The Department of Home Affairs has lost its legal battle over Zimbabwean Exemption Permits (ZEPs).
The Helen Suzman Foundation and the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA) previously took the Minister of Home Affairs Aaron Motsoaledi to court over his termination of the ZEP under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA).
The challenge was based on the grounds that the Minister’s decision was unlawful and unconstitutional and would impact over 175,000 Zimbabwean nationals holding ZEPs.
Many Zimbabweans live and work in South Africa due to their ZEPs, and many have lived there for over a decade.
In June 2023, the Pretoria High Court ruled in favour of the applicants, starting by finding Minsiter’s decision procedurally unfair and infringing on the constitutional rights of ZEP holders.
The court said that the Minister failed to conduct a fair “notice and comment” process, which meant that the decision was uniform and procedurally irrational.
“The High Court’s decision was set aside and remitted back to the Minister to conduct a fair process that considers the views and interests of ZEP holders and the broader society,” said Norton Rose Fulbright, which represented CoRMSA in their case.
Although the minister appealed the High Court’s decision, with applications to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal on 18 June 2024.
The highest court in South Africa said that the application had no reasonable grounds for success.
“The Minister of Home Affairs is now required to comply with the High Court’s order. Any future decisions regarding the ZEP must be made in a fair and just manner, ensuring that the views and interests of ZEP holders are adequately considered,” said the experts.
“The ZEP will remain effective until 29 November 2025.”

Proposed changes to the Citizenship Act fail to deal with the most serious problem: the department of home affairs
The final white paper released recently by the home affairs ministry has brought SA’s immigration landscape into sharp focus. While it highlights several areas of concern within the present immigration framework, it fails to address the deeper issue at hand: the department of home affairs itself.
A recurring theme throughout the white paper is the prevalence of fraud and exploitation in the immigration system, often facilitated by criminal syndicates. Who enables these nefarious activities to flourish? The answer clearly lies within the very institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of SA’s borders.
The minister’s assertion that legislation is outdated and contradictory overlooks the root cause of the problem. Instead of addressing internal inefficiencies and corruption, the focus is diverted towards proposed changes to laws and regulations. However, as history has shown, new laws alone cannot eradicate entrenched malpractice.
The paper laments the overburdening of the asylum system and the conflation of asylum seekers with economic migrants, yet it conveniently overlooks bureaucracy and prolonged processing times, which worsen the situation. The department’s failure to efficiently handle applications and appeals only serves to compound delays and perpetuate backlogs.
The revelation of widespread corruption and misconduct within the department, as outlined in the paper, underscores the urgent need for accountability and reform within the department. While disciplinary measures may be a step in the right direction, they fail to address the systemic issues that allow such misconduct to thrive.
Proposed changes to the immigration framework offer little solace if the underlying issues persist. Without fundamental reform within the department any attempt to overhaul the immigration system is destined to fall short.
Calls for the establishment of the long-overdue Immigration Advisory Board, immigration courts and separate appeal boards are positive steps towards improving accountability and transparency. Still, without a genuine commitment to upholding the rule of law and respecting judicial decisions, these measures may amount to little more than lip service.
Serious discrepancies
An analysis of the white paper reveals a concerning lack of progress and a failure to address key issues, as illustrated by the persistence of critical numerical discrepancies and flawed arguments.
In scrutinising the figures presented in the white paper, these become glaringly apparent. For instance, the document states that on December 2023 there were 113,007 refugees granted refugee status, as well as 81,086 active asylum seekers and 828,404 inactive asylum seekers. However, a simple arithmetical error results in a total of 1,334,174 asylum seekers and refugees, when it should be 1,022,497. This not only raises questions about the accuracy of the data; it also undermines the credibility of the entire narrative.
Moreover, the characterisation of “inactive” asylum seekers is deeply flawed. These individuals are defined solely by their absence, suggesting they may have left the country, died or obtained another status. Thus, including them in the total count of asylum seekers and refugees skews perceptions of the situation. Adjusting for this error, the total number of asylum seekers and refugees in SA is about 194,093, significantly lower than previously stated and insignificant in a country of 60-million people.
Similar numerical inaccuracies mar the discussion on citizenship. The comparison between the current Citizenship Act and its 1949 counterpart is undermined by a failure to accurately assess the data. The document claims the act is a replica of the 1949 act, yet fails to provide substantive evidence to support this assertion. In addition, the emphasis on specific provisions such as section 4(3) fails to address broader issues within the citizenship framework. A mere faction of people qualify under section 4(3) — why is this offered as the flagship example of what is wrong with the Citizenship Act?
The discussion on immigration raises further concerns. The minister seems to imply that exemptions are the primary vehicle for migrants to enter SA, when this is not the case. Nine pages are dedicated to the history of exemptions and no real reforms or new proposals are made, save perhaps to note that the minister is wasting further resources by appealing the Zimbabwean exemption permit (ZEP) judgments to the Constitutional Court. Why is this even in the white paper?
Further proposed changes, such as the abolition of certain visas and the introduction of new categories, raise questions about their efficacy and rationale. Why are useful visas such as relatives’ visas and ICT work visas being abolished without explanation?
Contradiction
What is a “limited-duration permanent residence visa” and how can it be simultaneously limited duration and permanent in nature? How will it differ from visas other than in name? How will it add impetus to economic stimulus to close down channels for immigration, and how or why will it curtail fraud?
Why should visas have their duration shortened, creating the need for more applications to be submitted to home affairs for processing more regularly? These proposals, lacking clear justification and rationale, only add to the confusion and raise doubts about the direction of SA’s migration policy.
The “final” white paper on migration policy fails to address critical numerical discrepancies and flawed arguments, undermining its credibility and effectiveness. Despite expectations for substantial revisions, the document persists in perpetuating inaccuracies and proposing questionable measures.
As stakeholders continue to scrutinise the document it becomes increasingly evident it falls short of delivering real reform. In fact, it may even be worse than the draft, further worsening concerns about the direction of migration policy in SA.
Only through genuine introspection and decisive action can SA hope to reclaim the integrity of its immigration system. Until then the veil of blame-shifting and evasion will continue to obscure the true culprit behind the nation’s immigration woes — the department of home affairs itself.

