Several airlines denied boarding to some international passengers on flights bound for South African airports last week, even though South Africa’s borders had reopened.

Confusion over South Africa’s entry requirements forced airlines operating flights to South Africa to refuse passage to passengers of certain nationalities, during the first few days of South Africa’s borders reopening.

SUSPENSION OF VISA FREE-ENTRY SINCE MARCH    

Visa-free entry to the Republic of South Africa, for citizens of foreign countries, was temporarily suspended at the start of the national lockdown in March.

In a document received by the Association of Southern African Travel Agents (ASATA), on 4 October, the Department of Home Affairs confirmed that visa-exemption status has been reinstated for citizens of several countries.

NATIONALITIES THAT ARE VISA EXEMPT

The letter states that the Minister of Home Affairs has reinstated visa-exemption status for citizens of the following countries, when entering South Africa:

• South Korea
• Spain
• Italy
• Germany
• Hong Kong
• Singapore
• USA
• UK
• France
• Portugal
• Iran

NATIONALS OF VISA-EXEMPT COUNTRIES ARE ABLE TO VISIT SOUTH AFRICA

The document from the Department of Home Affairs states that nationals from the 11 countries listed are free to visit South Africa provided they comply with the applicable health and hygiene protocols in place.

This comes as a result of airlines refusing carriage to passengers from certain countries when boarding flights to South Africa last week.

PASSENGERS USING SOUTH AFRICA AS A TRANSIT POINT

The document grants permission to travellers who intend using South African airports as a transit point for connecting flights to other destinations, provided health and hygiene protocols are complied with.  

 Health minister Dr Zweli Mkhize has provided answers on some of the government’s key level 1 lockdown regulations.

Responding in a written parliamentary Q&A to the Democratic Alliance, Mkhize detailed the rules in place for travellers who are arriving from other countries and those South African who cannot self-quarantine at home.

His answers are outlined in more detail below.

What happens to persons who cannot self-quarantine because of insufficient space in their own homes, but equally cannot afford to pay for government quarantine in a 4-star hotel?

South Africans that are unable to self-quarantine at home are directed to a state-run facility where they will be able to quarantine. There is no charge for the use of this facility.

Do students from other countries have to undergo weekly Covid-19 tests in line with (the level 1) regulations?

Daily commuters from neighbouring countries who attend or teach at a school in the Republic, as well as children below the age of five years, are exempted from the provisions of subparagraph (3)(b) but must comply with the re-entry requirements set out by the Department of Home Affairs.

With reference to persons visiting accepted overseas destinations on holiday but cannot access Covid-19 testing overseas, how are the specified persons accommodated upon their return? 

Such persons would need to quarantine at a designated facility for 10 days or alternatively do a Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test immediately upon entry into the country, once the results are available such person is able to apply for early release from quarantine, the period for this is process can be between 24 to 72 hours.

Under South Africa’s level 1 lockdown rules, travellers will be screened for any Covid-19 symptoms and will also be screened for contact with people who have been in contact with others who could have had Covid-19.

Travellers will also need to provide proof of accommodation addresses in case they need to self-isolate. International travel around the world has been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. Those who are found to have Covid-19 after entering the country will be required to isolate for 10 days at their own cost.

Do people visiting accepted overseas destinations on holiday have to apply for self-quarantine before their return? 

No, persons visiting accepted overseas destinations do not need to apply for self-quarantine before their return as requirements and procedures for level one have changed aligning with easing of lockdown restrictions. Persons returning into the country are required to produce negative PCR tests which are not older than 72 hours from date of travel.

The Department of Home Affairs published its updated list of high-risk countries on 19 October.

Leisure travellers from high-risk countries will not be permitted. The exception will be business travellers with scarce and critical skills including diplomats, repatriated persons, investors and people participating in professional sporting and, events will undergo the same health protocol screenings.

The previous list of high-risk destination had 60 countries. The latest update carries only 22.

The new list as follows:

• Argentina
• Bangladesh
• Belgium
• Brazil
• Canada
• Chile
• Colombia
• France
• Germany
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Iraq
• Italy
• Mexico
• Netherlands
• Peru
• Philippines
• Russia
• Spain
• United Kingdom
• USA

www.samigration.com

Foreign nationals in South Africa with special skills, especially those on intra-company transfer visas have been given a green light to apply for an extension of their visas by another two years.

