LIFE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Life partnerships differ from a marriage in that it is neither binding to the husband or the wife or both parties involved. Although the courts have decided whether an express or implied partnership exists, it becomes problematic in proving that such legal obligations exist. Life partnerships (cohabitations) are unique in that they have the same legal consequences as that of a marriage, but parties are not legally bound to each other. Life partnerships (cohabitations) are terminated either by the relationship failing or by death of either party.
The law does, however, allow couples who wish to remain unmarried to have something in writing to prove the existence of their relationship, thus constituting a contract of sort. It is in this written notarial cohabitation agreement where couples specify the legal and propriety consequences of their relationship. This type of contract can be tailored to suit the needs of the couple concerned
NOTARIZING A COHABITATION (LIFE PARTNERSHIP) AGREEMENT
In certain Visa applications at the Department of Home Affairs, the Life Partnership Agreement notarised by a Notary Public can be a requirement.This could include applying for a valid spousal visa in South Africa, or trying to prove the existence of a cohabitation relationship in order to register an unmarried partner in a medical aid.
A Cohabitation Agreement sets out the financial terms of a couple’s relationship, and provides protection for the parties upon death, or should the relationship fail. In case of homosexual couples, this type of agreement can assist to prove the existence of their relationship/marriage in countries were civil unions are not yet recognized as a valid union.
Notarial Contract Agreement
Brief summary of the process
In a spousal relationship, it is a requirement to conclude a notarial contract between you and your partner.
This allows for the relationship to be legally sanctioned in the country, and is an alternative to a marriage or a customary union.
It is common practice South African citizens or permanent residence holders who are in a relationship with a foreign partner to enter into a notarial cohabitation contract.
This contract sets out the rights and privileges of each party to the relationship, after which, the agreement is notarised by a notary. This agreement needs to then be signed by both parties in the presence of the Notary Public.
Once signed, the couple are issued a notarial certificate. As there are two original duplicates of the contract, this allows for the second original to be kept in the protocol of the Notary.
This second original document is then given a protocol number.
There is no standard format for this notarial contract and each one will be unique according to the parties particular requirements and circumstances.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration, Safety and Security (MHAISS) in a recent announcement, revealed its intention to implement an entry visa requirement for nationals hailing from countries that have not reciprocated Namibia’s favourable visa policies.
Etienne Maritz, the executive director at MHAISS, outlined this decision last week, highlighting its aim to foster fair and balanced diplomatic relations.
The directive, set to impact citizens from 31 nations, including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, and the United States, comes as a response to years of one-sided goodwill gestures from Namibia.
Maritz underscored Namibia’s history of extending favorable treatment to nationals of various countries without receiving commensurate treatment in return.
Maritz indicated that the ministry would disseminate information regarding the implementation date and application procedures through diplomatic channels at a later stage. Upon arrival in Namibia, nationals from the affected countries will be issued visas, subject to an applicable fee and an online visa application process.
Importantly, Maritz stressed that the measure is not intended to impede legitimate travel but rather to uphold the principle of reciprocity in international relations. Namibia remains steadfast in its commitment to nurturing positive and mutually beneficial diplomatic relations while continuing to welcome visitors and tourists.
The ministry plans to furnish travelers from the affected countries with comprehensive guidelines and procedures for visa issuance, ensuring clarity and transparency in the process.

