• In June 2017, a refugee went to a Department of Home Affairs office to apply for the re-issue of his refugee papers that had been stolen during a robbery.
• Instead of getting help, Ntahompagaze Abdul was arrested by Home Affairs officials on a charge of being an illegal immigrant and detained for 13 days.
• The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ordered that the minister of Home Affairs pay R300 000 to the refugee for the unlawful arrest and detainment.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has ordered the minister of Home Affairs to pay R300 000 to a refugee who was unlawfully arrested at one of the department`s offices after he tried to apply for a re-issue of his refugee papers that had been stolen.
On 7 June 2017, Ntahompagaze Abdul was arrested on a charge of being an illegal immigrant after he went to the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) officers in Marabastad, Pretoria, to apply for his refugee documents - which he had lost during a robbery three days earlier.
According to a judgment handed down earlier in May, Abdul was arrested by members of the DHA. After that, he was handed over to members of the SA Police Service at the Pretoria Central Police Station, where he was detained for 13 days.
On 20 June 2017, Abdul was released when it was discovered that he had been mistakenly arrested, Judge Elizabeth Kubushi said.
`As a result of such arrest and detention, the plaintiff [Abdul] is said to have suffered an infringement of his right to physical and psychological integrity and physical liberty,` Kubushi said.
`The plaintiff has, consequently, instituted action for unlawful arrest and detention against the minister of home affairs and the minister of police. The matter is defended.`
The matter was initially set down for trial in May 2020, where it was partially settled.
`Among others, the following was by agreement between the parties made an order of court, namely, that (a) the defendant [minister of home affairs] concedes liability in respect of the plaintiff`s 100% proven or agreed damages; (b) the claim against the minister of police is withdrawn; and (c) the quantum is postponed sine die [with no appointed date for resumption].`
Kubushi said Abdul was claiming R13 000 for loss of income and general damages of R400 000, which was later increased to R600 000.
`During oral argument, the plaintiff`s counsel included a further claim for future medical expenses and related expenses in respect of the treatment of depression and anxiety.`
Post-traumatic stress disorder
As part of the matter, Abdul submitted medical reports by psychiatrists and psychologists, which spoke about his mental state following the arrest and detention.
Two specialist psychiatrists who independently examined Abdul agreed that, due to his arrest and subsequent incidents, he suffers from major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
`The psychiatrists agree that the plaintiff requires psychiatric treatment and management. They also agree that the plaintiff suffered trauma physically, emotionally and economically, but does not require protection on psychiatric grounds.`
Two clinical psychologists said Abdul`s unlawful arrest and incarceration had left him with a range of physical, emotional and psychological difficulties directly occasioned by the trauma of his experience in custody.
General damages
Kubushi said from the medical reports, it could be determined that, during his detention, Abdul could not make a phone call to inform anyone that he was incarcerated, which made him anxious.
He also could not make a phone call to get his medication brought to him.
The reports said:
During the time he could not take his medication, he developed rashes on certain parts of the body.
Abdul further told the experts that he was locked up with other inmates in a dirty, smelly holding cell with only one open toilet wherein when any person wanted to relieve themselves, they would have to do it in full view of others.
The minister of Home Affairs` counsel contended that Abdul was held at a police station and that prison would have been worse.
It was also argued that Abdul`s PTSD, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder could not solely be a result of his arrest and detention because he is from a country that experienced war in the past, which caused his parents to flee to South Africa.
Based on case law and the facts before the court, Kubushi said the R600 000 claimed by Abdul as compensation for general damages was excessive.
`A fair, reasonable and appropriate amount to compensate the plaintiff in the circumstances of this matter is R300 000,` Kubushi said.
The court dismissed Abdul`s claim for loss of income as a hairstylist.
Meanwhile, the claim for future medical expenses and related expenses was postponed as Abdul`s legal team asked for a postponement to amend its application for such a claim.

The increasing rejection rate for Schengen visa applications from Turkish citizens has brought the operations of tour companies to a grinding halt, according to a prominent industry representative.
`As of 2024, even being able to apply for a visa is a success... We don`t know exactly what percentage of those who requested a visa were able to make an appointment,` said Association of Turkish Travel Agencies (TÜRSAB) head Firuz Bağlıkaya.

