A Home Affairs official has been sentenced to 35 years imprisonment in the Durban Specialised Commercial Crimes Court in KwaZulu-Natal for her involvement in a large-scale fraudulent passport scheme.

Judith Salome Zuma was convicted on charges of corruption, fraud, and violations of the Identification Act and the Immigrations Act.

The spokesperson for the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (known as Hawks), Colonel Philani Nkwalase said Zuma was arrested on December 13, 2021.

“The meticulous investigation by the Hawks together with the Department of Home Affairs revealed that she was aiding a criminal network outside her jurisdiction at the Richards Bay Home Affairs office, exploiting vulnerable South Africans by luring them with money ranging between R300 and R500 for fingerprints used to obtain illegal passports for foreign nationals. These illicit activities were conducted at the Durban Home Affairs office situated on Commercial Street during the night, weekends, and public holidays,” Nkwalase said.

He said the probe further revealed that for each fake passport issued, Zuma received R4,000 amounting to a total of R768,000 from 192 fraudulent passports.

Zuma pleaded guilty to 1,159 charges brought against her, including a R10,000 gratification charge aimed at influencing another Home Affairs official to drop an investigation against her.

Zuma was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for 192 counts of fraud, six years imprisonment for three counts of corruption, and 10 years for 192 counts of corruptly accepting gratification.

She was also sentenced to a further five years imprisonment for 385 counts of contravening the Identification Act and another four years imprisonment for 386 counts of contravening the Immigration Act. She will serve an effective 12 years imprisonment.

National head of the Hawks, Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya applauded the collaborative effort by the Department of Home Affairs, the Hawks as well as the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and said the sentence, underscores a strong stance against corruption.

“This sentence serves as a stern warning to those who corruptly or fraudulently facilitate the influx of foreign nationals in our country,” Lebeya said.

Being born in South Africa is simply not reason enough to be classified as a South African national with SA citizenship.

Many individuals think that by being born in South Africa, a child is automatically entitled to South African citizenship.
BEING BORN IN A COUNTRY

However, this is not the case. Merely being born in a country does not entitle an individual to nationality of the country concerned.

If this was the case, it would be highly likely that people would be travelling to all sorts of places they like to give birth to children so that the child may claim the nationality of those countries.
CONFUSION REGARDING SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP

A number of individuals are not aware of the proper requirements and believe that South African nationality can easily be acquired.

According to IOL, Home Affairs Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza has clarified this matter, explaining that children born in South Africa, with neither parent being South African, do not automatically acquire South African citizenship.
DEPENDENT ON NATIONALITY OF PARENTS

For a child to obtain citizenship by birth in South Africa, one of its parents must be a South African citizen at the time of the child’s birth.

The parents may have legitimately claimed nationality through being naturalised or by becoming a permanent resident of South Africa.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

However, there are several countries where all children born in that respective country are conferred citizenship at birth.

Birthright citizenship or “jus soli” is a policy whereby a child is granted citizenship by the country they are born in.

According to VividMaps, a number of countries, including Argentina, Canada and the United States offer birthright citizenship.

The United States has recognized birthright citizenship, or “jus soli” since the passing of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
ANCHOR BABIES

Critics of birthright citizenship say it encourages immigrants to travel a country and have so-called “anchor babies.”

This is true for many countries. Women might fly to places like the United States or Canada to give birth to children.

This is so that their children are entitled to the nationality of another country, regardless of the parent’s nationality.
SOUTH AFRICAN CITIZENSHIP

Nationals from other other countries might come to South Africa to have babies here.

This is because medical services in South Africa are often better than those in many other states.

They might desire acquiring South African citizenship for babies since South Africa has a relatively powerful African passport.

However, this is not possible under current legal frameworks.

Minister of labour and employment Nomakhosazana Meth has appealed to employers in the hospitality sector to comply with labour laws and regulations.
Meth was talking on the sidelines of the blitz inspections being conducted by the department on Wednesday in Gauteng restaurants. She oversaw the inspections which were conducted in collaboration with home affairs, police and the Bargaining Council for Hospitality.

“I am appealing to employers [to accept] that the honeymoon is over. We are coming for them. They must make sure that they know labour laws and regulations and if they don`t we will help them to know what the law says,” she said.

She said employers are expected to know regulations when they own businesses.

In one of the restaurants the minister visited with the inspectors in Waterfall, Midrand, it was discovered that some of the employees were foreigners without proper work documents.

Inspectors checked on the conditions of employment, whether regulations were being followed, the state of the restaurant and if the employer complied with the National Health and Safety Act.

She said employers don`t delve into the details of the documents in terms of who they are employing.


“Our main concern in the hospitality sector is the issue of noncompliance with the laws, in particular those that regulate employment. Our responsibility working with the department of home affairs and the police is to ensure that we enforce [the law],” she said.

She added that the bargaining council in the sector had discovered that some of the employees had joined an unregistered union, employers included tips as part of workers` salaries and employees were not paid minimum wage.

In one restaurant, an employer and three employees were taken in for questioning by police as the employees didn`t have the right documents.

Maggie Pooe from the Bargaining Council of Restaurants in Gauteng said the main problem was that employees were paid less than the minimum wage.

She said many workers in the sector were undocumented foreigners.