The Constitutional Court refused Home Affairs leave to appeal Zimbabwe permit decision.

The Constitutional Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal a ruling that the ZEP programme had been unlawfully terminated.
•    The court ordered the home affairs minister to meaningfully consult with the affected permit holders.
•    The matter was brought to court by the Helen Suzman Foundation.
The Constitutional Court dismissed an application by the home affairs minister for leave to appeal a June 2023 Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruling that the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) programme had been unlawfully terminated.
The court ordered the minister to meaningfully consult with the 178 000 affected permit holders, according to GroundUp.
The matter was brought to court by the Helen Suzman Foundation, which argued that the minister had not taken into account the profound impact of the termination of the ZEP programme on those who had been living and working in South Africa, legally, for more than a decade.
The Supreme Court of Appeal previously refused to entertain then home affairs minister Aaron Motsoaledi's attempt to appeal the ruling.
The Constitutional Court this week similarly declined to hear arguments in the minister's appeal.
In a unanimous decision, it simply refused leave to appeal, making no order as to costs.
In a statement this week, the foundation said: "The June 2023 judgment was unequivocal in holding that the minister is obliged to follow a fair consultation process, which duly considers the rights of those affected by terminating the ZEP, before he be lawfully allowed to do so.
"The Constitutional Court's order affirms with finality that this most basic of legal duties binds the minister, notwithstanding changes in office that may occur once a new government is formed, when deciding the ZEP's future," the foundation said.
"It is a vital affirmation – for ZEP holders and South African citizens alike – that principles of fair hearing and rational government are indispensable to our constitutional democracy."

