It would be easy to look at the long queues and confusion outside Refugee Reception Offices and assume the government has been caught off guard. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni rejects that assumption. Speaking at the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration briefing in Pretoria, she insisted authorities have been working on migration and misinformation for months, even if they have not held press conferences about every step. The immediate trigger was a Constitutional Court judgment in the matter of Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town v Minister of Home Affairs. The judgment was handed down on 7 July 2026, but the public uproar only began around 7 October 2026, roughly three months later. For Ntshavheni, that timing matters. It suggests the ruling itself was not the problem; the problem was a wave of misunderstanding that followed. She said the government has been accused of being reactive to misinformation and irregular migration, but the truth is more complicated. Behind the scenes, officials were engaging with the judgment, preparing submissions, and trying to understand its consequences. The fact that the public did not hear about every meeting or legal step does not mean nothing was happening. In a crisis, silence can look like inaction, but Ntshavheni asked South Africans to judge the government by the work, not by the announcements. She also warned that some of the anger and fear swirling around the asylum system has been deliberately manufactured. People are using broadcasting platforms to spread false claims, she said, and there are proper channels to complain. The message was clear: do not mistake a court ruling for a government policy, and do not mistake a loud social media frenzy for the full picture. The government, she insisted, is not scrambling. It is trying to move carefully, within the law, even while the pressure mounts.
At the heart of the misunderstanding is what the Constitutional Court actually decided. The IMC stressed that the judgment must not be interpreted as legalising unlawful migration or giving anyone an automatic right to stay in South Africa. The Court declared certain provisions of the Refugees Act unconstitutional because they stopped some people from accessing the asylum system purely on procedural grounds. These were people who had entered South Africa irregularly, did not have an asylum transit visa, or failed to report to a Refugee Reception Office within the required time. The Court’s concern was that these barriers could push people out of the asylum process before their claims were ever properly assessed. In other words, the ruling was about access to a fair process, not about throwing the borders open. Ntshavheni said the immediate problem came from a misunderstanding of the directives issued by Home Affairs to Refugee Reception Offices while implementing the judgment. Those directives caused confusion, and the government would review them to make sure things became clearer. This is an important nuance. Many people heard “Constitutional Court” and assumed the country had suddenly been told to accept everyone. But the ruling was narrower. It said that if someone arrives and wants to claim asylum, they cannot be turned away simply because they crossed the border illegally or missed a deadline. Their claim still has to be examined. That is very different from saying every foreign national is now entitled to refugee status. The IMC tried to make this distinction repeatedly. Yet in the heat of the moment, nuance often gets lost. The queues at Refugee Reception Offices grew because people believed the judgment gave them a new right to apply, or perhaps a right to stay. The government’s task now is to clear up that confusion without undermining the constitutional principle that every asylum claim deserves a fair hearing. That is a delicate balance, and it explains why the government is not simply issuing dramatic statements.
Ntshavheni was particularly frustrated by the claim that this whole situation was a government decision. “The first piece of misinformation is that this is a government decision. We must be clear, it is the Constitutional Court decision of the 7th of July 2026,” she said. She reminded the public about the separation of powers. Parliament makes and amends legislation. The executive runs the country day to day and sets policy direction. The judiciary decides cases in court. The Constitutional Court is the highest court in the land, and its decisions must be respected. That does not mean the government is helpless. It means the government has to respond in a way that respects the Constitution while protecting South Africans. Ntshavheni also addressed the role of the media, especially broadcasters. She said complaints about presenters or programmes spreading misinformation can be lodged with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa. She took care to remind people that the public broadcaster is not a state institution. It operates independently. This is a subtle but important point. Many people assume the SABC speaks for government, but in South Africa’s constitutional order, public broadcasting is meant to be independent. The Minister’s comments suggest that some of the misinformation has been amplified by people with platforms, and that the government cannot simply switch off those voices. Instead, it has to rely on complaint mechanisms and on its own communication efforts. In the meantime, the IMC is looking at the unintended consequences of the judgment. The government has asked for legal advice on the options available. Ntshavheni said they cannot just jump out and announce what they will do. They need to be guided by the law. This may frustrate people who want quick answers, but it is the approach the Constitution requires. The rule of law is not a convenience to be dropped when it becomes awkward. It is the framework within which all decisions must be made.