This is contained in the Immigration Directive no. 15 of 2020 issued by South Africa’s Home Affairs Minister, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi on Thursday.

He said the move was meant to contribute to an environment in which economic growth is promoted through the employment of needed foreign labour, foreign investment is facilitated and that the entry of exceptionally skilled or qualified people is enabled.

Dr Motsoaledi said he had made the directive in line with the neighboring country’s immigration Act.

This waiver, he said was applicable to holders of ICT visas that expired during the lockdown, including the current period and to those which will expire by 30 June 2021.

“With the powers bestowed upon me in terms of section 31(2)(c) of the Immigration Act, 2002 (Act No 13 of 2002) decided to allow holders of legally issued Intra-Company Transfer(ICT) visas who are currently residing in the Republic of South Africa to apply for another term of 24 months for the ICT visa that they currently hold,” said the Minister.

He said those applying for the extension must prove that the local entity, branch, or affiliate of the company abroad still required the services of the ICT visa holder.

The Minister said they will also need proof in the form of verifiable documents that the skill transfer to a South African or Permanent Residence was completed during the four years of the visas as per the
initial undertaking.

“The ICT visa application will be considered as a new application with no accumulation nor continuation of the validity period of the current visa; In addition, the ICT visa shall not lead towards permanent residence;
and that the (visa) holder will remain in the employment of the designated employer for whom the initial and current ICT visa was issued. No change of employer, status or condition from current visa,”
said Minister Motsoeledi.

He added that the temporary visa concession would only be applicable to holders of legally issued intra-company visas and who are currently resident in the Republic during the lockdown.

Any further extension or modification or amendments to the terms of this concession, the Minister said will only be valid if communicated in writing.

“This Immigration Directive follows Immigration Directive No.14 of 2020 which deals with “Re-instatement of visa exemption for international travellers”,” he said.

South Africa is home to many migrant workers among them Zimbabweans most of whom are their courtesy of the Zimbabwe Exemption Permit (ZEP).

The permits are valid between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021and replaced the Zimbabwe Special Permit (ZSP) whose lifespan expired in December 2017.

A total of 197 941 holders of the ZSP permit were eligible to apply for the ZEP when the program started but only 169 000 manage to apply via the Visa Facilitation Services.

www.samigration.com

Pretoria - After 16 years of being “married” to a man she has never met, and then struggling to rectify the situation, the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has ordered Home Affairs to amend its records to state that the woman was in fact not married.

Judge Jody Kollapen issued the urgent order after another judge earlier ordered that a copy of the application had to be attached to the notice board of the court and it had to be published in a national newspaper.

This was to afford the man stated on the “marital certificate” the opportunity to object or give his side of the story to the court before a final order was issued declaring that no such marriage ever existed.

The so-called husband’s name was stated as Chao Chen on the marriage certificate. The applicant, whose name was withheld on request of the Wits Law Clinic, which was assisting her, said she had no idea who was.

Efforts to locate him were also futile. The woman has struggled for four years, since by chance discovered that she was married, with Home Affairs to rectify the situation. She eventually turned to court in desperation, but the law had to take its course and she could not immediately obtain an order nullifying the situation.

She, however, said she was desperate to have the record set straight and to resume her “unmarried” status yet again, as her “marriage” had hampered several aspects of her life.

She is HIV-positive, suffers from tuberculosis and is bipolar, and is extremely ill. In fact, she stated in court papers she had no idea how long she had to live, especially in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

She said she only discovered her marital status after she had lost her ID and tried to apply for another.

To make matters worse, she was married in community of property to the faceless Chen.

And she couldn't obtain state benefits without her ID. While Home Affairs was willing to issue her with a replacement document, this showed that she was married.

She is unemployed, a recovering drug addict and she is living with a family member who is financially supporting her.

“As a result of my circumstances, I have been unable to apply for a medical grant to assist me in obtaining the necessary medical care I need. I am also unable to enter any rehabilitation centre as a valid ID is needed.”

The woman said he had approached social workers to help her in applying for a medical grant, but without an ID document, their hands were tied too.

“Without a valid ID I am rendered helpless, as I cannot apply for any employment and I have to rely on my family for my medical and everyday needs. The whole ordeal has left me without any dignity, feeling worthless and ashamed. I am also frustrated with Home Affairs, which said they cannot rectify the situation.”