Spouses and children of South African (SA) citizens and permanent residents were prohibited from changing their Visitor’s Visas, used to enter South Africa, to other types of longer term visas, for example relative’s visas, study visas and work visas. These applicants had to travel abroad (to their home countries, although they perceived SA as their home country) file the required longer term visa application at the South African Mission, obtain the visa and then return to South Africa. This meant in practice that families were torn apart, the spouses’ right to cohabitation and children’s rights to dignity were infringed whilst the visa formalities had to be met.
Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Act, that imposed the restriction of change of status from a Visitor’s Visa to a longer term visa on spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents was however not applicable to the spouses and children when the applicant was an accompanying spouse or child of a holder of a business or work visa, who wishes to apply for a study or work visa. This meant that spouses and children of foreign nationals holding a business or work visa had more rights, in terms of the Immigration Act and Regulations, than the spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents.
This restriction imposed by Regulation 9(9)(a) on spouses and children of SA citizens and permanent residents was surely not what the legislature had in mind when the Immigration Regulations were drafted, but same was still imposed and this lead to much heartache and wasted expenditure where spouses and children had to travel abroad to submit their visa applications.
On 28 June 2019, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in a case where applicants sought to have Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Regulations declared unconstitutional on the basis that it limits the constitutional right to dignity by limiting the rights of persons to marry and cohabit, and the best interests of children by limiting their rights to family care.
The applicants argued that the lack of an exception that catered for holders of visitors’ visas who are spouses or children of South African citizens or permanent residents limited their constitutional right to dignity.
BACKGROUND FACTS TO THIS COURT CHALLENGE: NANDUTU AND OTHERS V MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS [2019] ZACC 24
This matter involved two different family units, each of which comprises a foreign spouse who is married or life partner of a South African citizen or permanent resident.
In each of these family units the spouse of the SA citizen or permanent resident was in possession of a Visitor’s Visa and wanted to apply for a longer term visa whilst in South Africa, there applications for longer term visas could not even be accommodated under exceptions that make it possible for certain Visitor’s visa holders to apply for a change in visa status from within South Africa.
That was because the exceptions did not cover their situation.  The exceptions which allows for exceptional circumstances to change a Visitor’s visa to another type of visa are contained in Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Regulations.
The main issue before the Constitutional Court was whether Regulation 9(9)(a) is constitutionally invalid to the extent that it does not extend “exceptional circumstances” to include “where the applicant is a foreign spouse or child of a South African citizen or permanent resident”.  
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING AND THE IMPACT OF THE RULING:
The majority judgment declared Regulation 9(9)(a) invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution, in that it unjustifiably limits the constitutional right to dignity and the right that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.
Relying on the Dawood case (Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs), the majority jsutices in this matter concluded that Regulation 9(9)(a) limited the right to dignity and right that a child’s best interests are paramount in every matter concerning the child.
Accordingly, the majority justices declared Regulation 9(9)(a) constitutionally invalid, suspended the declaration of invalidity for 24 months and ordered a reading-in on an interim basis of words that have the effect of adding to the exceptions under the regulation spouses or children of South African citizens or permanent residents, the following sub-section was therefore added to Regulation 9(9)(a):
‘(iii) is the spouse or child of a South African citizen or permanent resident.’
WAY FORWARD FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF SA CITIZENS AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS:
The effect of this ruling and the addition of a reading-in to Regulation 9(9)(a) is that spouses and children of South African citizens or permanent residents would not have to depart from South Africa in future when applying for a change in Visitor’s visa status. The change of status applications can therefore be submitted at VFS offices located in South Africa.
Spouses (including qualifying life partners) and children of SA citizens and permanent residents may now opt to travel to South Africa with their visa exemptions that may be valid for up to 90 days (where applicable) and apply in South Africa for a longer term work or study visa.
Regulation 9(9)(a) does not stipulate an exception for change of condition applications from Visitor’s visa to Relative visa, it will therefore be interesting to see whether the Department of Home Affairs will interpret the Constitutional Court ruling correctly or if it will take another court challenge to convince the Department. The constitutional right to dignity and rights of persons to marry and cohabit, and the best interests of children are paramount and should be protected at all times



The Border Management Authority arrested 28 foreign nationals for attempting to enter South Africa illegally.
• The Border Management Authority (BMA) apprehended 28 Bangladeshi nationals travelling from Dubai using fake documents.
• Twenty-seven of them had fraudulent visas and one had no visa at all.
• The BMA recently graduated 400 border guards, who are expected to aid in the control of people coming into and leaving South Africa.
Twenty-eight foreign nationals have been arrested for attempting to enter South Africa illegally.
During an intelligence-driven operation at OR Tambo International Airport on Saturday, the Border Management Authority (BMA) intercepted a group of Bangladeshi citizens on a flight from Dubai.
It found 27 of them to be in possession of fraudulent visas and one with no visa at all.
`The travellers were in contravention of the South African Immigration Act by possessing fraudulent travel documents. The Bangladesh nationals arrived in the country with visitors` visas and were denied entry,` said BMA commissioner Michael Masiapato.
He highlighted the importance of collaborations with embassies and foreign missions in verifying visa legitimacy and encouraged improvements on detection systems.
`I commend the diligent efforts of our immigration officers in intercepting the Bangladesh nationals. The BMA`s vigilance and commitment to maintaining the integrity of our immigration system is exemplary. This operation underscores the importance of our continuous efforts to secure our borders and ensure that all entrants comply with our legal requirements,` Masiapato added.
The BMA said 400 junior border guards were entering the system following their pass-out parade last week. More interceptions are expected across all ports of entry.

A total of 28 Bangladeshi nationals were intercepted on arrival at OR Tambo International Airport (ORTIA), the Border Management Authority (BMA) said.

It is understood the Bangladeshis were intercepted by BMA Immigration officials during an intelligence-driven operation on a flight from Dubai on Saturday.

Fake visas
With just two days before South Africa’s national and provincial elections, the BMA said it is on high alert at all ports of entry to monitor movements.

“During the operation, 27 Bangladeshis were found to be in possession of fraudulent visas and one Bangladeshi did not have a visa at all.

“The travellers were in contravention of the South African Immigration Act by possessing fraudulent travel documents. The Bangladesh nationals arrived in the country with visitors’ visas and were denied entry,” the BMA said.


High alert
BMA Commissioner Dr Michael Masiapato has commended the interception by the BMA Immigration officials and highlighted the importance of collaborations with embassies and foreign missions to verify visa legitimacy.

Masiapato also emphasised the need for continued efforts in confiscating illegal documents especially at this critical time of elections.

“I commend the diligent efforts of our immigration officers in intercepting the Bangladesh nationals. The BMA’s vigilance and commitment to maintaining the integrity of our immigration system is exemplary.

“This operation underscores the importance of our continuous efforts to secure our borders and ensure that all entrants comply with our legal requirements,” Masiapato added.

Detection
The BMA said it will continue to tighten its detection systems at the ports of entry.

“400 More BMA junior border guards are now entering the system following their pass-out parade held last week and more interceptions are expected across all ports of entry,” it said.

Last month, the BMA said more than one million people moved through South Africa’s ports of entry over the Easter weekend - up more than 24% from the previous year.