Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber said they want to eliminate green ID books in South Africa and make it easy for people to move to more secure smart IDs.
In January 2025, Schreiber said the Department of Home Affairs wants to stop issuing green barcoded ID books in 2025.
In the future, they want to issue only Smart ID cards, an internal target they are working towards to ensure they create a more secure system.
Last year, Schreiber warned that South Africans using green ID books face a significant security risk due to their inherent weaknesses.
Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Njabulo Nzuza explained that green ID books were behind most identity theft in South Africa.

Often, stolen identities are used to access credit, loans, or apply for higher education, creating significant headaches for the rightful holder of the ID.
“With the Smart ID, it is very difficult to duplicate someone’s ID. That is why we are migrating everyone to a Smart ID card and phasing out the green ID books,” Nzuza said.

The card’s biometric features ensure that the person presenting the ID is the rightful owner, significantly reducing the risk of identity fraud.
This also enables it to be incorporated into digital verification systems and, in some cases, eliminate the need for in-person validation.
Linking biometric data with SIM cards is also being explored. This can prevent fraudulent SIM card activations and ensure only the rightful owners can use the SIM card.

Considering the security benefits of Smart IDs, it is understandable that the Department of Home Affairs wants to do away with green ID books.
Schreiber explained that after they stop issuing green ID books, they will consider targets to eliminate them and replace them with Smart ID cards.
He told News24 that the green ID book is insecure and a risk to South Africa and that they urgently want to get rid of it. However, it is not simple.
“We still have about 18 million people to reach. Our aim was 2.5 million people this year, but we are on track for 3.6 million,” he told the publication.
He said that people who still use green ID books have no reason to panic as they will remain valid for this year and beyond.
This means that green ID books remain a valid form of identification. However, users are warned that they pose significant security threats.

Collaborating with banks
The Department of Home Affairs launched its eHomeAffairs system on 7 April 2016 to facilitate easier access to government services online.
eHomeAffairs enabled South African citizens to apply and get their smart ID card or passport at a bank branch rather than a Home Affairs office.
This initiative formed part of the department’s aim to replace about 34 million green-barcoded ID books with the Smart ID Card.
It was initially available at Absa, FNB, Nedbank and Standard Bank at 12 branches in Gauteng and one in Cape Town.

Investec and Discovery Bank joined the eHomeAffairs project, and the service is now available at 30 branches in many large South African cities.
Speaking to News24, Schreiber said they want to hugely expand their collaboration with banks to make it easier for people to get their smart IDs.
He explained that they want to expand the current network of 30 bank branches to over 1,000 across South Africa.

Another focus for his department is going digital, including launching a secure digital ID on people’s smartphones.
“It will be a verifiable credential with a unique key, allowing you to verify and sign things digitally,” he told News24.
He explained that having an official in the corner of a bank with a computer, fingerprint scanner, and camera does not make sense.
Instead, he wants to integrate with the bank’s technology, creating the same trust in Home Affairs as with banks.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) in South Africa is cracking down on visa fraud by revoking more than 100 study visas believed to have been obtained through dishonest means. SIU head Andy Mothibi made the announcement on Tuesday, shedding light on a year-long investigation aimed at cleaning up corruption in the country’s immigration system.

A Deep Dive into the Visa Fraud Probe
The SIU, a government body responsible for tackling corruption and wrongdoing in state institutions, kicked off its investigation into visa irregularities last year. The probe targets a range of visa types, including permanent residence permits, business visas, work visas, and study visas. Speaking at the launch of the Border Management and Immigration Anti-Corruption Forum in Pretoria, Mothibi revealed that “we have referred about 110 study visas to be revoked, which were obtained on the strength of fraudulent supporting documents.”

These fraudulent documents could include fake acceptance letters from schools, doctored financial statements, or other forged paperwork. Mothibi stressed that the SIU is following a strict legal process to ensure the visas are officially cancelled, adding, “At an appropriate time, we will indicate to the public the outcomes of that investigation.”

Why This Matters to South Africans
Visa fraud isn’t just a legal headache—it affects real people and the country’s reputation. Students with fake visas might take spots meant for genuine applicants, while corruption at borders undermines trust in the system. The SIU’s move to revoke these 110 study visas shows a commitment to fairness and accountability, protecting South Africa’s borders and its educational institutions.
The human cost is significant too. Those holding these fraudulent visas could face deportation, disrupting their lives and plans. For many, this might mean leaving behind studies, friends, and dreams of building a future in South Africa.

A Legal Process in Motion
Revoking a visa isn’t a simple decision—it involves careful steps. The SIU gathers evidence, like the fraudulent documents in this case, and presents it to the Department of Home Affairs or a court. Once approved, the visa holders are notified, and they may have a chance to appeal. If they lose, they’ll need to leave the country or face legal consequences.
This thorough approach ensures the process is fair but firm, balancing the rights of individuals with the need to uphold the law.

