Africans and other foreign nationals in South Africa have faced intense scrutiny from the South African government this past week.Africans and other foreign nationals in South Africa have faced intense scrutiny from the South African government this past week. On Wednesday, 25 foreign nationals in the African nation were arrested on the grounds of failing to comply with the Immigration and Labor Acts. According to South African authorities, the Cape Town crackdown will be the first of many government-led efforts to prevent illegal immigrants from breaking the law. The effort led by the Department of Labor and the police marks the first significant official effort to comply with immigration and labor laws for South Africa officials since the 2015/16 talks on the same.What does the law say?On Wednesday, police searched restaurants and other places of business in Cape Town, searching for businesses that illegally employed foreign nationals. According to South African law, anyone born outside of South Africa falls under the foreign national category. While the government does not have a mandate to actively search for undocumented immigrants, it is allowed to look for employed, undocumented persons. Section 38(1) of the countrys Immigration Act stipulates that business owners cannot employ foreigners who are in the country illegally. Failure to comply with this law could open businesses to federal prosecution. This was the case on Wednesday when one manager was also arrested in connection with the employment of the 25 illegal foreign nationals.  In South Africa, employing paperless residents could also go against the LRA. Labor laws in the country state that everyone has the right to fair labor practice. While Section 23 of the Constitution does not specify which groups fall under the provision, it ensures that employing illegal foreigners could potentially break labor laws. Labor Law vs. Immigration Lawm A 2017 report released by the University of Witwatersrands African Centre for Migration & Society (ACMS) shows that many of the illegal migrants employed in the Southern African region are more likely to be mistreated that their South African-born counterparts. The report, which summarized research conducted by the Johannesburg-based higher education institution between 2012 and 2014, established that many of the employed undocumented foreigners are hired to do menial tasks. Furthermore, the report found that these illegal residents were more likely to be underpaid and discriminated against in the workplace compared to employees who were South African by birth. In fact, the number of foreigners working in the informal sector is twice the number of South Africans working in the same area. Over the past few years, South Africa has been a hub for xenophobic violence. Between 2015 and 2017, there were numerous incidences of South African nationals targeting people because of their national origin. Many foreign residents living in the country at the time were either killed or maimed because of their foreign status. The World Report 2018 also highlighted an incident that occurred in February 2016 where a group calling itself The Mamelodi Concerned Residents  instigated protests that resulted in the destruction of shops owned by non-South African residents. One of the main talking points for these groups targeting foreign nationals has been that immigrants have been stealing the locals jobs. The 2017 ACMS report only confirms that there are more foreigners than locals employed in sectors like hospitality, tourism, retail, and construction among other sectors. What the report does not address is the working conditions of foreign employees and how they relate to the labor laws in the country.  According to South Africas Immigration Act, 60% of positions in any workforce should go to South African nationals. However, more jobs in the informal sector go to foreign nationals because of several factors. According to the government, this is because businesspeople can obtain cheaper labor hiring foreigners, especially undocumented ones. Employers were undermining immigration and labor laws as they paid workers starvation wages, Home Affairs Minister Malusi Gigaba remarked after the crackdown on Wednesday. Mr Gigaba affirmed that the government would be putting more effort into ensuring employers comply with these laws.Business owners in South Africa do not agree with the governments assessment. On the contrary, some of them remarked that it is better to hire foreigners without papers because they are more responsible than their local counterparts. One entrepreneur told the local news outlet IOL, I have hired locals but they disappear for days and when we fire them, the officials tell us we are wrong. The foreign nationals have [been] shown to be more reliable. Whether employers hire undocumented foreigners because of cheap labor or reliability does not matter under SA law. No matter the reason, it remains illegal to hire foreign nationals without legal papers. However, that does mean that