On Thursday, in a Pretoria briefing led by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni offered a forceful and unusually personal defence of government’s handling of a growing national controversy. The controversy, which has seen long queues at Refugee Reception Offices and a flood of angry social media commentary, revolves around a Constitutional Court judgment concerning asylum seekers. But Ntshavheni’s central message was simple: the government has not been caught napping, and the current crisis is not the result of a sudden, careless decision. She pointed out that the judgment was handed down on 7 July 2026, while the public uproar only erupted on 7 October 2026. “There was no issue,” she said, for nearly three months. For her, that gap in time tells its own story: the government had been quietly working on the implications of the ruling, even if it had not felt the need to announce every step to the public. The Minister’s tone suggested a measure of frustration, not with the public’s confusion, but with the suggestion that the state had been reactive, indecisive, or indifferent. She acknowledged the anxiety and anger many South Africans feel about migration, but she insisted that the authorities have been dealing with the matter for months, long before the queues and the headlines. In human terms, she seemed to be saying: just because you do not see us working does not mean we are not working.
The core of the confusion, Ntshavheni explained, lies in what the Constitutional Court actually decided and what it did not decide. The case, Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, struck down certain provisions of the Refugees Act because they created procedural barriers that prevented some people from even accessing the asylum system. Under the old rules, people who entered South Africa irregularly, who did not hold an asylum transit visa, or who failed to report to a Refugee Reception Office within a specified period could be turned away before their claims were ever examined. The Court found that this was unconstitutional, because it could exclude genuine refugees from the process based purely on paperwork or timing, without ever hearing the substance of their fear of persecution. But the IMC was at pains to stress that the judgment must not be read as legalising unlawful migration, nor as giving anyone an automatic right to remain in the country. It is not a free pass. It is not an open border. It is not an invitation for economic migrants to pack their bags and head south. What it means is that people who wish to apply for asylum must have a meaningful opportunity to have their claims considered, rather than being automatically barred before they even get a hearing. Ntshavheni said the immediate problem arose from a misunderstanding of the directives issued by the Department of Home Affairs to Refugee Reception Offices in implementing the judgment. Those directives, she suggested, were misinterpreted, and the government would review them to ensure there was no further confusion. In other words, the panic was not caused by the ruling itself, but by the way its implementation was communicated and understood.
A large part of the problem, according to the Minister, is misinformation spreading through broadcasting platforms and social media. She noted that people are using broadcasting platforms to spread false claims, and she reminded the public that complaints about broadcasters or presenters who spread misinformation can be lodged with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa. She also took care to explain something that many citizens do not fully appreciate: the public broadcaster is not a state institution. It operates independently of government, and its content cannot be controlled or dictated by the executive. This is a subtle but important point in a democracy. People often assume that if something is aired on a public channel, it carries some official endorsement. Ntshavheni wanted to dismantle that assumption. She also addressed one of the most damaging pieces of misinformation head-on: the claim that the current situation is the result of a government decision. “The first piece of misinformation is that this is a government decision,” she said. “We must be clear, it is the Constitutional Court decision of the 7th of July 2026.” In saying this, she was not trying to distance the government from responsibility, but rather to remind South Africans of the constitutional separation of powers. Parliament makes and amends laws. The executive runs the day-to-day affairs of government and sets policy direction. The judiciary interprets the law and adjudicates disputes. The Constitutional Court is the apex court, and its decisions must be respected, even when they are inconvenient or politically difficult. This is not a weakness of democracy; it is the very structure of democracy. The Minister’s remarks were a plea for citizens to understand that government cannot simply ignore a court ruling because it is unpopular, nor can it blame the courts for doing their job. The system works through checks and balances, and that means accepting outcomes that may not always be comfortable.
