South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn a directive instructing refugee reception offices to accept asylum applications from people who approached them in person, following operational difficulties, concerns over officials’ safety and violent protests in Soweto and Durban.
The decision, announced on Friday, 9 October 2026, comes less than two weeks after the directive was issued to help implement a Constitutional Court judgment that changed how asylum seekers can access the country’s refugee system.
However, the withdrawal does not reverse the Constitutional Court’s ruling or reinstate the legal provisions that the court declared unconstitutional. The department says it will develop a new operational approach to comply with the judgment.
Why Home Affairs withdrew the directive
In a statement published by the South African government, the department said the directive was originally issued on 28 September as an operational measure to implement the Constitutional Court’s order.
The department said the instruction was issued by its Director-General without the knowledge of the Minister of Home Affairs or other political office-bearers.
It rejected suggestions that the directive was politically motivated, stating that it arose from a Constitutional Court case that the department had opposed.
“The attempt to practically implement the judgment immediately led to serious consequences that could not have been foreseen in the Court order,” the department said.
It identified overwhelmed refugee reception offices, risks to Home Affairs officials and emerging threats to public safety and order as reasons for withdrawing the directive.
The department added that it would begin “a fresh process” to determine an appropriate and sustainable way of complying with the court order.
The withdrawal follows unrest on Thursday, 8 October, when protests and clashes in Soweto and Durban turned violent. Reports indicated that at least 24 vehicles were torched across the two areas, while foreign-owned shops were also reportedly looted. Police intervened as tensions escalated.
What the Constitutional Court actually ruled
The directive followed a judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court on 7 July 2026 in Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others.
The case challenged provisions of the Refugees Act that imposed procedural barriers on people seeking asylum in South Africa.
Before the ruling, certain asylum seekers could be prevented from accessing the asylum system because they had entered South Africa outside an official port of entry, failed to report within five days of arriving or lacked the required asylum transit visa.
Exceptions depended on requirements such as providing “compelling reasons” for the circumstances. The court found that these provisions created unjustified procedural barriers that could prevent a person’s asylum claim from being considered on its merits.
The judgment also found that vague criteria, including “valid reasons”, “good cause” and “compelling reasons”, gave officials insufficiently guided discretion.
The court’s findings were linked to the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they face a real risk of persecution or other qualifying harm.
In effect, the judgment removed the unconstitutional barriers that could prevent an asylum claim from being heard before officials had properly assessed its merits.
The directive instructed Refugee Reception Offices to receive people who appeared in person to indicate that they wanted to apply for asylum. It also provided for appearance receipts where applicants could not be assisted on the day they arrived.
However, South Africa has only five Refugee Reception Offices processing asylum claims: in Tshwane, Musina, Gqeberha, eThekwini and Epping in Cape Town.
The Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration acknowledged on 8 October that the offices had been overwhelmed by the number of people arriving to submit applications.
The sudden increase in demand exposed the department’s operational challenges, including its capacity to manage queues, process applications and maintain safe working conditions.
The government also warned that misinformation had contributed to public confusion about the implications of the court judgment.
The unrest that followed included violence in Soweto and Durban, prompting police intervention and renewed concerns about public order.
Does the withdrawal mean asylum seekers can no longer apply?
Home Affairs has withdrawn its operational instruction, but the court’s findings remain in force. The department cannot simply reinstate the unconstitutional provisions that were struck down.
The withdrawal therefore does not, by itself, restore the previous restrictions on asylum applications.
The department must still determine how to manage applications in a way that complies with the court order while addressing capacity, security and administrative challenges.
The exact procedures that will apply under the department’s revised operational approach will depend on the steps it takes next.
The government has also sought to correct the impression that the judgment gives every foreign national the right to remain permanently in South Africa.
The judgment concerns access to the asylum application process. It does not automatically grant refugee status, permanent residence or citizenship to anyone who submits an application.
Applicants must still undergo the relevant assessment, and Home Affairs retains responsibility for determining whether they qualify for refugee protection under the law.
At a government briefing on 8 October, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration explained that the judgment had to be implemented within South Africa’s broader immigration framework.
The government has maintained that fraudulent, unfounded or otherwise unsuccessful claims remain subject to the applicable legal processes. The court’s decision removes unconstitutional procedural barriers; it does not mean every asylum claim must be approved.
What happens next?
Home Affairs says it will begin a fresh process to establish a practical and sustainable method of complying with the Constitutional Court’s order.
The department will have to address the operational pressures at refugee reception offices while ensuring that people seeking asylum can access the process in accordance with the law.
The challenge is to balance an orderly, secure immigration system with South Africa’s constitutional and international obligations to protect people who genuinely require refugee protection.
The court’s judgment remains the legal foundation for the next steps. Withdrawing the directive may change how the department manages applications, but it does not remove the obligation to comply with the ruling.
For asylum seekers, the central issue is therefore not whether the court’s decision has been cancelled, but how Home Affairs will implement it without recreating the unconstitutional barriers the court identified.
