Overview:
A South African Retirement Visa is primarily designed for individuals who wish to settle in South Africa after retirement. However, it does offer the flexibility to engage in work or business activities under specific conditions. Applicants must demonstrate financial self-sufficiency and compliance with immigration laws.

Pros:
1. Flexible Income Requirements:
o The retirement visa focuses on proving a monthly income of R37,000 from pensions, rentals, dividends, or other passive income sources rather than requiring an upfront capital investment.
o Applicants are not required to start a business to qualify, making it ideal for retirees with steady passive income.

2. Long-Term Stay Options:
o Renewable 4-year validity with the potential to extend indefinitely.
o Allows applicants to establish a permanent base in South Africa without employment restrictions.

3. Permission to Work or Operate a Business:
o Retirees can apply for work or business permissions through endorsements.
o Enables flexibility to either work part-time, offer consultancy services, or manage a business without transitioning to a full business visa.

4. Simpler Requirements for Business Activity:
o No strict minimum investment requirements for engaging in a business when compared to the Business Visa.
o Provides an opportunity to run a smaller-scale business, ideal for consulting, freelancing, or niche ventures.

5. Tax Advantages:
o South Africa has double taxation agreements with many countries, potentially benefiting retirees managing offshore income.

Cons:
1. Financial Dependency Requirement:
o Applicants must prove sustainable passive income, which excludes active salaries or business profits.
o The minimum income threshold may be challenging for applicants without pensions or rental incomes.

2. Work and Business Permissions are Not Automatic:
o Applicants need to apply for an endorsement to work or operate a business, which can lead to additional paperwork and approvals.

3. Limited Business Scale:
o While managing a business is allowed, the retirement visa is not designed for large-scale operations requiring significant employment creation.

4. Restrictions on Employment Types:
o Jobs involving physical labor or employment through other businesses may require transitioning to a dedicated work visa instead.

2. Business Visa
Overview:
A Business Visa in South Africa is aimed at entrepreneurs and investors looking to establish or expand a business in the country. This visa requires a financial investment and a formal business plan, demonstrating the potential for economic growth and job creation.

Pros:
1. Tailored for Entrepreneurs:
o Specifically intended for those who want to actively operate or start a business in South Africa.
o Provides full flexibility to employ local staff, scale operations, and expand business ventures.

2. Investment Benefits:
o The visa demands a minimum capital investment of R5 million (or less if in key sectors or industries identified by the government).
o Encourages applicants to contribute to economic development, innovation, and employment.

3. Employment Creation Requirement:
o Applicants must create 60% of jobs for South African citizens or permanent residents.
o This requirement aligns with local development goals and builds goodwill within communities.

4. Work Authorization Included:
o No need for separate work permissions. Visa holders can directly engage in running the business they establish.

5. Potential for Permanent Residency:
o After 5 years of continuous business activity, visa holders may qualify for permanent residency.

6. Sector-Specific Benefits:
o Business visas may offer waivers on certain investment thresholds for industries like IT, renewable energy, and tourism.

Cons:
1. Higher Financial Investment Requirements:
o Applicants need to provide R5 million capital investment unless exemptions apply, making this visa less accessible to small-scale entrepreneurs.

2. Ongoing Compliance Burden:
o Businesses are subject to audits, employment verification, and B-BBEE compliance requirements.

3. Limited to Business Activities:
o Visa holders cannot engage in salaried employment outside their business activities.

4. Approval Delays:
o Processing times can take several months due to business evaluations and compliance checks.

5. Risk of Business Failure:
o The success of the visa is tied to the performance of the business. Failure to meet employment or revenue targets could affect renewal or residency applications.

Comparison Table
Aspect Retirement Visa (with Work/Business Permissions) Business Visa
Purpose Retire and potentially work/manage small business Establish and operate a business
Investment Requirement None for visa; additional investment for business Minimum R5 million (with exemptions)
Work Authorization Requires endorsement for work/business Automatically included for business

Duration 4 years (renewable) 3–5 years (renewable)

Employment Creation Requirement None 60% jobs for South Africans

Permanent Residency Path Possible with long-term renewals After 5 years of business operation

Flexibility Allows retirement and part-time business/work Full focus on business operations

Complexity of Setup Low (passive income proof) High (business plan, compliance)

Which Visa is Right for You?
1. Retirement Visa (with Work/Business Permissions):
o Ideal for individuals looking to semi-retire while having the option to engage in small-scale business or consultancy. It’s perfect for applicants with stable passive income and no interest in large business operations.