employers have the right to treat such employees as they see fit. Labor law protection also covers foreign nationals.In 2017, an illegal migrant named Lanzetta sued his South African employers for wrongful termination. Mr Lanzetta argued that Discovery Health, his employer, failed to give him the necessary documents to renew his work permit. As a result, his legal alien status elapsed and the company got the grounds to fire him under Immigration Law. While the court did not rule in Mr Lanzettas favor, it highlighted the LRAs mandate that employers treat all their employees fairly. As South African officials continue the pursuit of illegally employed migrants, it remains unclear how the balance between the nations immigration and labor laws will affect the charging and deportation of foreign nationals. On the one hand, officials are ensuring compliance by rooting out illegal employees. On the other, they are violating the labor rights of foreign employees by discriminating against them. Employment of undocumented foreigners is illegal, but sometimes it is the only option open to them.In the midst of Wednesdays crackdown, activists highlighted a challenge that makes compliance more difficult for foreigners. Mr Lanzetta alleged that his undocumented status stemmed from his employers failure to assist him in the process. In most cases, foreigners may not have the time or money to renew their papers at the ill-staffed Refugee Reception Offices. Operations deliberately cracking down on undocumented migrants, particularly in a city where there is no Refugee Reception Office (RRO) available to provide new asylum seekers with documentation, is excessive and deeply unfair, advocacy specialist

The Italian governments updated visa requirements, effective January 10th, 2025, are raising concerns among stakeholders, who fear the changes could make studying in Italy more difficult for international students.The new regulations require Type D visa applicants, including students planning to study for more than 90 days, to book individual appointments for fingerprinting at Italian consulates.This new process is expected to increase the administrative workload and may lead to delays for students seeking to study in Italy. The change, stakeholders say, will add significant challenges for students and universities. CEO of Forum on Education Abroad, Melissa Torres, told The PIE News that;In addition to the increased expense, many students will incur travelling to a consulate and the likelihood of massive wait times for visa appointments, I am concerned that this new requirement will impact students decision to spend a full semester abroad,¯ New rules affect student visa processing Deputy executive director of NAFSA, Jill Allen Murray, who also felt at loss concerning the development, stated that¯in addition to requiring individual appointments, the update eliminates batch processing, a practice used by US universities to help large groups of students secure visas efficiently.Murray explained that this would increase the administrative demands on each Italian consulate.The policy change also effectively eliminates the option for batch processing, which many US institutions have used to help their students secure visas in a timely fashion and increases the administrative demands on each Italian consulate. This change could further complicate the visa process for students and institutions, leading to potential delays and confusion.US students may choose shorter programs or alternative destinations Reports inform that Italy was the top destination for US students studying abroad in the 2022/23 academic year, with 15% of students selecting Italy, a 37% increase from the previous year.However, the new visa rules could lead students to consider other study-abroad destinations, as according to the PIE News, several US study-abroad providers are already looking at shortening programs to avoid complications with the visa process.This shift could see fewer students choosing long-term programs in Italy if the new requirements make the visa process too difficult.Joint effort to address visa concerns In response to the changes, NAFSA and Forum on Education Abroad have written a joint letter to the Italian ambassador, urging the restoration of batch processing.They have also requested that Italy allocate more resources to consular appointments and allow fingerprinting to be done at honorary consulates or local police stations.Both organizations warn that the new system may not have enough capacity to handle the expected demand for student visas, and have urged students to apply as early as possible to avoid delays.Advice for students applying for Italian visas According to reports, NASA and Forum on Education Abroad have advised students planning to study in Italy to apply for their D visas well before the new rules take effect on January 10th, 2025.With the anticipated strain on consular services, early applications will help ensure students meet visa deadlines and avoid disruptions to their study plans.

