South Africa Withdraws Asylum Directive Amidst Unrest

South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn its asylum-intake instructions, a move that comes after reception offices became overwhelmed and protests turned violent in Durban and Soweto. This withdrawal, effective October 9, 2026, cancels the specific asylum seeker directive but does not invalidate a binding court ruling from July 7, 2026. The directive was an attempt to implement the court’s judgment, which prevents procedural failures alone from blocking access to the asylum system.

The directive, issued on September 28, 2026, instructed Refugee Reception Offices to accept individuals who stated their intention to seek asylum, including those who had previously been denied entry due to irregular entry into the country or missed immigration deadlines. Director-General Tommy Makhode issued this instruction, reportedly without the knowledge of Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber or other political leaders.

Court Ruling Remains Binding on Asylum Access

Despite the withdrawal of the operational instructions, the court ruling in the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town matter continues to set the terms for asylum access in South Africa. This judgment, made on July 7, 2026, established that procedural shortcomings alone cannot be used to deny individuals entry into the asylum system. The department’s decision to retract its directive means that reception offices must now adhere to the court’s order without the specific guidance previously provided.

The core of the court’s decision is that access to the asylum process is separate from the eventual decision on an asylum claim. Each application must still undergo South Africa’s formal Refugee Status Determination process, which includes an individual assessment under both South African and international law. Simply being able to apply for asylum does not automatically grant refugee status, permanent residence, citizenship, or voting rights.

Overwhelmed Offices and Public Safety Concerns Cited

The Department of Home Affairs stated that the implementation of the withdrawn directive led to “serious consequences that could not have been foreseen.” Within days of its rollout, reception offices reportedly became overwhelmed, resulting in long queues and disruptions. The department also cited risks faced by officials and raised concerns about public safety and public order, linking these issues to the decision to withdraw the instructions.

This reversal followed significant unrest the day before the withdrawal. In Durban, protests at the Refugee Reception Office on Moore Road disrupted operations and blocked access. Reports indicated that at least 14 vehicles were set on fire, and foreign-owned shops were looted.

Unrest Highlights Tensions and Damage

The unrest in Durban was mirrored in Soweto, where anti-foreigner demonstrators engaged in clashes with foreign shop owners. In Soweto, ten vehicles were burned, and there were also reports of gunshots, looting, and property damage. Police initiated investigations into multiple cases, including malicious damage to property, common assault, and public violence. Authorities in KwaZulu-Natal reported that police intervention had stabilized the situation in Durban, while in Soweto, calm had reportedly returned.

The department’s decision to withdraw the directive occurred as officials grappled with both the strain on reception facilities and the surrounding public disorder. While the specific intake instructions have been canceled, the fundamental question of how reception offices should process asylum seekers in accordance with the court ruling remains unresolved.

Awaiting a New Operational Process

The Department of Home Affairs has announced its intention to develop a “more appropriate operational approach” that will comply with the court order. However, no replacement procedure has been announced, nor has there been any explanation of how reception offices will manage applications while this new approach is being developed. The immediate challenge for the department is to establish a system for intake that respects the court’s ruling by not reintroducing the procedural exclusions that were previously rejected. For the present time, the court’s judgment remains in effect, with the department’s new process still pending.

Frequently Asked Questions