By Iroyin Yoruba Television
Hundreds of asylum seekers gathered outside the Department of Home Affairs Refugee Reception Centre on Che Guevara Road in Durban on Wednesday as tensions surrounding South Africa’s newly reopened asylum application system intensified.
The gathering followed a confrontation involving members of the anti-illegal immigration movement March and March, which had disrupted operations at the facility the previous day and prevented asylum seekers from accessing the centre.
The latest development comes after South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs instructed Refugee Reception Offices to accept asylum applications from people who indicate that they want to seek protection, including individuals who may have entered the country without valid immigration documents.
The directive followed a Constitutional Court judgment that found parts of the country’s refugee legislation unconstitutional and removed certain procedural barriers that had previously prevented some undocumented people from lodging asylum claims.
The reopening of the asylum system has created an immediate challenge for South African authorities, who must balance immigration enforcement and border control with the constitutional and international obligations to provide access to refugee protection.
ASYLUM SEEKERS RETURN TO DURBAN CENTRE
More than 100 asylum seekers gathered outside the Durban Refugee Reception Centre on Wednesday, with the large crowd reportedly affecting movement along Che Guevara Road.
The gathering followed the disruption of services at the facility on Tuesday.
People seeking access to the asylum system included men, women and families who had arrived hoping to register applications and obtain the documentation required to remain lawfully in South Africa while their claims are considered.
The presence of large numbers of applicants reflects the significance of the Home Affairs directive.
For several years, many people who entered South Africa irregularly or failed to meet certain procedural requirements were unable to access the asylum application system.
The Constitutional Court ruling has now changed that position.
Home Affairs has instructed its refugee reception offices to receive people who personally report their intention to seek asylum and to assist them with lodging applications under the Refugees Act.
The change has resulted in a sudden increase in demand at reception centres.
PROTEST DISRUPTS ACCESS TO ASYLUM SERVICES
The situation in Durban became tense after members of March and March, an anti-illegal immigration movement, gathered outside the reception centre.
The group opposed the reopening of access to the asylum system and demanded stronger enforcement of South Africa’s immigration laws.
On Tuesday, protesters disrupted operations at the facility as asylum seekers waited to enter.
Reports indicated that some members of the group confronted people in the queue, with police eventually intervening.
Wednesday’s gathering showed that the dispute had not been resolved.
The confrontation has placed the Durban Refugee Reception Centre at the centre of a wider national debate about irregular migration, asylum rights, unemployment, crime and the capacity of government institutions to process migrants.
South African authorities now face the task of maintaining public order while ensuring that people who have a legal right to apply for asylum are able to access government services.
COURT RULING CHANGED ACCESS TO ASYLUM
The current dispute is rooted in a Constitutional Court judgment delivered in July 2026.
The court considered challenges brought against aspects of the Refugees Act and procedures that had restricted access to the asylum system for people who entered South Africa without the required immigration documentation.
The court found that certain provisions and practices were unconstitutional.
The judgment strengthened the principle that a person's irregular entry into South Africa should not automatically prevent that person from seeking refugee protection.
This is particularly important because people fleeing war, persecution or serious threats may not always have the opportunity to obtain travel documents or enter another country through a recognised border post.
The court's decision therefore places greater emphasis on assessing the substance of an asylum claim rather than automatically rejecting a person because of procedural failures.
Home Affairs subsequently issued an operational directive to ensure that the department complies with the ruling.
APPLYING FOR ASYLUM DOES NOT GUARANTEE REFUGEE STATUS
One of the major points of disagreement in the current debate concerns what happens after an undocumented person is allowed to lodge an asylum application.
Being permitted to apply for asylum does not mean that the applicant has automatically been granted refugee status.
The application must still be assessed.
South African immigration and refugee authorities must determine whether the individual meets the legal requirements for international protection.
An applicant who does not qualify for refugee protection may ultimately be required to leave the country in accordance with the law.
The distinction is important because critics of the new policy have argued that allowing undocumented migrants to lodge asylum applications could encourage people to use the system as a way of avoiding immigration enforcement.
The government, however, has emphasised that it is implementing a binding Constitutional Court judgment.
The existence of an asylum application does not itself establish that the applicant is a genuine refugee.
MARCH AND MARCH RAISES SECURITY CONCERNS
March and March has strongly opposed the reopening of the asylum system.
The movement argues that South Africa already has significant challenges involving unemployment, crime, public services and irregular migration.
Its leaders have expressed concern that people who entered the country unlawfully could use asylum applications to remain in South Africa.
The movement has also questioned whether authorities have sufficient capacity to verify applicants and process claims efficiently.
Those concerns have contributed to the protests around the Durban reception centre.
However, legal and human-rights advocates have warned that protests must not prevent asylum seekers from accessing a lawful government process.
The Constitutional Court's judgment established that certain barriers previously used to prevent people from lodging applications were inconsistent with constitutional protections.
Consequently, any attempt by private groups to prevent applicants from reaching reception offices could create a separate legal and public-order problem.