Fighting Corruption at the Borders
Mothibi’s announcement came during the launch of the Border Management and Immigration Anti-Corruption Forum in Pretoria. This new initiative brings together government officials, law enforcement, and other role-players to tackle corruption at South Africa’s ports of entry—like airports, harbours, and land borders. The forum is a big step towards stopping shady visa deals and ensuring that only legitimate travellers enter the country.
Corruption at these entry points has long been a thorn in South Africa’s side. Bribes, fake papers, and insider help have allowed some to bypass the rules, putting pressure on an already strained immigration system.

The Bigger Picture: South Africa’s Immigration Challenges
South Africa attracts thousands of students and workers every year, drawn by its universities, job opportunities, and vibrant culture. But managing this influx comes with hurdles. The immigration system has battled backlogs, understaffing, and corruption for years. Fraudulent visas add another layer of complexity, threatening national security and the integrity of legal migration.
The SIU’s actions are part of a wider push to fix these problems. By targeting fraudulent study visas, the unit is sending a clear message: South Africa won’t tolerate cheats who exploit the system.

What’s Next for the Investigation?
The SIU isn’t done yet. Mothibi promised more updates as the probe unfolds, hinting that other visa types—like work or business permits—might also face scrutiny. The investigation could uncover deeper networks of corruption, possibly involving officials or agents who help produce fake documents for a fee.
For now, the focus is on these 110 study visas, but the ripple effects could lead to tougher rules, better checks, and stronger partnerships with schools to verify applicants. The public, universities, and immigration experts will be watching closely to see how this plays out.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

Case of two asylum seekers from Burundi sets new precedent for ‘sur place’ refugees
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) found in favour of two asylum seekers from Burundi whose bids were refused by the department of home affairs.

The SCA set a new precedent for SA’s refugee law, particularly its international obligations when sending people back to countries where the situation has turned violent while they were out of the country.
The Burundi nationals sought asylum while in Cape Town. The department of home affairs refused their asylum bids and in 2014 ordered them to leave SA. However, they did not.

Burundi’s political landscape changed in 2015. According to Amnesty International: “Since April 2015, critics and opponents of President Pierre Nkurunziza have been targeted in a brutal and systematic repression by the Burundian authorities.”
The asylum seekers told the department they feared persecution if they returned to Burundi.
Due to the change in circumstance, the asylum seekers claimed they were now “sur place refugees”. According to the UN, “a person who was not a refugee when he left his country but who becomes a refugee at a later date is called a refugee ‘sur place’.”

New asylum bid
They made a new asylum bid based on the sur place claim. The department refused to hear them as the law doesn’t allow for refugees to make a second application while in SA if the first was rejected.
The asylum seekers challenged the department in the Cape Town high court. Though the high court agreed with home affairs, it noted that SA had an international obligation not to send foreigners back to countries where they face harm, known as “non-refoulement”. However, this had been considered by officials when they rejected the asylum seekers’ application in 2014.

The asylum seekers appealed to the SCA, noting that though they may have faced no persecution when they first arrived, Burundi’s landscape had changed. They reiterated they were sur place refugees from 2015 and should not be sent back.
The SCA agreed, overturning the high court’s findings.
“It was not the high court’s place to determine whether the appellants’ sur place applications were genuine,” wrote SCA judge Tati Makgoka for a unanimous court. “That duty fell on the department.”

Makgoka noted “SA has not developed jurisprudence on sur place refugee claims”, and, using foreign law, explained how it must be considered in future.
The judgment sets a precedent for all courts and the department of home affairs when considering this new claim. For example, Makgoka said if the change in a refugee’s home country would affect all citizens, not the refugee specifically, a sur place refugee claim usually fails.
He ordered home affairs to hear their sur place claim.

Nabeelah Mia from Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) said that due to the judgment “when decisionmakers determine an asylum claim, they should also consider the current situation in a country”.
According to LHR, 96% of asylum claims are rejected by officials, and the judgment will hopefully help change that.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

Introduction to Legal Principles
The South African legal system, particularly the South African Citizenship Act of 1995, outlines how citizenship is acquired. A key principle is that a child born in South Africa can become a citizen if one of their parents is a South African citizen at the time of birth. However, changes to the law have created complexities for children born to non-citizen parents. This article explores a recent court case involving a child born to refugee parents, highlighting the legal challenges and the court’s decision to ensure the child’s right to citizenship.

