The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) says that it is working with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research on a biometrics system that is close to being finalised.

Briefing parliament virtually on Wednesday, the department said the biometrics system will form part of an identity management policy that aims secure the identity of a child when about six hours old.  It added that the associated policy will be approved by 2023.

“The documentation of children remains an issue that the department address through various campaigns including the registration of birth within 30 days and late registration of birth,” the DHA said in its presentation.

“There should be no child who is undocumented in this era. The Department of Home Affairs is moving towards a National Identification System, which caters for the registration of all citizens and non-citizens.”

Draft policy 

A draft identity management policy published by the Department of Home Affairs in January 2021 provides additional information on how the National Identification System will work.

“It is currently possible for anyone who has not applied for an ID to successfully claim and use the identity of another person who has also not applied for an ID,” the policy statement said.

It explained that this is possible because the biometrics of South African children are not captured after birth.

“The DHA currently has no way to reliably verify that a child who presents a birth certificate as proof of identity during interactions with the department – for example, when applying for an ID for the first time – is truly the person whose birth the certificate is meant to certify.

“Any child can lay claim to the identity of another child and such instances have been recorded.”

To address these and other issues, the DHA has made the following recommendations:

• Records of persons throughout their lifespan including the capturing of the biometrics of children at birth. Where impossible, the biometrics of a parent must be linked to the birth certificate of a child;

• ID numbers based on parents. Ideally, these numbers should also be linked to their parents’ identity numbers and mother’s biometric data;

• Re-registration of children at five years of age and when possible, the biometrics of a child must be collected at birth.  A combination of different biometric data for children will be considered with options such as the photograph of the ear;

• Recognition of other sex/gender categories on identity documents

www.samigration.com

The opposition Democratic Alliance has tabled its Ease of Doing Business Bill which is aimed at cutting and reducing red tape associated with doing business in South Africa.

The private member’s bill specifically aims to deal Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIA) and the impact and cost that new regulations will have on the economy.

“Following a study into the lack of understanding of the full cost imposed by regulatory measures and the impact thereof on the economy, the South African cabinet in 2007 decided that a need exists for the consistent assessment of the socio-economic impact of regulatory measures.

“The presidency consequently issued guidelines on the conducting of Regulatory Impact Assessments in 2012, which guidelines provided for a Central Regulatory Impact Assessment Unit to be housed in cabinet under the deputy president in order to coordinate the development of Regulatory Impact Assessments.

“However, no clear compulsory measures were provided,” the DA said.

Why these measures are needed 

Assessing the impact of regulatory measures, from policy through to delegated legislation, before a final decision is made to implement that regulation will improve the effectiveness, efficiency and impact of government interventions, the DA said.

It said that conducting an evaluation of regulatory measures allows:

• The integration of multiple policy objectives and ensuring linkages of policies such as industry, competition, trade, SMME and B-BBEE, thus promoting early coordination of policies;
• The enhancement of competitiveness by reducing regulatory burdens;
• The increase of transparency and consultation when developing regulatory measures;
•  The increased involvement and accountability of decision-makers at the highest political levels when developing regulatory measures; and
• A tool for policy monitoring and an evaluation benchmark for monitoring and evaluation processes although it is not synonymous with programme/project monitoring and evaluation.

“Specifically for developing countries red tape impact assessments have the potential to contribute to poverty alleviation by reducing business entry costs and creating a regulatory environment that is friendly to small businesses, thus driving economic growth,” it said.

It added that a number of countries including the United States, the Czech Republic, Republic of Korea and Mexico have similar rules in place.

“It is necessary for South Africa to entrench this duty in legislation as it allows for certainty, uniformity and the establishment of a central RIA unit.

“Legislation also allows for the involvement of parliamentary oversight over this important function.”