2. Business Visa:
o Best suited for entrepreneurs and investors aiming to establish or expand a business in South Africa. It offers a structured path to permanent residency but requires significant investment and compliance.

Conclusion
Choosing between a Retirement Visa with Work/Business Permissions and a Business Visa depends on your financial readiness, intentions for work or business, and long-term residency goals. The retirement visa provides flexibility for passive income earners, while the business visa suits entrepreneurs ready to make significant economic contributions. Careful evaluation of requirements, costs, and benefits is essential before deciding which visa to pursue.

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

On Tuesday, the committee approved an amendment to the bill that will allow those taken into custody to be released pending further investigation.
CAPE TOWN - Parliament’s Home Affairs committee is edging closer to finalising an Immigration Amendment Bill that seeks to improve the treatment of foreign nationals suspected of being in the country illegally.

On Tuesday, the committee approved an amendment to the bill that will allow those taken into custody to be released pending further investigation.
The bill affords foreign nationals the right to be brought before court within 48 hours of an arrest for the purposes of deportation.
In response to public hearings earlier this year appealing for the more humane treatment of women and particularly children detained on suspicion of being in the country illegally, the committee on Tuesday made an amendment to allow for their release.

But this will be under strict conditions as the Department of Home Affairs’ legal advisor, Advocate Moses Malakate explained, “The immigration officer must ensure that all the factors that have been listed have been considered, and they will also appear on the release form what has been included in the decision.”

A car accident victim is challenging a directive by the Gauteng high court which makes mediation mandatory before civil trials are heard. She demands her day in court and says she cannot afford mediation.

WHILE the Constitutional Court has declined leave to a law firm to directly approach the apex court in an urgent bid to overturn a directive introducing mandatory mediation in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, a vehicle accident victim who is also objecting to the directives will take her plight to court.
The Durban-based woman, who is left a paraplegic following the accident, will turn to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria later in June to ultimately have the directives issued by the head of the court overturned.

She said her accident occurred six years ago and she eventually obtained a court date issued in 2023 for her hearing. Her matter is scheduled to be heard in August this year, but her case is now first subject to arbitration in terms of the directive.
This follows a directive issued by Judge President Dunstan Mlambo earlier this year that the Johannesburg and Pretoria high courts no longer allocate trial dates for civil cases (cases where evidence is being led, such as damages claims).

Litigants, who in these cases want a judge to determine their issues, must first prove that they have tried to resolve their issues via mediation. A trial date will be allocated only if mediation does not resolve the issues, and they can prove via a certificate that they did try it.
The Office of the Chief Justice earlier explained that there are no alternatives as the Gauteng Divisions simply cannot cope with the heavy workload. Judge Mlambo also commented in his directive that the bulk of these cases are, in any event, settled on the day of the trial. Thus, the mediation route is the practical solution so that judges can be freed to adjudicate over other matters.

The woman will meanwhile bring her application in two parts - the first is that she and others may retain the court dates they have secured before the new directive came into force in April. The second part in which she is contesting the legality of the directive, will be heard at a later stage.
The accident victim in this new legal challenge explained that it is expected of her (and others) to first pay the mediation fees before a mediator can adjudicate her case. She explained that before the accident she was a hairdresser. As she is now wheelchair-bound, her only income is a social grant. She is also HIV-positive and struggles with health issues.

She said in an affidavit that this application is to ensure that she has her day in court. The applicant stated that the directive differentiates between plaintiff litigants and the RAF regarding the amount payable for mediation and when it's payable.
The RAF, she claims, is only liable for R15,000 per mediation, which only becomes payable 30 days after the receipt of the mediation report. A plaintiff, on the other hand, must pay the balance of the mediation fee upfront.

“If a plaintiff litigant does not pay, no mediation can be conducted and no trial date can be obtained,” she stated. According to the plaintiff, she cannot pay for mediation and this will result in her being denied justice. She also questioned the constitutional validity of the directive.

Gert Nel Inc Attorneys, through its director Gert Nel, in his now failed bid to the ConCourt, questioned whether this move for mandatory mediation is constitutionally sound. In an affidavit accompanying his urgent application, Nel said there are constitutional limits on judicial power.

At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the minister or Parliament can change the status of the permit
ZEP holders have won another court victory against the Minister of Home Affairs, but their legal battle to stay in South Africa is far from over.

The Minister of Home Affairs has failed in his bid to overturn an interim interdict, granted in favour of the Zimbabwe Immigration Federation. The interdict prevented the arrest and deportation of Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) holders.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled on Friday that the interdict must remain in place, pending further court proceedings by the Federation. The Federation is seeking a ruling that the minister has no authority at all to terminate the ZEP regime. The permit was introduced in 2009 because of the “floods” of Zimbabweans entering the country at that time.