POLICE FACE DELICATE TASK
The presence of protesters and asylum seekers outside the same government facility creates a difficult responsibility for police.
Officers must maintain public order while ensuring that neither group is unlawfully prevented from exercising its rights.
Police intervention was required when protesters disrupted access to the Durban facility.
The situation also carries the risk of confrontation if large crowds remain gathered around the reception centre.
Authorities therefore face pressure to ensure that protests remain peaceful and that asylum seekers can access the Home Affairs facility safely.
The Durban development also demonstrates why immigration disputes can quickly become community-security issues.
Where asylum seekers feel threatened or believe that they cannot safely access government services, tensions can escalate.
At the same time, residents and activists who believe immigration policies are being poorly managed may continue to organise demonstrations.
DURBAN HAS A HISTORY OF MIGRATION TENSIONS
The current confrontation is taking place against a difficult background in Durban.
The city has experienced several episodes of tension involving foreign nationals, asylum seekers and anti-immigration activists.
Earlier this year, groups of refugees and asylum seekers spent months outside the Durban Refugee Reception Centre after being displaced amid concerns over anti-foreigner hostility.
Some of those people were later relocated to other facilities.
The centre therefore remains a highly sensitive location for South Africa's immigration debate.
The return of large numbers of asylum seekers following the reopening of the application system has brought those tensions back into public view.
PEOPLE SEEKING PROTECTION FACE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
For asylum seekers, gaining access to the application process is only the beginning of a much longer journey.
Many applicants face difficulties obtaining employment, housing, healthcare and other services while they wait for their immigration status to be determined.
Without valid documentation, people may struggle to prove their lawful status to employers and service providers.
Long queues and administrative backlogs can further increase uncertainty.
The reopening of the system could therefore produce significant pressure on Home Affairs if the number of applications rises sharply.
The department will need adequate personnel, technology, accommodation and processing capacity to ensure that applications are registered and assessed efficiently.
HOME AFFAIRS FACES A MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGE
The Department of Home Affairs has already acknowledged that the new asylum arrangements could place additional pressure on its system.
The department has been working to improve its refugee-status determination process and increase the use of digital systems.
Recent performance figures indicate that thousands of asylum applications have been processed by refugee-status determination officers.
However, the number of people now seeking to enter the system could increase considerably following the Constitutional Court ruling.
The department will need to prevent a new backlog from developing while also ensuring that applications are assessed fairly.
Efficient processing is important for both asylum seekers and immigration enforcement.
When applications remain unresolved for years, authorities may find it difficult to determine who has a legitimate pending claim and who has no legal basis to remain in South Africa.
THE HUMAN DIMENSION
Behind the political debate are individuals who say they came to South Africa because they were unable to remain safely in their countries of origin.
Some asylum seekers have fled armed conflict, persecution or serious instability.
For such individuals, returning home may not be a realistic option.
South Africa's refugee-protection framework is designed to provide a legal mechanism for assessing those claims.
The Constitutional Court's intervention was partly concerned with ensuring that procedural requirements do not prevent genuine asylum seekers from having their cases considered.
At the same time, South African citizens have legitimate concerns about immigration management, particularly where irregular migration places additional pressure on already limited public resources.
The challenge for government is to address both realities without allowing either side to undermine the legal rights of the other.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The situation at the Durban Refugee Reception Centre is likely to remain closely watched as Home Affairs continues implementing the new asylum directive.
Authorities will have to manage increasing demand at reception centres while ensuring that protesters do not interfere with lawful government services.
They will also need to communicate clearly about what the Constitutional Court judgment actually requires.
Home Affairs has already warned against misinformation surrounding the ruling, rejecting claims that it automatically grants citizenship or permanent legal status to foreign nationals.
The department has stressed that the court ruling is binding and that its operational directive was issued to comply with that ruling.
For asylum seekers, the immediate priority is access to the application process.
For South African authorities, the priority is ensuring that the process is orderly, secure and capable of determining genuine refugee claims.
For immigration-control advocates, the focus remains on preventing abuse of the asylum system and strengthening border enforcement.
A TEST FOR SOUTH AFRICA'S IMMIGRATION SYSTEM
The events in Durban have exposed the difficult balance South Africa must now manage.
The country wants to maintain effective control of its borders and address irregular migration, but it must also comply with constitutional protections and international refugee obligations.
The Constitutional Court has made clear that procedural shortcomings cannot automatically prevent a person from seeking asylum.
Home Affairs must now translate that legal principle into a functioning administrative system.
The gathering of hundreds of asylum seekers outside the Durban reception centre is an early indication of the scale of the challenge.
If the government can process applications efficiently while maintaining security around its facilities, the new system could provide a more orderly route for people seeking protection.
If capacity remains inadequate, however, long queues, backlogs and confrontations could continue.
For now, Durban remains a focal point in South Africa's rapidly changing immigration landscape, with asylum seekers demanding access to protection, activists demanding stronger immigration controls and government authorities under pressure to enforce the law while complying with the country's highest court.