The DA said that the draft Bill provides for:

• The establishment of a central administrative unit to manage the RIA process. It also provides for the fiduciary duties, functions, powers and reporting duties of the RIA unit. One of the functions of this unit will be to provide for assistance to businesses in overcoming red tape;

• The evaluation of new regulatory measures. In this regard, the draft Bill places responsibilities on ministers, members of Parliament, parliamentary committees and self-regulatory bodies when developing regulatory measures. It also provides for the mapping of such regulatory measures to determine whether a RIA is required and if so, the process to be followed. The draft bill will also provide for instances that are exempted from these processes;

• The evaluation of existing regulatory measures by Ministers and self-regulatory bodies. It further requires the development of a plan to reduce red tape and the costs thereof in existing regulatory measure

www.samigration.com

Following the President’s announcement that the country has moved to Alert Level 1, we have decided that more services will be resumed tomorrow, Thursday, 04 March 2021. The Citizenship service remains temporarily unavailable.

Online services through eHome Affairs and our partner banks will be resumed on Monday, 08 March 2021.

The following services were offered during Adjusted Lock Level 3;

• Births Registration
• Re-issuance of Births Certificates
• Late Registration of Birth (LRB) for learners and pensioners only;
• Death registration
• Applications temporary Identity certificate (TIC)
• Collection of Identity cards or documents
• Applications and collection of passports for those who are exempted to travel
• Applications for identity (Smart ID) Cards or documents for matriculants only  

In addition to those mentioned above, we are resuming the following services during Lock Level 1;

• Re-issues of Smart ID Cards and identity documents
• Registration and Solemnization of Marriages
• Amendments and rectifications
• Late Registration of Birth (LRB) for all categories
• Applications and collections of passports for all categories

www.samigration.com

Home affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi has appointed a team of experts to review several categories of permits and visas issued since May 2004, when the Immigration Act came into force, until December 2020 to determine if they were granted regularly.

All permanent residence permits, corporate permits (especially in the mining industry), study visas, work permits for professionals, citizen naturalisation and retirement visas issued over this period will be examined.

Motsoaledi told parliament’s home affairs committee on Friday that some of these permits had been granted under dubious circumstances.

The review was prompted by findings of the department’s anti-corruption unit and immigration branch, which Motsoaledi said raised “disturbing issues”.

The minister said it was offensive that wealthy individuals wanted certain favours from the permit section. “We want to pay attention to them, to see how they managed to obtain their permits,” Motsoaledi said.

The terms of reference for the team of experts, which includes forensic investigators, an advocate and a lawyer, have been developed and it has been given three months to produce a draft report of its findings. The investigation would also highlight system deficiencies in the department.

Motsoaledi also told MPs that the department was drafting guidelines on the use of discretion by the minister in approving the early naturalisation of people as instructed by public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane. This was to ensure there was a uniform approach to exceptional circumstances such as granting the naturalisation to an investor who could help boost the economy, an academic or a sports star. The guidelines would be finalised by March 15.

Mkhwebane’s report was prompted by former home affairs minister Malusi Gigaba’s use of ministerial discretion to grant SA citizenship to members of the Gupta family in 2015. 

Mkhwebane found that Gigaba had not abused his powers in granting the Guptas early naturalisation but failed to declare this to parliament within the required period of 14 days. She also found that Gigaba granted the citizenship without proper validation of the requisite exceptional circumstances.

She found that the discretion given to ministers to grant early naturalisation was too wide and there needed to be guidelines. She also ruled that the minister not only inform parliament who had been granted early naturalisation but also provide all the documentation on which this decision was based to ensure transparency.

Motsoaledi said draft amendment regulations were also being developed to detail what information an applicant for early naturalisation needed to provide in a prescribed form to motivate their application. Normally a person becomes eligible for SA citizenship through naturalisation if they have held a permanent residence permit for at least five years, among other circumstances.

The draft regulations will be published for public comment and Motsoaledi expects the final regulations to be gazetted by June.

Home affairs director-general Livhuwani Makhode told MPs the department’s human resources unit was dealing with 10 of the 16 officials implicated in the Gupta saga, the other six having left the department. The officials allegedly failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the accuracy of the information in the motivation for the early naturalisation of the Guptas.

