Home Affairs withdraws asylum directive after 24 cars torched in Durban and Soweto

Home Affairs has withdrawn a directive on the processing of asylum applications after two days of unrest in which 24 cars were torched and shops were looted in Durban and Soweto.

The department issued the directive in response to a court judgment, then pulled it once its offices were overwhelmed and officers were placed at serious risk, it said. The court had ruled that asylum seekers could not be denied access to South Africa’s asylum system on procedural grounds alone, including entering the country illegally.

Fourteen cars were burned in Durban and ten in Soweto. The Durban unrest followed a protest by a group demanding that a refugee centre stop processing asylum applications. Vehicles were overturned and set on fire, and foreign-owned shops were looted.

In Soweto, residents clashed with foreign shop owners and gunshots were heard, according to the broadcaster Newzroom Afrika. Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department spokesman Superintendent Xolani Fihla told SABC television that clashes had taken place between foreign nationals and South African nationals in the area. “At the present moment, I can confirm that no injuries have been reported,” he said.

On Wednesday the government emphasised that the judgment does not grant refugee status or permanent residence automatically to anyone who enters South Africa. Recent weeks have seen hundreds of people, reportedly including some who do not qualify for asylum, flock to government refugee centres.

South Africa has seen months of anti-illegal-immigration protest this year. Groups have demanded that undocumented foreign nationals leave by June 30. Amid international criticism, tens of thousands of people have left the country, and some were repatriated by their governments.

Migrants are often blamed for taking jobs, driving crime and straining public services. Social scientists have said those accusations are not supported by evidence. South Africa’s unemployment rate stands at about one third, and the country remains the largest economy in Africa.

As Deutsche Welle reported on 9 October, the directive was withdrawn after the protests turned violent. That account is accurate on the sequence of events. What a South African reader will also want to know is what happens at the country’s refugee reception offices now that the directive is gone.

The department has not said when or whether a replacement directive will be issued, and it has not set out how it will manage the volumes that overwhelmed its offices in the first place. Until it does, the court’s ruling stands as the operating rule. That means an asylum seeker cannot be turned away on procedural grounds alone, and it does not mean that everyone who arrives qualifies for protection.

The unrest is a matter for the police, and the law is clear on where that authority sits. No group, movement or individual may enforce immigration law. That power belongs to the state. A blockade that stops a refugee centre from processing applications is not a protest tactic. It is unlawful, and the conduct involved, including arson, public violence and looting, is criminal.

Superintendent Fihla’s confirmation that no injuries had been reported is the one piece of good news in an otherwise difficult week. It is also a reminder that the metro police were on the ground and that the clashes did not produce the casualties they might have.

What happens next depends on two things. The first is whether Home Affairs can run an asylum system that is both lawful and workable, which is the problem the court judgment exposed rather than created. The second is whether the policing response holds in the days ahead, and whether the people who burned cars and looted shops are arrested and prosecuted.

The Enquirer will keep reporting on the refugee reception offices, the court ruling and the state’s response as this story develops.