‘Why don’t the judges just run our lives’: Ngobese-Zuma fumes over asylum directive
· Citizen
The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has reopened the anti-illegal immigration can of worms with a new directive for refugee reception centres.
Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.
The directive stems from a Constitutional Court ruling in July that deemed some sections of the Refugees Act of 1998 invalid.
The court’s ruling stated that immigration status should not be a consideration when processing an asylum application, with Home Affairs setting several stipulations for the process of applicants.
“Every refugee reception office must, with immediate effect, receive every person who reports in person and indicates an intention to apply for asylum, and must assist that person to lodge an application.
“No refugee reception office may operate a policy or quota that prevents persons from obtaining effective access to asylum application process,” stated the Home Affairs notice.
Asylum applications open to all
The department signed off the notice last week, and it began circulating on social media on Monday.
The directive deals with new asylum seekers, but leaves open the possibility that old and incomplete applications could be revisited.
“A person who was previously turned away, or whose biometric data was captured or who was given an appointment without being permitted to lodge an application, must be assisted to lodge an application when he or she reports to the refugee reception office,” the notice stated.
Other stipulations include the issuing of appearance receipts to asylum seekers who could not be helped on the day, as well as exempting asylum seekers from needing any additional transit or travel permits.
‘Absolutely shocking’
March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma lamented the issuing of the directive, adding that the Constitutional Court’s ruling was an “absolutely shocking” capitulation to foreign nationals.
“It has basically deemed that each and every single person who walks into this country can claim to be a refugee and asylum seeker, without thinking of the implications,” Ngobese-Zuma stated on social media.
Ngobese-Zuma said the directive gave foreign nationals “free will” to come to South Africa to seek asylum, reiterating her group’s argument that the country’s resources were finite.
“As illegal as they are, it means that we have no need for immigration laws in this country.
“South Africans are being compromised in their own country. Even our documents are being bought like cakes at a market,” Ngobese-Zuma added.
‘The democracy we signed up for’
The challenge to the constitutionality of the Refugees Act was brought by the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town.
The non-profit praised the Constitutional Court for ensuring the country’s asylum system remained accessible to “all people seeking protection, regardless of how or when they entered the country”.
Scalabrini stressed that refugee status should depend on whether an applicant met the requirements for asylum protection, not the route they took to get to the application phase.
“The judgement made it clear that what is being rejected is legislation that allows asylum seekers to be excluded before their claims were considered on their merits.
“In the current context of hatred and xenophobic violence metered out against predominantly black African people from the African continent, the judgement includes in a strongly worded statement a rejection of xenophobic rhetoric in judicial proceedings,” Scalabrini stated.
Ngobese-Zuma questioned whether Home Affairs had the resources to handle the expected influx of foreign nationals, but took special aim at the judiciary.
“Being a South African is really tough. Is this really the democracy we signed up for? Where our voices are completely ignored even in court cases because the courts will tell us what the law is and we have to accept it because the courts say so?
“What is the use of democracy if the judges are there? Why don’t the judges just run our lives?” Ngobese-Zuma concluded.