Samigration.com

Edwin Okey Chikata Ijeoma, a professor of public sector economics at the University of Fort Hare, had his citizenship revoked by the ministry of home affairs after he fraudulently relied on a bigamous marriage to a South African woman to obtain naturalisation and citizenship

Edwin Okey Chikata Ijeoma was no intellectual slouch when he arrived in SA from Nigeria on a study permit in 1998 to pursue academic studies at the University of Pretoria. His hard work saw him obtain a PhD in economics in 2003

However, the man who became professor of public sector economics at the University of Fort Hare (UFH) in the Eastern Cape had his citizenship revoked by the ministry of home affairs after he fraudulently relied on a bigamous marriage to a South African woman to obtain naturalisation and citizenship.

Ijeoma took home affairs on review to the Bhisho high court, but in a 2020 judgment the court held the minister had not erred in finding Ijeoma had made false representations about his marital status to the department or in determining his SA citizenship was null and void.

Acting judge Mickey Mfenyana has denied Ijeoma leave to appeal her ruling, stating another court will not differ from her finding that he was disingenuous, if not dishonest, and that there was no reason to interfere with the minister’s decision.

The confirmation of the home affairs action rendering him an undesirable inhabitant of the country means Ijeoma, who previously renounced his Nigerian citizenship, has nowhere else to go.

The head of the UFH school of public administration is under suspension by the university in connection with the illegal registration of axed health MEC Sindiswa Gomba for an honours degree in public administration when she was not entitled to register for postgraduate studies.

Ijeoma was granted permanent residence in SA in the same year he graduated from Tukkies, having been exempted from immigration restrictions due to his marriage to a local woman two years earlier. In 2005 he was granted SA citizenship through naturalisation but by 2007 he had divorced his South African wife, ostensibly because the couple was unable to conceive a child.

He was then joined in SA by a Nigerian woman, Anne Tomo. Home affairs officials were tipped off that Ijeoma had committed bigamy by marrying the SA woman after Tomo in her application for permanent residence, attached a copy of her 1993 marriage to him in Nigeria.

Officials said Ijeoma’s sole mission in marrying the SA woman was to acquire citizenship.

In her original judgment, Mfenyana found Ijeoma had presented contradictory reasons for his bigamous actions — that, as an African man, he believed he was entitled to marry more than one wife; and that he represented himself as single because he was not aware SA recognised customary marriages.

She said he failed to disclose the existence of his marriage in Nigeria on three occasions: when he applied for permanent residence in SA, when he got married in the country and when he applied for citizenship.

Slating the highly qualified academic “who by his own admission is of good and sound mind and an intellectual giant”, she said it was highly improbable that, throughout his stay in the country and his encounters with immigration matters, he remained ignorant of the implications of not disclosing his Nigerian marriage.

Ijeoma told the court he obtained a permanent residence permit because of his “good and sound character” rather than his marriage to the SA woman.

He said home affairs had failed to take into account his contribution to SA as a result of his work as an academic and within the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.

Mfenyana said the exemption certificate clearly indicated the marriage was the basis for his exemption and Ijeoma had also admitted during a 2015 plea for home affairs to have compassion on him, that he obtained citizenship by naturalisation as a result of the marriage.

Home affairs provided the court with the certificate for Ijeoma’s marriage in Nigeria to dispel the notion it was a customary marriage. In any case, the Nigeria Marriage Act prohibited marriage where one of the parties was already married to another person under customary law.

In two immigration submissions in SA, when he had to indicate an immediate family member still residing in Nigeria, Ijeoma listed Anne Ijeoma as his sister.

Officials also said Ijeoma would have remained a permanent resident for five years had he not been exempted because of his marriage to the SA citizen.

Mfenyana said the court’s role was not to reconsider the minister’s decision but to review it for legality and reasonableness. The court found the minister was bound by the law, which determined the misrepresentation which Ijeoma had committed was a criminal offence.

UFH spokesperson Thandi Mapukata said she would need time to check with the university’s human resources department what steps might be taken after the court’s finding against Ijeoma.

“The university wasn’t aware of this development until now. We will contact law enforcement agencies to obtain a full briefing.”

Mapukata declined to provide a reason for Ijeoma’s suspension, but Dispatch reported in October last year that it was related to Gomba’s illegal registration.

www.samigration.com