Bağlıkaya lamented the challenges faced by tour operators as the rejection rate for Turkish visa applications nearly doubled in recent years. His concerns were underscored by newly released statistics from the European Commission, revealing that the rejection rate for Turkish visa applications surged from 9.7 percent in 2019 to 16.1 percent in 2023.

One of the issues highlighted by Bağlıkaya is the refusal of visa intermediary institutions to accept applications from travel agencies involved in international tour sales. Consequently, this has effectively brought the business of tour operators to a standstill, significantly impacting their ability to organize tours abroad, he said.

`Not granting a visa may be the country`s own policy, but not being able to even apply for a visa really creates a big problem,` Bağlıkaya stated.

`What was once touted as a security and quota issue has now turned into a humanitarian problem. People are being denied the freedom to travel.`

Meanwhile, appointments for U.S. visa applications for first-time applicants could be deferred until October 2025, posing additional hurdles for Turkish travelers seeking alternative destinations.



Home Affairs Refugee Centres are being raided by the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) and the Hawks. (Alex Mitchley/News24)
•    The Special Investigating Unit has raided home affairs refugee centres around the country.
•    Home affairs officials' cellphones have been seized.
•    SIU boss, advocate Andy Mothibi, and Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi were present at the Pretoria raid.
The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) simultaneously raided all five of South Africa's refugee centres on Friday morning as part of a corruption probe.
It is understood that the unit is investigating corruption linked to the issuing of asylum and refugee papers to foreign nationals entering South Africa.
With the help of the Hawks, the SIU carried out the search-and-seizure operations in Gqeberha (Eastern Cape), Pretoria (Gauteng), Musina (Limpopo), Durban (KwaZulu-Natal) and Cape Town (Western Cape), which fall under the Department of Home Affairs.
News24 was present at the raid in Marabastad, Pretoria, where more than 60 home affairs officials were understood to have been identified as suspects in the investigation.
The SIU officials quickly moved into the building and entered offices to ensure that no evidence was destroyed.
Home affairs officials' cellphones were seized and no employees were allowed to leave the premises.
SIU boss, advocate Andy Mothibi, and Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi were also present.

Foreign companies are leaving South Africa due to a hostile business environment, and the government’s response to recent departures discourages future investment.

This is according to Business Leadership South Africa CEO Busi Mavuso, who explained in her most recent newsletter that the more attractive a country is, the more often you can expect investment to be made than withdrawn.

“You can expect that foreign investors will come and go from South Africa, depending on many things, including global strategies and our links to the rest of the world,” she said. 

“But while decisions are inevitably going to happen both ways, the more attractive our country is, the more often you can expect investment to be made than withdrawn.”

She said it feels now that the withdrawal of investment from South Africa is dominating. Shell announced last week that it will exit its downstream business in South Africa, mostly its 600 petrol stations. 

Mavuso said this decision was made based on various factors, including Shell shifting away from downstream.

However, if South Africa had offered a predictable regulatory environment and stronger economic growth outlook, the decision could have been different. 

Shell’s decision came weeks after mining giant BHP announced it was interested in buying Anglo American, provided it first unbundles most of its South African assets.

Mavuso said these two instances make it clear that global giants have lost appetite. 

“People vote with their feet, capital has many addresses, and if we’re not going to make it easy to invest here, it is going to land somewhere else,” she warned.

Mavuso highlighted the political response to both companies’ decisions. She pointed to Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe, who last week threatened Shell over future exploration licenses for its upstream business.

The minister said South Africa “should be more reluctant” to grant permits and licenses to the company because of its decision. 

Mantashe also described BHP as “not positive” for South Africa and said he would vote against its bid for Anglo if he could.

“This kind of rhetoric is obviously going to be noticed in global boardrooms. It says the South African government is not one to respect the business decisions of companies,” Mavuso said. 

“While it may legally have little discretion to intervene on companies’ licenses and to block transactions, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t want to.” 

“Any company must pause and consider whether the legal position may change in the future, given that the government seems to be signalling that it is not so keen on companies acting in their own commercial interests.”