While it was clear that her “husband” did not choose to marry her because of her financial status, it was speculated that he needed to prove that he was married to remain in the country.

The woman said she did not want to die and leave her family with this mess. She also did not want a situation where Chen could live happily for the rest of his life in the country being “married to a South African citizen” if she were to die or did not rectify the situation.

www.samigration.com

The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has moved to salvage the controversial multimillion-rand Automated Biometric Identification System (ABIS) tender and slapped technology services company EOH with a R44 million penalty over delays in the implementation of the project.

After months of wrangling and negotiations over the delays, the DHA has fined EOH over the R400 million contract and has recommended it be ceded to a suitable subcontractor.

The department has since approached National Treasury seeking guidance on the matter.

EOH is contesting this penalty and the amount is under dispute.

This is not the first time EOH has been hit with a fine in recent months. In July, the company was penalised R7.5 million by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) for publishing false information in its 2017 and 2018 financial results.

The latest details of the fallout between EOH and the department were revealed in Parliament last week by home affairs minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, who presented a rescue plan for the ABIS to the portfolio committee on home affairs.

The contract was for EOH to migrate data on the current Home Affairs National Identification System, which only records photos and fingerprints of South African citizens, to the new ABIS.

The final implementation of the system would provide a single source of identification for citizens across state institutions and private sector entities.

The contract was processed and awarded by the State Information Technology Agency on behalf of the DHA.

However, the project was delayed after the missing of master files in the ABIS contract with EOH and a forensic audit is under way into the contract.

Delivery discrepancies

In his presentation to the portfolio committee, Motsoaledi revealed that out of the R400 million contract, R224 million had already been spent on services, infrastructure and software.

He also said in terms of the contract, if there are any delays in the implementation of the project, the DHA reserved the right to levy a penalty for every month of delay.

“In invoking this penalty clause, DHA levied a penalty of R43 973 141.80 against EOH because the project has already been delayed by two years. EOH is contesting this penalty and hence the amount is under dispute. The contract also stipulates that such disputes are to be mediated by a senior counsel appointed jointly by the DHA and EOH Mthombo,” he said.

The joint appointment has already been made and the mediation process is starting this week.

Furthermore, the minister said EOH has taken a decision to exit all government contracts and as part of its exit plan from the DHA contract, EOH is proposing to cede the work to a subcontractor.

“In the event of EOH exiting, the contract still needs to be salvaged because most plans of modernisation of DHA services revolves around ABIS,” Motsoaledi said.

The minister added that the legal opinion obtained by the DHA suggested that ceding is permissible, subject to certain requirements being met.

According to Motsoaledi, after meeting with officials from the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, it was decided that the DHA proceed with the ceding, provided the cession is approved by National Treasury.

“The DHA has already approached National Treasury for guidance. It is recommended that the portfolio committee notes the decision to cede the ABIS contract to a suitable subcontractor, subject to the finalisation of the negotiations and approval by National Treasury.”

Discord continues

EOH, however, has denied it is quitting government contracts.

A spokesperson says the company has noted the minister’s presentation, adding: “EOH remains committed to the project insofar as the engagements under way present viable options which are commercially sustainable for both parties.

“EOH maintains and intends to maintain its ongoing strategic relationships and engagements with the government insofar as those relationships and engagements are commercially sustainable.”

Further, in terms of the contract, EOH said it is disputing that it is the cause of the delays.

“In this regard, EOH and the DHA are proactively and constructively engaging one another through their respective attorneys with a view to securing an amicable outcome to the difficulties encountered on the Automated Biometric Identification System project to date. There are presently no arrangements or agreements in place concerning the replacement of EOH on that project, whether by cession or otherwise.”

The JSE-listed company has been battling with a myriad challenges − operational and legal.

EOH’s problems surfaced after Microsoft in February last year terminated its contract with the IT services company after an anonymous whistle-blower filed a complaint with the US Securities and Exchange Commission about alleged malfeasance to do with a R120 million contract with the SA Department of Defence.

Ever since, the company has been trying to improve its image after corporate governance issues emerged following an investigation by ENSafrica, which unearthed suspicious transactions worth about R1.2 billion