But not quite: a backlog persists in the appeals area and permanent residence permit applications. The author believes a promising stage has been set for further improvements in adjudication quality. The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has achieved remarkable results in the past six months with its initiative to clear the visa application backlog; however, the minister has once again had to extend the concession period for foreign nationals who are awaiting the outcome of their applications to ensure they can remain in South Africa on a legally correct basis.The extension of the concession was unavoidable as the outcomes of many applicants were not ready for collection when the festive season started, Minister of Home Affairs Leon Schreiber announced in a directive. Although the visa backlog has been eradicated, a backlog persists in the appeals area and permanent residence permit applications.The latest concession means affected parties may continue their activities per their current visa conditions for another three months, until 31 March 2025. This was necessary to safeguard applicants from suffering adverse consequences or being erroneously declared undesirable in South Africa while they await the outcome of applications submitted to the department.Affected parties are grateful for the progress and hard work the department has made in conjunction with the private sector to significantly reduce the backlog. However, the extended concession now also brings peace of mind to many whose waiver, long-term visa, and appeal applications are still pending.Second extensionThis is the second time Schreiber has extended the temporary concession due to the visa backlog at the department dating back almost 10 years. Shortly after he was appointed minister in July 2024, he moved to protect applicants while the backlog was reduced.With the latest announcement, Schreiber kept his promise of July 2024 that any further extension, modification or amendment to the terms of the concessions would be communicated prior to the then-expiry date of 31 December 2024 to prevent a repeat of the situation that saw the previous concession expire before the extension being announced.Progress worth celebrating The DHAs achievements in tackling the backlog are to be celebrated. Two weeks ago, the minister announced on X (formerly Twitter) that it had processed 261 845 applications within months and would hit 94% backlog eradication before year-end.It is indeed a landmark, establishing new efficiency benchmarks at the DHA. This accomplishment not only demonstrates the departments ability to meet ambitious goals but also sets a promising stage for further improvements in adjudication quality in the coming year.The minister said on X: Only mopping up and appeals remaining. In fact, our team is working so fast that we are struggling to keep up with printing and issuing outcomes. One of the first things I did after my appointment as Home Affairs Minister was to visit our visa backlog team, with the message that we want a Christmas without the decade-old backlog hanging over us. Today, went back to celebrate this team for their incredible work. Schreiber also shared a video where he and Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza  dressed in Christmas outfits!  celebrated with DHA officials.He went on to say:  It has been a year of inspiring progress at Home Affairs. Next year, we will take the lessons learnt from this project and the foundation weve laid to fully digitalise and automate our processes and take service delivery to new heights.The further temporary extension of the concession until 31 March 2025 applies to: Waiver applications: Applicants with pending outcomes as of 30 November 2024 may exit and re-enter South Africa without being declared undesirable, but non-visa exempt applicants who travel out of the country with a waiver application receipt are required to apply for a port of entry visa which would allow them re-entry into South Africa.Visa applications: Visa holders who have applied for long-term visas such as business visas, study visas, relatives visas, and work visas that remained pending as of 30 November 2024 have been granted a further temporary extension of their current visa status. They must adhere to their current visa conditions and are allowed to travel with similar conditions as waiver applicants. Note the conditions for non-visa-exempt applicants.Visa appeal applications: Visa holders who appealed a negative decision on an application for a long-term visa are granted a temporary extension for three months. Travel conditions similar to other applicants apply, and they must carry a copy of the rejection letter together with a receipt indicating the applicant has submitted an appeal application.

Retired Judge Siraj Desai has blamed the Legal Practice Council (LPC) for the shocking 4% pass rate achieved by aspirant lawyers in ethics and conveyancing examinations. The Legal Practice Council (LPC) is a statutory body empowered to regulate and discipline legal professionals in South Africa.It is also responsible for setting competency-based examinations for aspirant lawyers.In May 2024, when the LPC released the results of these examinations, it emerged the conveyancing tests had between a 1 and 4% pass rate, while the Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics examination had a 4% pass rate.The Legal Services Ombud, retired Judge Siraj Desai, has blamed the shocking 4% pass rate achieved by aspirant lawyers in ethics and conveyancing examinations firmly on the Legal Practice Council (LPC). The LPC is ultimately responsible for setting the competency-based examinations in terms of Section 26 of the Legal Practice Act. `In this instance, the LPC failed in one of its most fundamental tasks - to properly regulate the entry of aspirant attorneys to practice. It caused untold misery, if not harm, to many young men and women,` Desai told News24 on Sunday.After stating his office`s recently released report on the `sub-par result on the competency-based examinations conducted by the Legal Practice Council` spoke for itself, the judge added: `We can only hope that the changes proposed by the LPC [in response] are serious and will prevent such occurrences in the future.