On Friday, 9 October 2026, the Department of Home Affairs announced the emergency withdrawal of a directive issued on 28 September regarding the intake of asylum seeker applications. The move follows rapid operational chaos at Refugee Reception Offices (RROs), risks to officials, and violent protests in parts of the country.
Director-General Tommy Makhode withdrew the instruction sent to all RROs. The department described it as a purely operational measure intended to give effect to a Constitutional Court judgement on 7 July 2026 in the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Others vs Minister of Home Affairs. It stressed that the directive was issued without the knowledge or involvement of the Minister of Home Affairs or any other political office-bearer, rejecting claims that it was politically motivated. The department had opposed the original court case.
Background: The Constitutional Court ruling
The Constitutional Court declared certain provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional and invalid. These included sections that allowed authorities to bar, detain, or deport individuals seeking asylum solely on procedural or technical grounds – such as irregular entry into South Africa, lack of an asylum transit visa, or failure to report to a Refugee Reception Office within prescribed time limits – before their claims could be assessed on the merits.
The ruling emphasised the principle of non-refoulement and the need for asylum claims to be considered substantively rather than blocked at the outset by administrative barriers. South Africa has only five Refugee Reception Offices nationwide. In response, Home Affairs directed these offices to receive and process applications from anyone indicating an intention to seek asylum, including those who had entered irregularly or previously faced procedural exclusion.
Unforeseen consequences and escalation
Implementation of the directive quickly produced results the court order had not anticipated. Within days, RROs were overwhelmed by a surge in applicants. Home Affairs officials faced elevated risks, and serious threats to public safety and order emerged. On Thursday, 8 October, anti-illegal immigration groups staged protests that disrupted operations at several Home Affairs branches processing refugee and asylum applications, particularly in Soweto and Durban. Reports included violence, with vehicles torched in the Durban CBD and Soweto.
An Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration briefing the previous day had already acknowledged the pressure, noting long queues, capacity shortfalls, and the need to manage public concerns while respecting the court judgement. Officials emphasised that the ruling did not legalise unlawful migration or grant automatic rights to remain in the country, and warned against the abuse of the asylum system.
Path forward
In its Friday statement, Home Affairs said the new facts on the ground required a reassessment. It will now embark on a fresh process to determine the most appropriate and sustainable operational approach to ensure compliance with the Constitutional Court's order. No detailed replacement procedure or timetable was provided in the initial announcement.
The department reaffirmed its respect for the judiciary and the rule of law. Critically, the withdrawal applies only to the internal administrative directive; it does not overturn or suspend the Constitutional Court judgement itself, nor does it amount to a blanket halt on asylum applications.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions in South Africa's migration management: balancing constitutional and international obligations toward genuine asylum seekers against practical capacity constraints, public order concerns, and widespread frustration over irregular migration. Further details on the revised operational framework are expected in due course as government continues to refine its response.