At the same time, Ntshavheni made it clear that the government is not helpless and is not simply waiting to see what happens. She acknowledged that the Constitutional Court judgment has had unintended consequences, and she said the IMC has been obtaining legal advice on the options available to government. She was careful not to promise quick fixes or dramatic announcements. “We can’t just jump out and say this is what we will do; we need to be guided,” she said. The Constitution is supreme, and any response must be lawful. This may sound cautious, even bureaucratic, but it is also a sign of seriousness. She pushed back strongly against the suggestion that the government had spent the three months since the judgment doing nothing. “We have not been sitting on our thumbs,” she said. The government had approached the Gauteng Judge President regarding contradictory High Court judgments, and had made submissions ahead of court proceedings later in the month. The Judge President had even instituted a panel to deal with the matter. These are not the actions of a government that is asleep at the wheel. They are the behind-the-scenes, unglamorous workings of a state trying to navigate a complex legal landscape. Ntshavheni also said that the government had not considered it necessary to announce every step it was taking. In a culture of constant press conferences and performative politics, this is a striking statement. It suggests a preference for substance over spectacle, and an implicit criticism of those who measure competence by the number of public statements made. She was asking South Africans to judge the government by results, not by headlines, and to trust that much of the work of governance happens quietly, in meetings, legal submissions, and technical panels, far from the cameras.
One of the most important clarifications Ntshavheni offered concerned the distinction between refugees and economic migrants. She sought to draw a clear line between people fleeing persecution or war and those who enter South Africa seeking a better economic life. South African law and international refugee conventions, she stressed, do not recognise economic hardship as a basis for refugee status. “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 is a crucial point, because much of the public anger around migration stems from the belief that the asylum system is being abused by people who simply want to escape poverty at home. The Minister’s remarks were aimed at reassuring South Africans that the government understands this distinction and will not allow the asylum process to become a backdoor for economic migration. She also referred to the principle of seeking protection in the first country of safety, and she cited Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Eswatini, Namibia, Lesotho and Botswana in discussing the implications of this principle. Under international practice, refugees are generally expected to seek protection in the first safe country they reach, rather than travelling through multiple countries to choose their preferred destination. Ntshavheni said the government would have to consider the implications of this within South Africa’s legal framework and international obligations. This is a delicate issue, because South Africa has long been a generous host to refugees and asylum seekers, but it also has a sovereign right and a duty to manage its borders and protect its national interests. The Minister was walking a careful line: acknowledging the country’s humanitarian commitments while also making clear that those commitments have limits and cannot be exploited.
Finally, Ntshavheni turned to the question of fraud and abuse within the asylum and refugee system. She confirmed that the Special Investigating Unit’s investigations have already led Home Affairs to begin revoking statuses that were granted fraudulently. The revocations are being done in batches, as cases are processed, and Home Affairs will eventually provide figures on how many statuses have been cancelled. The IMC would support extending the SIU’s mandate to cover the asylum seeker and refugee system more fully. The Minister also issued a direct warning to those who deliberately abuse the system. “If you are going to try to defraud the system and apply for refugee status as an asylum seeker in the country and you know you do not qualify, the law will deal with you decisively, and we are going to deport you,” she said. This was perhaps the sternest moment of the briefing, and it was clearly intended to send a message both to potential abusers and to a South African public that is deeply concerned about corruption and weak enforcement. Ntshavheni also rejected the idea that the government should simply rush to amend the Constitution whenever it faces difficult policy or legal consequences. The first step, she said, is to determine whether existing legislation and regulations can address the problem within the current constitutional framework. Any constitutional amendment should be a last resort, not a first impulse. She also reminded citizens that they have a role to play, not through violence or vigilantism, but through Parliament and its 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. Her closing message was a reminder that democratic citizenship is not passive. It involves engagement, patience, and trust in institutions, even when they move more slowly than we would like. Ntshavheni maintained that the state’s response should not be measured only by the announcements it makes publicly. The government will continue to act within the Constitution while pursuing measures to protect South Africa’s national interests, territorial integrity, safety and security. In the end, her briefing was both a defence of the government’s record and a challenge to the public: do not mistake quiet work for inaction, and do not mistake a court ruling for a government surrender. The law is the foundation of everything, and the government intends to stand on it.