`During the Ombud`s investigation into the staggeringly high failure rate in the May 2024 examination results, the LPC said it had outsourced the drafting and printing of all Attorneys` Conveyancing and Notarial competency-based examinations to the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA) - which in turn said funding cuts had been adversely impacted this drafting process. Since the release of those disastrous results, the LPC told the Ombud, as of the August/September 2024 examinations, it had taken over the setting and administration of all competency-based examinations.While noting the `fact that about 96% of the candidates were unsuccessful with regard to these exams is startling`, the Ombud report concluded: `We can contemplate the suffering it entailed to the candidates who sat for the examinations, the need to rewrite the examination, the financial burden on the candidates and their families, the psychological effect on them and possibly diminished prospects of employment. The LPC has in effect taken steps to remedy the situation for future candidates. `It cannot, however, undo the harm caused to the candidates who wrote these exams and were unsuccessful. That is cause for considerable concern. We trust that the LPC will take the necessary steps to avoid such an outcome in the future.`The LPC told News24 it noted the report and the newly reconstituted council `will consider the recommendations as well as other additional measures that can be implemented`. It stressed `many of the changes` recommended by the Ombud `have already been implemented and results of these initiatives have already begun to show positive outcomes`. `The report will be placed before the new council`s education accreditations and standards committee which will continue to oversee, monitor and guide on all our education initiatives - which have already begun to show major improvements judging by the last exams,` LPC spokesperson Kabelo Letebele said.The Ombud revealed in its report on the exam results the previous LPC education, standard and accreditation committee `was of the view that many candidates did not adequately prepare for the examination` and `did not properly read questions and it resulted in candidates giving general answers`. According to the Ombud, the LPC recorded `it has over the years become increasingly concerned with the poor performance of candidates in the competency-based examinations and has over the past three years made an effort to understand the factors which contributed to the poor performance`.It appeared from many of the LPC`s responses to the Ombud it blamed the aspirant lawyers who failed the exams for their poor results.The Ombud, however, focused its investigation on the `examination process and its effectiveness; the quality of training and preparation provided by accredited institutions; and the examination conditions` that preceded the legal competency-based examination results released by the LPC on 15 May 2024.Those results revealed Paper 3: Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics Examination had a 4% pass rate, the conveyancing examination Paper 1: Practice and Procedure of Conveyancing had a 4% pass rate and Paper 2: Statutes and Case Law applicable to Conveyancing had a 1% pass rate. As the Ombud noted in its report, those results `sparked an outcry on the fairness of the examinations from the candidates who wrote in March and April 2024 as well as members of the profession who felt that the results showed a tendency towards exclusionary practices`.`The Ombud also received a letter from the Black Lawyers Association [BLA] expressing their concern over the conveyancing results and requesting that the office investigate the cause of the high failure rate,` the report stated, adding the BLA `further expressed their concerns over gatekeeping in the legal profession`.While it did not address these gatekeeping claims, the Ombud investigation into the examination results found the `process of setting and moderating the Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics Examination and the Conveyancing examinations for the March/April examination sittings was insufficient`.The Ombud concluded, because the Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics examinations were moderated by the LSSA virtually, `this did not give sufficient opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the paper`. The Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics examination was only reviewed by two people at the LPC, who then raised concerns the paper used the term `champerty` to refer to a litigation financing agreement. As a result, candidates were given the definition of the term during the examination.The Ombud report stated: The Conveyancing examination was not reviewed by the LPC.`Consequently, some questions in the Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics and Conveyancing examinations were vague and based on incorrect assumption. The language used also contributed to the vagueness of the questions.`The Ombud also found the `examination conditions` in the Attorneys` Practice and Legal Ethics tests - which included, in one instance, a car being set alight outside the venues - `affected the candidates` time and concentration`.While noting the LPC had already made changes to its competency-based examination system, the Ombud recommended a `rigorous moderation process be undertaken on examination questions as well as the model answers`. `This is important as it is often only upon answering a question that one identifies that there are different interpretations to the questions,` it stated. Further, the Ombud said, the LPC should avoid `as much as is practically possible, making changes to the examination paper or furnishing candidates with additional information during the examination`. `This causes unnecessary disruption and affects candidates` concentration.`In addition to recommending the LPC should consider `selling old Juta Deeds Registries Act and Sectional Titles Act and Regulations Act booklets to candidates to assist them with preparations for the examinations`, the Ombud said the council should `consider enlisting the services of conveyancers¦ to assist with the setting of the examination questions and model answers`.This, it added, could bridge `the gap between theory and what is considered a competent conveyancer`.

The Mananga Port of entry has been identified as the critical diversion route for travellers to reach Mozambique in an event of potential disruptions to the Lebombo operations caused by the announcement of results at the Mozambican Constitutional Court on the 23rd of December