Pretoria Protests Demand Deportations After Constitutional Court Refugees Act Ruling

Demonstrators in Pretoria demanded deportations on October 8–9, 2026, as asylum applicants gathered at government offices to seek access to the protection process. The Pretoria protests disrupted operations at the Marabastad Home Affairs office.

At an October 8 briefing in Pretoria, Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said the Constitutional Court ruling did not automatically grant asylum, permanent residence or a right to stay. Kubayi chairs the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration.

“The judgment does not grant refugee status or permanent residence automatically to anyone who enters South Africa, nor does it legalise unlawful migration.”

She said officials must let people claiming asylum enter the determination process so authorities can assess their cases under the law. That is not the same as recognizing them as refugees.

The court barred procedural hurdles from ending claims before assessment

The unanimous judgment came on July 7, 2026, in Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others. The Constitutional Court upheld a lower court decision finding parts of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998 invalid.

The provisions were sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i), and 21(1B). They had allowed exclusion from the asylum system on procedural grounds, including entering South Africa outside an official port of entry, lacking an asylum transit visa or failing to report to a refugee reception office within five days.

The court’s concern was that such requirements could prevent an asylum claim from being assessed on its merits. Its approach reflects non-refoulement, the principle that a person should not be returned to a country where they may face persecution or serious harm before the protection claim receives proper consideration.

The decision concerns access to assessment, not the outcome of a claim. Applicants must still meet the legal definition of a refugee. Authorities may refuse claims that lack adequate evidence, abuse the process or otherwise fail the legal test.

Queues at Marabastad drew demonstrators to the asylum process

Hundreds of foreign nationals reportedly gathered at the Marabastad Home Affairs office to seek asylum procedures. Queues formed as early as 4:00 a.m. Staff directed applicants between lines and issued appointment slips before protesters disrupted operations.

Demonstrators held placards reading “No asylum for asylum seekers” and “South Africa is for South Africans.” They demanded that officials stop processing applications from people who entered unlawfully and deport foreign nationals without lawful status. Those are the protesters’ demands, not a description of what the judgment itself orders.

In Gqeberha, protester Khaliphile Mbanyane said citizens had sought government help to remove people she called illegal immigrants. She described the group’s aim as disrupting access to immigration offices.

“Basically, we are here to disrupt the process of them being let in, flocking in numbers to be let in the immigration office. We are here to disrupt that.”

Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, leader of the March and March movement, accused the government of failing to explain the ruling’s practical effects to South Africans. The movement also demanded that officials halt asylum processing in Durban.

Officials say an assessment can still end in refusal and deportation

Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said the government was seeking legal clarity on implementing the decision while protecting the country’s borders. She also raised the possibility of amending the Constitution to address what the government described as unintended consequences.

The government says applications are processed through five dedicated refugee reception centres nationwide. Ordinary Home Affairs offices are not intended to serve as general asylum-processing locations, even as the new instructions brought heavy demand and long queues.

The government has also sought clarification from the Pretoria High Court on whether an undocumented asylum seeker may be detained at the Lindela Repatriation Centre while an application is under consideration. The question concerns detention during processing, not whether an asylum claim must be assessed.

A completed determination may lead to rejection. If an applicant does not qualify or has no lawful basis to remain, deportation may follow the required legal process and any applicable legal remedies. The court decision does not guarantee that an applicant will receive protection or remain in South Africa indefinitely.

Confrontations blocked facilities and brought police into several cities

Demonstrations disrupted facilities in Pretoria and Durban. In Durban, protesters blocked access to the refugee reception centre for several days. A protester there said citizens felt foreign nationals were receiving faster service, saying, “We came here to show our pain. Everyone is coming in South Africa.” Another protester described the queue as stretching along the road and called the number of applicants “thousands and thousands.”

Violence followed confrontations near the Moore Road Refugee Reception Office on October 9, 2026. Police advised applicants to leave the area for safety. In Gqeberha, officers used stun grenades to disperse approximately 30 protesters outside refugee offices on October 8. Police also used rubber bullets in Durban.

Acting National Police Commissioner Puleng Dimpane said 10 vehicles were torched in Soweto and 14 in Durban. Three foreign nationals were arrested in KwaZulu-Natal.

Home Affairs withdrew its instruction while the court order remained

Home Affairs withdrew its walk-in directive after the unrest and said it would begin a “fresh process” to determine how to comply with the July order. Pulling back the instruction did not reverse the court’s judgment.

As of October 9, 2026, people who indicate an intention to seek asylum, including those who entered irregularly, must have access to the determination process. The government’s stated position and the protesters’ demands do not change the distinction between receiving a claim and granting refugee status.

A person whose claim is refused and who has no lawful basis to stay may face deportation after the applicable procedures. The court’s order prevents irregular entry alone from serving as a reason to shut out a person who has invoked asylum protection before the claim is assessed.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.