Asylum directive pulled after cars torched and shops looted in Durban and Soweto
Home Affairs suspended the directive that would have opened asylum applications to undocumented foreign nationals, and President Cyril Ramaphosa says the pause is lawful and not contempt of court.
The Department of Home Affairs has suspended a directive that would have opened asylum applications to undocumented foreign nationals, after protests in Durban and Soweto in which vehicles were torched and shops were looted.
The unrest followed the announcement of the directive, which rested on a Constitutional Court ruling. The department cited safety concerns when it withdrew the measure. Torching a vehicle and looting a shop are crimes under South African law, and the people who commit them are liable to prosecution. The protests continued in some areas even after the directive was withdrawn.
President Cyril Ramaphosa defended the suspension in a doorstep interview that Central News posted on X. He said the implementation could have been premature and needed to be properly assessed, interpreted and evaluated. He added that courts do not expect government to implement rulings without first weighing their broader consequences.
“By no means is this contempt of court. We respect our courts. We are governed by a rule of law,” Ramaphosa said.
He described the suspension as a good move that would calm down the feelings of many South Africans.
As Briefly News reported on 12 October 2026, Ramaphosa said suspending the directive after the protests in Durban and Soweto was lawful and not contempt of court, despite criticism. That account is accurate on the facts it carries. What it does not carry is the detail South Africans are arguing about: what the suspension actually stops, and what it leaves running.
Social media users disputed the government’s characterisation of a full suspension. Several commenters alleged that while the in-person application process had been paused, the online process remained active.
@Faith12281 wrote: “But the online applications are proceeding what are you saying?”
@owensonO2 said: “There is no halting of the process. They are moving the process to online application. When will these people stop lying?”
@molukanele10487 wrote: “No department has suspended this for proper assessment as you say. It has moved online. Still status quo, Rams.”
@Most_HighPower asked: “What stopped them to act?”
@theflourish_er observed: “If you look at this man’s face, you can clearly see he is lying and this whole issue is making him uncomfortable.”
The department has not said publicly whether the online channel remains open, and that is the question a reader trying to understand the state of play needs answered. Until it is, the difference between a suspension and a shift in channel is a matter of claim and counter-claim, and this paper states it as such.
In a related report, Briefly News covered Ramaphosa’s response to the unrest, where vehicles were torched and shops looted. The unrest followed the Home Affairs directive to accept asylum applications after the Constitutional Court ruling, and continued even after the directive was withdrawn. Many South Africans questioned whether the government’s focus on monitoring the situation was enough.
The security cluster has been monitoring the unrest, and Ramaphosa’s public remarks on the suspension came after that monitoring was announced. What South Africans will notice is what happens at the Home Affairs counter and on the online portal in the coming days, whether the queue moves, and whether the people who torched vehicles and looted shops are held to account under the ordinary criminal law.
The Enquirer is seeking clarity from Home Affairs on whether the online asylum application channel remains open, and will report what the department says.