Legal Framework for Citizenship
• Citizenship by Birth: Before 2013, a child born in South Africa could become a citizen if one of their parents had permanent residence. After 2013, citizenship is granted if one parent is a South African citizen at the time of birth.
• Statelessness: The South African Citizenship Act aims to prevent statelessness by providing citizenship to children born in the country who do not have another nationality.
• Refugee Status: Refugees in South Africa face unique challenges in obtaining citizenship for their children, as they cannot easily access services from their country of origin without risking their refugee status.
Case Law: Facts and Court Decision

Background
The case involves a family of refugees from Rwanda living in South Africa. The parents, who are legally recognized refugees, have two daughters. The eldest daughter was born before the 2013 changes to the Citizenship Act and automatically became a South African citizen. However, the youngest daughter, born in 2015, did not qualify for automatic citizenship due to the new requirements.

The Challenge
• Statelessness: The youngest child was stateless because she did not qualify for South African citizenship and could not easily obtain Rwandan citizenship due to her parents’ refugee status.
• Application for Citizenship: The parents applied for South African citizenship for their youngest child, but the application was refused by the Department of Home Affairs, citing that granting citizenship would be contrary to the Citizenship Act.

Court Decision
The High Court of South Africa reviewed the decision and ruled in favour of the applicants. The court declared the Department’s refusal unlawful and ordered that the child be recognized as a South African citizen by birth under Section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act. This section ensures that a child born in South Africa who does not have the citizenship of any other country can become a South African citizen if their birth is registered in accordance with South African law.

Key Points of the Decision
• Prevention of Statelessness: The court emphasized the importance of preventing statelessness, especially for children, as it is constitutionally directed that every child should have a nationality from birth.
• Best Interests of the Child: The court prioritized the best interests of the child, noting that procedural technicalities should not override justice.
• Refugee Status Considerations: The court acknowledged the difficulties faced by refugees in accessing services from their country of origin, which would imperil their status and that of their family.

Conclusion
The court’s decision highlights the importance of ensuring that children have a nationality from birth, as mandated by constitutional principles. It also underscores the challenges faced by refugee families in navigating citizenship laws. The ruling provides a significant precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need to balance legal technicalities with the best interests of the child and the prevention of statelessness.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm

The high court in Pretoria, in addressing the issue of a child who had been left stateless, ordered Home Affairs to within three months register her as a citizen of this country
Amendments to the Citizenship Act came under the judicial spotlight after one child born from parents who are legally in the country as refugees after they had fled Rwanda is a citizen of South Africa, while her younger sister, born after amendments, is left stateless.
The youngest child, born in 2015 after a change in the law, does not automatically qualify for citizenship as her elder sister did. In terms of the new law, she can only apply for citizenship here - with no guarantees that she will receive it - after she has turned 18.

Her parents, who have been living in South Africa now for several years, turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria out of desperation as their youngest child has now been left stateless. Home Affairs, which has followed the letter of the law, refused to grant her citizenship.
Judge Anthony Millar, in the opening of his judgment in which he ruled in favour of the parents, remarked that “it is a foundational pillar of our law that every child has the right to a name and nationality from birth".

Prior to January 1, 2013, when the applicant's eldest child was born; in terms of the Citizenship Act, a person born here was a South African citizen by birth if one of the parents were legally here.
Since both parents are refugees here and not citizens, the youngest child finds herself in a situation where she is without South African citizenship conferred on her automatically and to obtain citizenship upon application, would have to wait until she was a major (18) to do so.
Judge Millar questioned that while the status of the parents is that of refugees, and of their eldest child is that of a citizen of the Republic, what then is to become of the youngest child since she does not automatically qualify for South African citizenship, nor that of Rwanda.

Home affairs suggested that she applied for Rwandan citizenship or simply waited until she turned 18 to apply for South African citizenship.
But the judge pointed out that as refugees from Rwanda, the parents can hardly ask that country to grant their daughter citizenship. The choice is an impossible one for the parents, the judge remarked.

He added that because of the change to the Citizenship Act, she is not a citizen in the country of her birth. Only after she turns 18 will she have to apply to be recognised as a refugee in her own name and only thereafter, if her application is granted, will she be able to apply for citizenship of South Africa by way of naturalisation.
“This proposed course of action will only give her a right to apply, and not a vested right as guaranteed by the Constitution. This only serves to perpetuate her current predicament, and she would still have no nationality and remain stateless.”
Judge Millar said in cases such as the present one, “it must not be forgotten that procedure is, but a handmaiden of justice and the cause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities".

“It is constitutionally directed that a child is to have a nationality from birth, and it follows axiomatically that it is in the best interests of the child that this is so. In the circumstances, the child is to be declared a citizen of the Republic of South Africa,” Judge Millar said.
He ordered Home Affairs to, within three months, register the child accordingly.

How can we help you?
Please email us to info@samigration.com
Whatsapp message us on: +27 82 373 8415

Where are you now?
Check our website : www.samigration.com

Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas
https://g.page/SAMigration?gm