One of the most important clarifications from the briefing was about who qualifies as a refugee. Ntshavheni drew a clear line between people fleeing persecution or war and people who come to South Africa for economic reasons. Under South African law, the Constitution, and international refugee conventions, economic hardship alone does not make someone a refugee. “There is no economic refugee that is provided for in our Constitution, in our laws and in the international conventions of the United Nations,” she said. This matters because the public debate has often blurred the two groups. Someone escaping war or political persecution has a legitimate claim to protection. Someone crossing the border to find work or escape poverty is in a different category. That does not mean they are criminals, but it does mean they are not automatically refugees. Ntshavheni also referred to the principle of seeking protection in the first country of safety. She cited Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Eswatini, Namibia, Lesotho and Botswana. The idea is that asylum seekers should generally apply in the first safe country they reach, rather than travelling through several countries to choose a preferred destination. The government will have to consider how this principle fits with South Africa’s legal framework and international obligations. This is a complicated area. South Africa shares borders with several countries, and migration patterns are deeply tied to regional economics and politics. The Minister was not announcing a new policy; she was explaining the legal reality. The government is still working through the implications. But her remarks signal that the state is aware of the need to manage migration in a way that is both humane and orderly. It cannot simply open its doors to everyone facing economic difficulty, because that would overwhelm the asylum system and undermine protection for those who truly need it. At the same time, it cannot ignore international law. The challenge is to find a path that is fair, lawful, and sustainable.
Beyond the court ruling, the government is also dealing with fraud. Ntshavheni confirmed that work from Special Investigating Unit investigations has already led Home Affairs to begin revoking refugee and asylum statuses that were granted fraudulently. The revocations are being done in batches as cases are processed. Eventually, Home Affairs will provide figures on how many statuses have been revoked. The IMC supports extending the SIU’s mandate to cover the asylum seeker and refugee system more fully. The Minister also sent a direct warning to anyone thinking of abusing the system. If you try to defraud the system and apply for refugee status when you know you do not qualify, the law will deal with you decisively, and you will be deported. This is not just about the recent judgment. It is about the integrity of the entire migration system. Fraudulent statuses undermine public trust and make it harder for genuine refugees to be recognised. Ntshavheni also pushed back against the idea that the government has spent the three months since the Constitutional Court judgment doing nothing. She said the government approached the Gauteng Judge President because there were contradictory High Court judgments on related issues. It made submissions ahead of court proceedings later this month. The Judge President has instituted a panel to deal with the matter. “We have not been sitting on our thumbs. We have been doing work. There is a full submission that was done,” she said. The government simply did not consider it necessary to announce every step. This is a common tension in government communication. When officials work quietly, they are accused of inaction. When they speak, they are accused of making noise. Ntshavheni’s point is that the legal process takes time, and the public should not mistake silence for laziness. The state is also considering the broader legal and policy implications of the migration challenges. That means looking beyond the immediate crisis and thinking about how to prevent similar problems in the future.
Finally, Ntshavheni rejected the idea that the government should rush to amend the Constitution whenever a court ruling creates difficulties. She said the first step is to determine whether existing legislation and regulations can address the problem within the current constitutional framework. Constitutional amendment should be a last resort, not a first reaction. This is a mature approach. Amending the Constitution is a serious step with long-term consequences. It should not be done in the middle of a panic. The Minister also reminded South Africans that they have a role to play. Citizens can raise concerns about legislation and constitutional provisions through Parliament. They can use mechanisms such as the Petitions Committee. “You must play your part and play your part in a constructive manner. Within the provisions of the laws and the Constitution of this Republic,” she said. This is an invitation to engage with the system rather than simply venting on social media. It also shifts some responsibility back to the public. If people believe a law is wrong or a court ruling is harmful, there are lawful ways to challenge it. The government cannot be expected to ignore the Constitution just because a decision is unpopular. Ntshavheni maintained that the state’s response should not be measured only by public announcements. The government will continue to act within the Constitution while pursuing measures to protect South Africa’s national interests, territorial integrity, safety and security. This is a reassuring message, but it is also a demanding one. It asks South Africans to be patient, to trust the legal process, and to participate constructively. It acknowledges that the situation is difficult and that there are no simple answers. But it insists that the answer cannot be to abandon the rule of law. In the end, the Minister’s message is both firm and careful: the government is working, the law is supreme, and the public has a part to play. That may not satisfy those who want immediate solutions, but it is the only approach that respects the country’s constitutional order.