The Federation intends to argue that only Parliament can terminate the constitutional rights of the 180,000 holders of the permits. And that the Minister was wrong in law in believing that the termination of the regime would result in their deportation which was contrary to the principle of “non refoulement”.

Complicated history
The matter has a legally complicated history. In June 2023, three judges sitting in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ruled on two matters relating to the attempted termination of the ZEP regime by the minister.

One was an application by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), in which the court granted final relief, declaring the minister’s decision to be unlawful. The court reviewed and set it aside and directed the minister to reconsider his decision following a “fair process”.

The court also granted protection to ZEP holders in the meantime.
The federation’s case was slightly different. It brought, and secured, an application (Part A) for interim relief, preventing the arrest and deportation of ZEP holders pending a review (Part B) of the minister’s decision.

The matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal in an application by the minister to have the Part A order set aside on the basis that the pending review (in Part B), was now moot, given that his appeals in the HSF matter had all been rejected and he was now “following a fair process” as, ordered by the court.
But the Federation opposed the appeal. It said an interim order was not appealable in law. Also, that it had now amended the relief it was claiming in Part B and it was raising distinct issues that had not been considered in the HSF matter.

The minister’s main contention was that the interim order could not be sustained because the review could not be litigated, given the HSF ruling. He thus claimed the order was “redundant” and should be set aside, with costs.
But the Federation argued that this was not so because it had amended its relief in the review and was now seeking a declarator that any decision to stop the ZEP regime was unconstitutional.

Judge David Unterhalter, writing for the court, said the Federation had explained that the basis for this was that the minister did not have the power to undo or revise the protections that ZEP holders have enjoyed over a long period, and that only Parliament could do so.
Also, the Federation raised an issue of law that was not part of the HSF case: that the Immigration Act permits the Minister to withdraw a right for “good cause”.

The minister, so it would be contended in Part B, did not establish the jurisdictional fact of good cause in this matter. He had acted without legal authority in doing so. And would continue to do so if he again sought to revoke the ZEP.
Judge Unterhalter said while both the HSF and federation matters had “covered the same territory”, the Federation had now raised other distinctive grounds.
These included the fact that the minister had not established “good cause”, given that the circumstances prevailing in Zimbabwe have not materially changed.
And the minister had made an error in law in that his decision was based upon the belief ZEP holders would be required to leave South Africa. But those who had fled would qualify as refugees and would enjoy protection under the principle of non-refoulement and may not be deported.

These grounds were not covered in the HSF review findings.
“The HSF order remitted the matter back to the minister for reconsideration and to do so following a fair process,” Judge Unterhalter wrote.
“The premise of the HSF order is that it is open to the minister to exercise his powers under the Immigration Act to decide whether or not to extend the ZEP regime.

“The declaratory relief (by the Federation), by contrast, is predicated upon the proposition that the minister cannot exercise this power and no point would be served in sending it back to the minister. Rather the ZEP holders enjoy constitutional rights to remain in South Africa, unless Parliament decides otherwise.”
Judge Ulterhalter said this, if granted, was “considerably more far-reaching, because it reaches into the future and is not based upon a reconsideration by the minister of his decision to terminate the ZEP regime”.

Thus the minister’s redundancy argument “cannot hold”.
He said the Part A order was not redundant because it was dependent on the final relief granted in the Part B review on grounds not determined in the HSF judgment.

In dismissing the appeal, and ordering the minister to pay the costs, Judge Unterhalter said: “I should not be understood to make any finding as to the prospects of the grounds advanced by the Federation. That awaits adjudication in the high court, in due course.”

Accusations of ‘state-enabled xenophobia’ flew in the Gauteng Division of the High Court on Wednesday as SAPS members and Home Affairs officials denied colluding with the anti-migrant group Operation Dudula.

Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX), the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) and the South African Police Service (SAPS) returned to the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Johannesburg on Wednesday for the second day of the legal challenge by KAAX and several other rights organisations against the anti-migrant organisation Operation Dudula.

As on the previous day, the gallery was packed with members of civil society organisations that supported the application. The only difference on Wednesday was the significant number of Operation Dudula members, who sat side by side in the gallery with the migrants they oppose.
Operation Dudula’s president, Zandile Dabula, was also present in the courtroom as the legal representatives for the DHA and SAPS presented their heads of argument in opposition to the applicants’ legal challenge.

