 years of doing business in the nation. 

The visa-approval process remains opaque and offers from the chamber to help improve the process and digitize it have not been responded to, the German chamber said. 

Siyabulela Qoza, a spokesman for the Department of Home Affairs, didn’t answer a call to his mobile phone or respond to a text message.