The recent public discourse surrounding the anti-migrant protests led by Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma and her organization, “March and March,” serves as a sobering case study in the dangerous power of unchecked narrative. Ngobese-Zuma has aggressively campaigned on the platform that these protests achieved monumental societal victories, including the mass removal of undocumented migrants, a reduction in crime, and improved access to essential public services. However, a rigorous examination of the facts reveals that these claims are not merely exaggerated; they are, in many instances, demonstrably false. The danger here is amplified by major media outlets like the SABC and East Coast Radio, which provided a massive platform for these assertions without the necessary journalistic rigor, validation, or context required to protect the public from misinformation.
The most glaring discrepancy lies in the numbers used to justify the group’s “success.” Ngobese-Zuma and various media reports cited a figure of over 72,000 repatriations, directly linking these departures to their protest activities. Official government records, however, paint a vastly different picture. The Border Management Authority’s data refers to 72,906 total repatriations processed at ports of entry over a period spanning several weeks—a process that included voluntary returns and various nationalities, many of whom were legally documented. There is no evidence connecting these routine administrative actions to the protests, nor is there any justification for labeling all these individuals as “undocumented” migrants forced out by local activism. By misrepresenting this statistic, the movement created a false sense of institutional triumph.
This pattern of distortion extends to the sensitive issue of education. Ngobese-Zuma alleged that foreign children were displacing South African pupils, fueling protests outside local schools. Yet, the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education had already clarified that all students had been accommodated and that the “crisis” was essentially a fabrication. Furthermore, the South African Constitution and high court rulings are explicit: every child, regardless of nationality or documentation, is entitled to basic education. By framing the presence of migrant children as an “improper use” of resources, the rhetoric ignores both the reality of school placement operations and the legal obligations of the state, turning a logistical challenge into a source of xenophobic hostility.
The movement’s claims regarding healthcare and crime are equally hollow. Assertions that the departure of migrants has “saved millions” in public healthcare costs and protected South African lives lack any factual basis, as the health department itself does not even track the immigration status of patients. While public hospitals face well-documented systemic issues like overcrowding and staff shortages, these are long-standing infrastructural failures rather than the fault of foreign patients. Similarly, the claim that crime in Durban dropped by 28% due to these protests is a manipulation of data; that specific statistic originated from an urban management partnership established months before the protests began. It is a cynical misuse of unrelated progress to validate an anti-immigrant agenda.
Perhaps most disturbing are the grave allegations involving violent crime and “protection-fee mafias.” Ngobese-Zuma explicitly linked specific nationalities—Somalis, Pakistanis, Ethiopians, and Nigerians—to the murder of her colleague, Andile Mvuyiselwa Somgaxa, without providing a shred of evidence. While the loss of life is undeniably tragic and deserves a thorough investigation, the police have not implicated any specific nationality or foreign-owned business in the killing. By using a murder to incite hatred against foreign communities, the movement risks inciting further real-world violence. Speculation of this magnitude, when broadcast as fact, creates a volatile environment that threatens the safety of innocent people.
Ultimately, the responsibility of the media is to act as a gatekeeper for the truth, yet in this instance, the platforms failed. By airing Ngobese-Zuma’s unchecked assertions without proper scrutiny, these broadcasters amplified harmful, divisive myths that have real-world consequences for social stability. When misinformation is presented as “victory” or “fact,” it scapegoats vulnerable groups for systemic problems like unemployment and infrastructure decay. True accountability requires more than just repeating headlines; it demands that we confront the reality that these “achievements” are illusions, and that the rhetoric used to support them undermines the very fabric of a constitutional society.