(SOUTH AFRICA) – South Africa’s business visa figures have ignited a political dispute after a parliamentary reply showed the South African Department of Home Affairs approved 33 business visas in the 2025/26 financial year while more than 30,000 foreign nationals applied to register businesses during a spaza shop registration drive.

The figures, released in mid-June 2026 by the Minister of Home Affairs, also showed that the department approved only 204 business visas over the five financial years from 2021 to 2026. Those totals have sharpened scrutiny of foreign-owned spaza shops and raised questions about how many operators hold the immigration status required to run a business legally.

ActionSA Parliamentary Chief Whip Lerato Ngobeni pressed that point in a statement issued on June 12, 2026. “Government must explain how thousands of foreign-owned businesses are operating across South Africa when only 33 business visas have been approved during the most recent financial year. The numbers simply do not add up. Either tens of thousands of businesses are operating without the legally required business visas, or government has no reliable system for monitoring and enforcing compliance.”

The dispute turns on a wide gap between immigration approvals and the number of traders who came forward during a government-led registration campaign. Spaza shops, the small neighborhood convenience stores found across South Africa, have become a flashpoint in arguments over immigration control, local trading rules and enforcement.

Under South Africa’s Immigration Act, a foreign national who wants to establish a business generally must show a minimum capital investment of R5 million. That threshold was described as approximately $275,000 USD, a level far above the scale of many small township shops.

That requirement sits at the center of the controversy around the business visa figures. Critics say many small operators could not meet that capital threshold and therefore should not have qualified for business visas in the first place.

The debate has also widened beyond visa numbers alone. Allegations have focused on the use of asylum seeker permits, or undocumented status, by some foreign shop operators to bypass ordinary business visa rules.

Municipal permitting has come under separate scrutiny. Municipalities have been accused of issuing trading permits to shop owners without first verifying their immigration status with the Department of Home Affairs.

Ngobeni’s statement framed that as a monitoring failure as much as an immigration issue. Her criticism did not dispute that foreign nationals were operating businesses; it questioned whether the state could match those operations with lawful status.

The parliamentary reply from the minister added weight to that line of attack because of how low the approval numbers were. A total of 33 approvals in one financial year, and 204 over five years, stands far below the 30,000+ applications linked to the registration drive.

No broader official count of all operating foreign-run shops was included. What emerged instead was a blunt numerical mismatch between approved visas and registered business activity.

That mismatch has fed calls for a parliamentary investigation into visa fraud and compliance. South Africa’s position was described as a parliamentary investigation into visa fraud, with the Department of Home Affairs at the center of the issue.

The South African dispute has unfolded alongside separate business immigration scrutiny in the United States, though the issues involve different agencies and legal systems. USCIS and DHS are U.S. agencies; the spaza shop figures belong to the South African Department of Home Affairs.

On May 22, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued Policy Memorandum PM-602-0199, characterizing adjustment of status, the process of applying for a green card from within the United States, as “extraordinary discretionary relief.” The memo also described consular processing abroad as the “default route” for immigrant visas.

That language drew criticism from business leaders and immigration advocates in the United States, who said it marked a drastic shift for high-skilled foreign workers seeking permanent residence. Critics warned the change could force such workers to leave the country to complete residency applications.

DHS responded on May 31, 2026 with a clarification. “The Department remains committed to a fair and efficient immigration system. This guidance is intended to address status violations and ensure the integrity of the visa process; however, the majority of legitimate, qualifying applicants will continue to have access to domestic adjustment of status.”

President Trump added another layer on June 3, 2026 by issuing Executive Order 14411, aimed at “Foreign Importers of Record.” The order requires foreign-owned entities importing goods into the United States to maintain tangible domestic assets or higher bonding levels.

Officials presented that order as a customs enforcement measure. In practice, it increased pressure on foreign-owned e-commerce and logistics businesses operating inside U.S. borders.

The United States comparison has entered the South African discussion largely because both countries are tightening scrutiny around foreign-linked business activity. Yet the mechanics differ sharply: South Africa’s fight centers on whether operators of small local shops hold the right visa, while the U.S. fight centers on discretionary immigration processing and import compliance.

The contrast in official agencies is also clear. In South Africa, the Department of Home Affairs sits at the center of the dispute over foreign-owned spaza shops, business visa figures and municipal permit checks. In the United States, USCIS and DHS are handling adjustment-of-status policy and customs-related enforcement.

The figures cited in the U.S. summary included a $100,000 supplemental fee on new H-1B petitions. That number appears in the side-by-side comparison of current pressure points and reflects the wider scrutiny facing foreign-linked business activity in the United States.

South Africa’s dispute remains more immediate for township trade because it turns on thousands of visible storefronts. The government registration drive drew in more than 30,000 foreign nationals seeking to register businesses, while the official business visa approvals stayed in the tens.

That gap has made the business visa figures politically potent. It suggests either widespread noncompliance with a legal regime that demands R5 million in capital investment, or a state system that cannot track who is trading lawfully.

The capital threshold itself explains part of the tension. A rule designed for larger investments sits awkwardly beside the reality of small retail shops, creating a legal standard that few low-margin traders appear able to satisfy.

Critics of enforcement have focused on what happens after that mismatch appears. If municipalities issue trading permits without checking status against Home Affairs records, a trader can operate in plain sight while the immigration system records little or no corresponding visa activity.

Supporters of tighter controls have used the parliamentary reply to press for a fuller audit of foreign-owned spaza shops and the permits they hold. The figures have given them a simple line of attack: 33 approved visas in one year cannot easily explain business activity measured in the tens of thousands.

The numbers have also put the South African Department of Home Affairs under renewed pressure to show how it monitors compliance, shares records with municipalities and applies the Immigration Act to small business operators. Ngobeni’s statement captured the political risk for the government in a single sentence: “The numbers simply do not add up.”