President Joe Biden has announced a new policy that would protect hundreds of thousands of undocumented spouses of US citizens from deportation, according to administration officials.

The issue of immigration has proven an election-year headache for Mr Biden, who recently issued a sweeping executive action to curb record migrant arrivals at the US-Mexico border.

The new policy will apply to those who have been in the country for at least 10 years and will allow them to work in the US legally.

The White House believes more than 500,000 spouses will be eligible.

Speaking at an event at the White House on Tuesday, Mr Biden said the move would help the US immigration system become less `unfair` and `unjust` for the benefit of immigrants, married couples - and all Americans.

Polls show that the immigration is a primary concern for many voters ahead of the presidential poll in November.

The White House also believes the new spouses policy will benefit 50,000 young people under 21 whose parent is married to an American citizen.

It marks the most significant relief programme for undocumented migrants already in the US since the Obama administration announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or Daca, in 2012.

`The action I`m announcing today will go into effect later this summer,` Mr Biden said at the White House.

`The steps I`m taking today are overwhelmingly supported by the American people, despite what the other team says,` he added, a reference to Republicans.

The White House announcement came as the US marked the 12th anniversary of Daca, which shielded over 530,000 migrants who came to the US as children - known as Dreamers - from deportation.

On Monday, senior administration officials said that undocumented spouses of US citizens would qualify if they had lived in the country for 10 years and been married as of 17 June.

Those who qualify will have three years to apply for permanent residency and will be eligible for a three-year work permit.

On average, the White House believes that those eligible for the process have been in the US for 23 years. A majority will have been born in Mexico.

They will be `paroled in place` and allowed to remain in the US while their status is changed.

NumbersUSA, an organisation that advocates for tighter immigration controls, slammed the new policy as “unconscionable”.

The organisation’s chief executive, James Massa, said in a statement: “Rather than stopping the worst border crisis in history, President Biden has overreached his executive authority to use an unconstitutional process, circumventing voters and their elected representatives in Congress, to send a message that amnesty is available to those who enter illegally into the United States.`

Alex Cuic, an immigration lawyer and professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, told the BBC that while the action affected a `narrow group`, it marked a `start` for a segment of the US immigrant population that historically would face complications normalising their status in the country, even when eligible.

`A good majority of them [would have] to leave the country in order to come back lawfully,` he said. `It`s like they physically enter the US, but their immigration `soul` doesn`t come with them.`

By allowing beneficiaries to parole in place, Mr Cuic added, officials `kill off the need to separate families` when one spouse needs to leave the country to apply for lawful permanent residence.

The application process is likely to be open by the end of summer, a senior administration official said on Monday.

The White House is also planning to ease and speed up the visa process for highly skilled undocumented immigrants who have received degrees from US universities or who have received a job offer in their field, including Dreamers.

Mr Biden`s announcement comes two weeks after he issued a sweeping executive action that allows US officials to quickly remove migrants entering the US illegally without processing their asylum requests.

That will happen once a daily threshold is met and the border is `overwhelmed`, the White House said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, sued the Biden administration last week, arguing that it violated US immigration law with the action.

At the time of the announcement, Mr Biden urged those who consider the measure `too strict` to `be patient`.

`[In] the weeks ahead, I will speak to how we can make our immigration system more fair and just,` he said.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, said that while the two announcements `don`t intersect with each other at all`, the more recent action may help the administration `get some positive headlines after the pushback` they received over the border announcement.

`The Biden administration has been receiving a lot of flak from people saying that their focus has all been on new arrivals, when there are so many long-term undocumented immigrants stuck trying to navigate our complicated immigration system,` he added.

`I think the actions you`ve seen the president taking over the last few weeks really go towards addressing both those concerns,` Mr Reichlin-Melnick added.