She explained the background reality is that South Africa’s mining and manufacturing sectors have been shrinking while services have been growing. 

While this has been true for the last 20 years and reflects global conditions and the rise of cheaper manufacturing bases, it is also due to the impact of policy uncertainty and the collapse of important economic infrastructure, particularly electricity supply and logistics. 

“If we want to attract companies that must make big long-term investments in fixed infrastructure, like miners and manufacturers, we must create an investor-friendly environment,” she explained. 

“Investors are aiming to maximise their returns, full stop. If we make clear that South Africa is a good place to be able to do that, companies will come.” 

However, she said South Africa has to instil confidence that the country is a business-friendly environment with a government that respects the commercial realities facing companies. 

“I can tell you that having a minister who loudly proclaims displeasure and threatens investors with consequences is only going to confirm what investors fear,” she warned. 

“The better approach is to signal regret but respect commercial decisions and redouble efforts to make South Africa attractive to investors so that next time the decision is different.”

Some have argued that foreign companies disinvesting from South Africa are not a major problem, as local investors or other foreign investors will step in. 

However, she said that is not true, as even domestic investors will keep their money on the sidelines if they perceive the potential returns to be low relative to the risks. 

Foreign investors are also important in bringing international expertise to South Africa’s economy, driving competition and ultimately improving the quality of service that end-consumers receive. 

“Thanks to our low domestic savings rate, there is simply too little domestic capital to be able to provide all the investment that the economy needs,” Mavuso said. “The fewer foreign investors that come, the poorer we are.”

Mavuso highlighted that some foreign companies do choose to invest in South Africa.

For example, Amazon Web Services last year committed to invest R30 billion in South Africa over the next 10 years, having already invested R15.6 billion and created 5,700 jobs. It is also building a R4.5 billion head office in Cape Town. 

“It does so in a welcoming environment that includes various incentives that support call centre employment, among other benefits for the company,” Mavuso said.

She explained that services companies are less exposed to the efficient working of ports, and many can create their own power sources given they are not particularly power intensive. 

“There is less regulatory risk, given it is hard to threaten services companies over licenses and other bureaucratic interventions on their businesses,” she said.

Bureaucratic procedures and a whole lot of red tape are the only things standing between Vincent and Emmanuel Tshituka and potential call-ups to the Springboks squad this year.

To the average local sports fan, the Tshituka’s are just a set of brothers casually dominating rugby games for the Lions and Sharks, respectively.

But there’s way more to their story and in order for them to reach their potential on the rugby field, the South African government in general, and the Department of Home Affairs in particular, need to come to the party.

THE BACKSTORY

Vincent Tshituka was born in Kinshasa, the capital city of conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of the Congo, and two years later his brother Emmanuel came into this world.

But because the resource-rich country was — and still is — ravaged by a decades-long conflict which has led to the deaths and displacement of the majority of its indigenous people, the Tshituka family decided to make the arduous, and not to mention dangerous, 2825km trek from Kinshasa to Johannesburg in search of a better life in 2002.

Fast forward to 2024, and the Tshituka brothers have managed to not only integrate perfectly into South African life, but they have become two of the most recognisable and adorned sporting heroes in the country. And yet, after 22 years in South Africa, they still officially documented as Congolese refugees, despite numerous attempts to gain citizenship.

DEAR HOME AFFAIRS: LET THE TSHITUKA BROTHERS PLAY

The fight with the South African government has just taken on another dimension and a new meaning now that there is more on the line than just official citizenship.

Tshituka’s are playing some of the best rugby of their careers this season for the Sharks and Lions, respectively, and based on form alone, they could well have been in the conversation for Springbok selection had it not been for Home Affairs’ bureaucratic procedures.

And with Emmanuel set to leave the Lions and link-up with his brother at the Sharks later this year, the Durban-franchise has already indicated that will be anything in their power to help expedite the process in order to allow the duo to push for inclusion in Rassie Erasmus’ Springboks squad this year.

If by some miracle the Tshituka brothers are granted South African citizenship soon, they could well become the players the greatest storyline in Springbok history.

Dear Home Affairs, please let it happen.

Give the people what they want and rubber-stamp the Tshituka’s paperwork.