In a recent landmark Constitutional Court judgment, Chief Justice Zondo, alongside eight other Constitutional Justices, addressed the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Immigration Act and its associated regulations, focusing on the impact these provisions had on foreign nationals whose spousal relationships with South African citizens ended. The case involved two consolidated matters: the Rayment application and the Anderson application. Both applications challenged the constitutionality of provisions within the Immigration Act, specifically those concerning spousal visas and their expiration upon the termination of a marriage or a good faith relationship.
Background: The Applicants and Their Circumstances
The
applicants in both cases were foreign nationals who had entered into
marriages or good faith spousal relationships with South African
citizens. As a result of these relationships, the applicants were
granted spousal visas to reside and work in South Africa. Many of the
applicants also had children who were either born in South Africa or
acquired South African citizenship through their parents. However, when
these relationships ended, either through divorce or the termination of
the relationship, the spousal visas expired. This caused the foreign
nationals to face the dilemma of having to leave the country or apply
for a new visa or permit from outside South Africa, effectively making
their continued stay in the country unlawful.
The Rayment application
involved Tereza Rayment and her five children, while the Anderson
application concerned Richard William Anderson and three other
applicants, including his son and the minor child of another couple,
Joshua Okoth Ogada and Tanja Estella Bosch. Both groups of applicants
were adversely affected by the provisions of the Immigration Act, which
mandated that a foreign national’s spousal visa would become invalid
upon the dissolution of their relationship with a South African citizen.
Provisions of the Immigration Act Under Scrutiny
The
applicants challenged several sections of the Immigration Act and
related Regulations on the grounds that these provisions were
unconstitutional:
• Section 10(6): This section governs the
ability of a foreign national to apply for a change of visa status or
conditions. Specifically, it stipulates that a foreign national can
apply to change their visa status or conditions while in South Africa,
except in the case of a visitor’s or medical treatment visa, where
changes can only be made under exceptional circumstances.
•
Section 11(2): This provision prevents holders of a visitor’s visa from
engaging in work unless specific exceptions are made by the
Director-General.
• Section 18(2): This section states that the holder of a relative’s visa (including spousal visas) cannot engage in work.
•
Regulation 9(9): Regulation 9 outlines the circumstances under which a
foreign national may apply for a change in their visa status while in
South Africa, with a specific reference to emergency situations, such as
needing lifesaving medical treatment beyond three months.
These
provisions were challenged because they restricted the rights of foreign
nationals to continue living and working in South Africa after their
spousal relationships ended, especially when they had dependent children
who were South African citizens.
High Court Judgment and Constitutional Challenges
The
High Court of the Western Cape ruled in favor of the applicants,
declaring that the provisions in question were unconstitutional and
invalid. Specifically, the court found that these provisions were
inconsistent with the Constitution of South Africa, which guarantees
various fundamental rights, including the right to human dignity, the
right to family life, the right to equality, and the best interests of
the child.
The High Court's reasoning was that the provisions of the
Immigration Act and its regulations unjustly forced foreign nationals to
leave the country upon the dissolution of their relationships, even
though they were the parents of South African children. The termination
of the spousal relationship, according to the High Court, should not
automatically render a foreign parent’s stay in South Africa illegal,
especially when their legal obligation to care for and support their
children continued unabated.
The Constitutional Court's Considerations
Upon
appeal to the Constitutional Court, the core issue was the impact of
the Immigration Act’s provisions on the right to human dignity of the
foreign spouse and their children. The Court considered whether the
forced cessation of employment due to the expiration of a spousal visa,
and the requirement that the foreign national leave the country to apply
for a new visa, infringed on several constitutional rights.
Key points of concern identified by the Constitutional Court:
•
Impact on Human Dignity: The Court found that the provisions of the
Immigration Act, particularly sections 10(6), 11(2), and 18(2),
infringed on the right to human dignity of foreign nationals. The law
required foreign nationals to cease working and leave South Africa to
apply for a new visa or permit, which violated their ability to support
themselves and their children.
• Impact on Family Life and Best
Interests of the Child: The Court emphasized that the provisions
unjustly interfered with the right to family life and the best interests
of children, as enshrined in the Constitution, particularly in section
28(2), which states that the best interests of the child are paramount
in all matters concerning children. The Court highlighted that the
forced separation of a parent from their child due to immigration status
was an unreasonable burden that conflicted with this constitutional
principle.
• Parental Rights and Responsibilities: The
Constitutional Court also noted that foreign parents of South African
children should not be compelled to choose between their legal
obligation to support their children and complying with immigration laws
that prohibited them from working after the dissolution of their
spousal relationship.
The Constitutional Court’s Judgment
The
Constitutional Court agreed with the High Court’s findings and declared
that the provisions under sections 10(6), 11(2), and 18(2) of the
Immigration Act, as well as Regulation 9(9)(a), were unconstitutional.
The Court stated that these provisions unfairly discriminated against
foreign nationals and infringed upon several fundamental rights,
including the right to dignity, freedom of movement, and the right to
family life.
However, the Constitutional Court did not
immediately make these provisions invalid. Instead, it suspended the
declarations of invalidity for a period of 24 months, allowing time for
Parliament to amend the Immigration Act and the relevant regulations.
During this suspension period, the Court imposed certain interim
measures to alleviate the hardships caused by the unconstitutional
provisions:
1. Section 10(6)(a) was deemed to allow certain
foreign nationals, particularly parents of South African children, to
maintain their visa validity pending new applications, despite the
termination of their marriage or relationship with a South African
citizen.
2. Section 18(2) was read to allow foreign nationals on
relative visas (including spouses) to continue working in South Africa
for the full duration of their visa, even after the dissolution of their
relationship.
3. Regulation 9(9)(a) was amended to include a new
provision for parents of South African children, allowing them to
maintain their stay in South Africa while applying for a change in their
visa status.
If these constitutional defects are not addressed
within the 24-month period, the reading-in of the provisions will become
permanent, making these changes final.
Implications of the Judgment
This
judgment is a significant victory for foreign nationals who previously
held spousal visas and for their children, who are South African
citizens. The ruling underscores the primacy of family unity and
emphasizes the importance of the best interests of the child, as well as
the human dignity of foreign nationals who are parents to South African
children.
Furthermore, the case highlights the need for fairer
immigration laws that balance the state's regulatory interests with the
rights of individuals, especially those whose children are citizens. The
Court's decision ensures that foreign parents are not penalized for the
dissolution of their relationships with South African citizens,
particularly when they continue to bear legal and moral responsibilities
for their children.
By mandating that the government amend
the law to address these constitutional defects, the Court has made
clear that the rights of children and foreign nationals must be better
protected in future legal frameworks. The judgment also acts as a
reminder that constitutional rights cannot be subordinated to
administrative or procedural concerns, particularly when they impact
vulnerable individuals like children.
In sum, the Constitutional
Court's decision reaffirms the fundamental rights of foreign nationals
in South Africa, particularly the right to maintain their family life
and provide for their children, without unnecessary and arbitrary
limitations imposed by outdated immigration laws.
How can we help you
, please email us to info@samigration.com or whatsapp message me on:
+27 82 373 8415, where are you now? check our website :
www.samigration.com
Please rate us by clinking on this links :
Sa Migration Visas