On Tuesday, Daily Maverick reported that KAAX, the South African Informal Traders Forum, the Inner City Federation and Abahlali baseMjondolo filed the legal challenge in 2023 to ask the court to prevent Operation Dudula from assaulting, harassing or intimidating migrants and to stop Operation Dudula from impeding access to healthcare services and schools for the children of international migrants.
The DHA and SAPS were added as respondents to the application for allegedly failing to protect vulnerable communities from Operation Dudula’s xenophobic conduct and for allegedly colluding with or supporting the group’s activities.

State-enabled xenophobia
One of the arguments that advocate Jason Brickhill, representing the applicants, made on Tuesday was that the SAPS and the DHA colluded with Operation Dudula.
“There is clear evidence that SAPS officials have, at times, acted in concert with Operation Dudula, entering buildings and detaining individuals identified as foreign nationals, including children, without any lawful basis. That sort of collusion undermines constitutional protections and amounts to state-enabled xenophobia,” said Brickhill.

Advocate William Mokhare SC, representing Home Affairs, countered by saying, “To suggest that meeting with Dudula translates to collusion is an absurd proposition. Collusion is a very strong word; it has very strong connotations, it’s a serious allegation that cannot be lightly made, it must be made when one has got evidence.”

Mokhare said the applicants’ bid to interdict the minister of home affairs from colluding with Operation Dudula was inappropriate, and there were other remedies available.

He defended section 41 of the Immigration Act, which the applicants sought to have declared constitutionally invalid because it allows for warrantless searches without reasonable suspicion. He argued that the legislation does not authorise warrantless raids or searches of homes but simply allows immigration officers or the police to request the identification of any person, not just immigrants.
The SAPS legal team also denied all the allegations made by the applicants.
Addressing the applicants’ complaint that the SAPS had breached its constitutional duties, advocate W Isaaks maintained that the SAPS had acted within its constitutional and legislative obligations.
He denied that the SAPS failed to investigate complaints of criminal conduct by Operation Dudula members against migrants, claiming the police responded to and investigated incidents when complaints were made.

Isaaks dealt with some of the examples the applicants cited on Tuesday, including that officers at the Norwood Police Station refused to investigate and pursue charges against Operation Dudula members who threatened and assaulted traders in Orange Grove in 2022 and looted their businesses.

He said the police had opened a case of intimidation and malicious damage in that instance, and provided a case number (251/03/2022).
He turned to the killing of Elvis Nyathi, who was beaten to death by a mob in an incident that was allegedly incited by Operation Dudula in April 2022, and for which the applicants argued that no members of the anti-migrant group were arrested.
Isaaks argued that SAPS investigation into the murder led to arrests, though the case was later struck from the roll due to witness non-cooperation, which falls under the National Prosecuting Authority’s purview.

He denied that the police colluded with Operation Dudula, saying that joint operations with the DHA were lawful and necessary for identification and verification purposes, and were not conducted at the instigation of Operation Dudula.
Judgment was reserved.

‘No one will stop us’
After the proceedings concluded, members of Operation Dudula gathered outside the court, singing, dancing and bandying about the word “Makwerekwere” (a derogatory term for African foreign nationals). At the centre of the camouflage-clad crowd was the organisation’s president, Dabula.
She told Daily Maverick Operation Dudula only learnt on social media that the proceedings were happening. (The group was in fact emailed the founding affidavit in 2023.)

Responding to allegations that members of the SAPS accompanied them on raids and that foreign nationals had been arrested outside the scope of the law, Dabula said, “They’re talking about things that they don’t have proof of. For instance, they’re talking about SAPS accompanying us on our operations. There’s nothing like that.”

She insisted that law enforcement members were present only to verify documents and that any document checks followed legal procedures.
“Every time we ask you to produce your document, you’ll see or hear us saying, ‘Go, the SAPS will verify your document. Because we know we can’t physically even look at their documents … it’s within their rights, but also there’s a citizen’s arrest that we can apply as citizens of this country.”
She said Operation Dudula was the “mouthpiece of South Africans” and the nation was facing an “immigration crisis”.
“People are … seeing us as the only hope that talks about this foreign issue, and we don’t mince our words. When we’re saying that we want them to leave, we mean just that,” she said.

KAAX’s Dale McKinley said Operation Dudula did not speak on behalf of the South African public.
“There is a very small vocal minority, which is amplified on social media to make it appear as if large populations of South Africa are xenophobic. This is the point that we were making about Operation Dudula; they contested the elections as a political party, and they got fewer votes than we have members,” said McKinley