But efficiency is not enough; applications must be processed fairly and approved without bias
Something appears to have shifted within the department of home affairs, sparking a glimmer of hope for visa applicants and practitioners alike.
In recent months there has been a noticeable increase in the speed at which applications are being processed. While it is too early to determine the exact cause, it is worth noting that this acceleration coincides with ongoing court cases challenging the department’s handling of immigration matters.
Whether these changes are a direct response to legal pressure remains speculative, but the progress and outcomes we’re witnessing are undeniable. This is a significant step forward, signalling a potential turnaround in the backlog that has plagued the immigration system since the reopening after the Covid lockdowns. Could this be the beginning of the end for the backlog? We cautiously hope so.
It’s essential to acknowledge that a number of cases are still proceeding into contempt, highlighting ongoing challenges within the system. Despite this, there is a palpable sense of improvement overall. Notably, we’ve received assurances from high-level officials that mechanisms are now in place to address the backlog.
This affirmation from top-level authorities provides a glimmer of hope and lends credence to the notion that substantive changes are under way within the department. It’s encouraging to see concrete steps being taken to tackle the backlog head-on, signalling a commitment to resolving long-standing issues and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the immigration system.
Frustration
However, amid this progress it’s still important to acknowledge the persistent shortcomings within the department. Wrongful rejections continue to occur, causing frustration and disappointment for applicants and their families. The lack of properly trained officials and their unfamiliarity with immigration laws and constitutional duties only worsens the problem.
It’s imperative for the department to prioritise the appointment of knowledgeable and accountable officials who understand the gravity of their roles. Responsiveness and transparency must become the norm, replacing the culture of rudeness and unhelpfulness. Applicants deserve better, and the impact of wrongful rejections on their lives cannot be overstated.
The long-awaited creation of the Immigration Advisory Board, as mandated by law, remains pending. Establishing this board would provide essential guidance and oversight, ensuring that immigration policies and practices align with legal requirements and humanitarian principles.
While there’s a glimmer of hope with recent improvements, there’s still much work to be done. The department must continue moving in the right direction, addressing systemic issues and striving for excellence in its operations. This includes not only processing visas and permits more efficiently but also making fairer and more informed decisions.
Let’s pave the way for an SA that not only processes visas and permits efficiently but also extends a warm embrace to those who seek to make it their home.
We earnestly hope for the continuation of this positive momentum now that the elections are over. Our aspiration extends beyond continuity; we envision an upward trajectory where the immigration process becomes not just expedited, but welcoming and inclusive.
The goal is clear: visa and permit applications should be processed promptly, ideally within two to three months for visas and eight months for permanent residency and citizenship applications. However, mere efficiency is not enough; applications must also be met with open arms, processed fairly, and approved without bias. It’s time for the department of home affairs to shift its approach, transforming from an entity that seemingly begrudges foreigners to one that embraces them as valuable contributors to SA’s tapestry.
We need to revive the spirit of making SA great again, not through exclusion or hostility but through inclusivity and kindness. International examples abound where countries have reaped the benefits of welcoming policies towards immigrants, enriching their societies culturally, economically and socially. SA has the potential to be a beacon of hospitality and progress, but this requires a fundamental shift in attitude and approach.
As we advocate for change, let’s draw inspiration from successful immigration policies worldwide, where immigrants are not seen as burdens but as assets to be cherished. Let’s pave the way for an SA that not only processes visas and permits efficiently but also extends a warm embrace to those who seek to make it their home.
Looking ahead, uncertainty remains over the fate of the blanket waiver, set to expire at the end of June. We urge the department to extend the waiver and ensure its coverage is comprehensive, encompassing all individuals with pending visa/waiver applications or appeals, without discrimination.
Recent developments offer a ray of hope, yet the journey towards a more efficient, fair and compassionate immigration system in SA is far from over. It’s a journey that requires continued vigilance, advocacy and collaboration between stakeholders.
As we navigate these challenges let us remain steadfast in our commitment to justice, equality and the fundamental rights of all.