“Last week in Sandton, one restaurant was literally closed down because they were employing people with no papers - I am saying to employers, do the correct thing, comply with regulations,” she said.

Insured South Africans can see a motor vehicle claim paid out, even if they were known to be speeding.
In a case before the Ombudsman for Short-term Insurance, the insured submitted a claim for vehicle damage after they collided with a cow.
The insurer rejected the claim on the basis that the insured failed to apply reasonable care and precaution to prevent the incident.
In the complaint, the insured did not dispute the speed at which he travelled, stating that he was not aware of the speed limit applicable to the road.
The insured added that the speed was irrelevant as he could not see the due to a third-party vehicle travelling in the opposite direction, blinding his vision with its lights - meaning he could not see the cow.
The insurer acquired the services of an independent expert who retrieved the vehicle’s speed from the
diagnostic data of the vehicle, and consider the circumstances surrounding the accident.
The insurer provided evidence to show that the insured vehicle was travelling 130km/h when the incident took place.
The insurer also highlighted the following information:
• The road was poorly lit.
• There was a sign 13 km before the collision confirming the maximum speed to be travelled on the road as 80 km/h.
• There was a sign on the opposite direction warning of the prevalence of cows on the road.
• The road was travelled earlier in the day by the insured, and he was, therefore, familiar with the road
and the applicable road restrictions.
The independent expert appointed by the insurer added the following:
“The risk vehicle was travelling a maximum speed of between 125 km/h and 135 km/h within 5 seconds
before the crash, and this is between 56% and 69% faster than the speed limit for the road.
“The driver increased the stopping distance by approximately 58 meters by driving at 130 km/h.
“By doing that, an inescapable emergency was created by the driver’s own tortious conduct. When a driver engages in an activity in which certain emergencies are likely to arise, the driver must be prepared to meet them.”
“Had the incident driver opted to travel at the speed limit or appropriate speed, then he would have been in a better position to observe animals, reduce the vehicle speed and take evasive action or bring the
vehicle to a complete stop.”
With these facts, the insurer rejected the liability for the claim on the basis that the insured failed to apply the necessary due care.
Since it was clear that the insured travelled over the speed limit, the OSTI had to determine if the insured’s actions could be considered a failure to apply the necessary due care and precaution.
“The issue to be determined was whether the insurer had shown, on a balance of probability, that
the insured’s conduct was reckless,” said Nekecia van Niekerk, Assistant Ombudsman.
The insurer has to prove that the insured intentionally disregarded the maximum speed limit.
It then had to show that the incident would not have occurred if the vehicle had travelled at the right speed.
Findings
The OSTI said that there were several aspects left wanting in the insurer’s case, stating that the accident only occurred due to the speed travelled without evidence.
It was undisputed that the insured was blinded by an oncoming vehicle and did not see the animal.
Moreover, the road sign warning of the presence of animals was only present on the oncoming lane, meaning it could not be considered relevant to the insured.
In addition, it was argued that the insured could not have been familiar with the road after only having travelled on it once before the collision.
The insurer could also not speak to the position, speed or visibility of the animal.
“Based on the undisputed facts, it would have been impossible to predict the movement of the animal or for the driver to foresee the presence of an animal on the road,” said Van Niekerk.
“OSTI found that it was essential for the insurer to take cognisance of the fact that there were several intervening factors at play and that it would be unreasonable to say that by merely driving slower, the animal would have been visible, and the collision would subsequently have been avoided.”
Moreover, the OSTI questioned the insurer’s experts, as the diagnostic did not record a reaction manoeuvre, and little data was available for the expert to calculate distances accurately.
“OSTI reminded the insurer that the opinion of an expert does not automatically deem a claim accurately rejected, and excessive speed does not inevitably amount to recklessness.”
“Each matter is to be considered in its own set of facts for it to be determined whether it is
reasonable to deny liability.”
“An insurer cannot merely reject a claim without providing proof that the actions of the driver are
material to the loss.”
“OSTI found that the insurer had not discharged its onus on a balance of probability, and a
recommendation to pay the claim was issued. The insurer conceded to OSTI’s recommendation
and settled the claim.”

According to the department, the visas were acquired through misrepresentation in Tunis, Tunisia.
When a team led by SAPS detectives arrived at the farm they found the Libyans housed in military tents.

The department of home affairs has cancelled the irregularly acquired visas of 95 Libyans arrested after police uncovered a suspected military training base in White River in Mpumalanga, minister Dr Leon Schreiber confirmed.
According to the department, the visas were acquired through misrepresentation in Tunis, Tunisia.
The visa cancellations mean the affected Libyans are now undocumented foreign nationals.
The suspected military training base was raided on Friday by police acting on intelligence information.
The Libyans were found housed in military tents with military training equipment including licensed firearms.
Police also found dagga and cocaine.
Schreiber commended the team and said the department is working with other law enforcement authorities to look at all options, including deportation.
“One operation at a time, we must restore the rule of law. Following a major joint operation by Home Affairs, the SA Police Service and other law enforcement authorities, the department is on the ground ensuring that anyone who breached immigration laws is processed through the court. Respect our laws, or there will be consequences,” he warned.
Schreiber said he has instructed the department to provide full support to this multidisciplinary effort.