By Iroyin Yoruba Television
South Africa's Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn a directive governing the intake of asylum applications after violent protests erupted in Johannesburg and Durban, with vehicles set alight, businesses damaged and foreign nationals targeted amid growing confusion over a Constitutional Court ruling.
The decision was announced on Friday, October 9, 2026, following a day of unrest on Thursday in which at least 24 vehicles were torched in Soweto and Durban and businesses owned or operated by foreign nationals were looted.
The withdrawal represents a significant development in South Africa's increasingly tense debate over immigration and asylum policy.
The directive, issued on September 28, was intended to help refugee reception offices implement a Constitutional Court judgment delivered in July. The court had ruled that certain procedural barriers could not be used to prevent people seeking protection from accessing the country's asylum system.
However, the practical implementation of the judgment led to a rapid increase in people arriving at refugee reception centres, placing pressure on Home Affairs offices and officials.
The department said on Friday that the directive had to be withdrawn after its implementation created operational difficulties, exposed officials to risks and raised serious concerns about public safety and public order.
WHY THE DIRECTIVE WAS ISSUED
The controversy is linked to a July 7 Constitutional Court judgment in the case involving the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and the Department of Home Affairs.
The court found that certain provisions governing the asylum application process were unconstitutional.
In practical terms, the judgment prevented authorities from automatically blocking asylum seekers from accessing the application process because of certain procedural or technical immigration issues, including irregular entry into South Africa.
The court's decision did not, however, automatically give asylum seekers refugee status, permanent residence or citizenship.
Every application still has to be considered under South African law.
The Department of Home Affairs had opposed the case but was constitutionally required to comply with the court's binding judgment. The department subsequently issued an operational directive to refugee reception offices to facilitate access to the asylum process.
South African authorities have repeatedly stressed that the court ruling should not be interpreted as a blanket amnesty for undocumented migrants.
The government has also warned that misinformation circulating online had distorted the meaning of the judgment.
The Department of Home Affairs said the directive was issued by its director-general's office as an operational measure and without the knowledge of the minister or other political office-bearers.
RECEPTION CENTRES BECAME OVERWHELMED
One of the immediate consequences of the directive was a substantial increase in the number of people seeking to lodge asylum applications.
Refugee reception centres experienced long queues and growing operational pressure.
The government said the number of applicants arriving at some facilities quickly exceeded the system's capacity.
An urgent meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration was held to address the situation.
The committee said the government was working to strengthen the asylum system, border management and law-enforcement response following the court ruling.
The authorities also stressed that the expanded access to the asylum process did not mean that every applicant would automatically be allowed to remain permanently in South Africa.
Instead, the ruling requires applications to be properly considered rather than rejected solely because of certain procedural circumstances surrounding the applicant's arrival or failure to meet particular requirements.
PROTESTS ERUPT IN JOHANNESBURG AND DURBAN
The confusion surrounding the asylum process quickly became a flashpoint for anti-immigration groups.
On Thursday, protesters gathered around Home Affairs facilities in Johannesburg's Soweto township and Durban.
What began as demonstrations escalated into violence.
In Soweto, at least 10 vehicles were reportedly set alight.
In Durban, another 14 vehicles were burned.
Businesses, particularly those associated with foreign nationals, were also targeted.
The unrest included looting and damage to property, while some foreign nationals were forced to leave areas where they operated businesses.
South African police deployed public-order units as the situation deteriorated.
Authorities later said the situation had stabilised in both cities after police intervention.
In Durban, three foreign nationals were arrested following an incident involving an alleged assault on a protester.
Police officials warned that people had no right to use protests as a justification for criminal activity.
GOVERNMENT BLAMES MISINFORMATION
South African authorities have repeatedly identified misinformation as one of the factors worsening tensions around the court judgment.
The Department of Home Affairs said false claims had circulated suggesting that the Constitutional Court decision automatically gave undocumented foreigners the right to remain in South Africa.
Officials said that interpretation was incorrect.
The judgment concerns access to the asylum application system. It does not automatically approve an asylum application.
Each applicant remains subject to the country's legal asylum determination process.
The government had already warned about a disinformation campaign before the violence erupted.
On October 7, Home Affairs said false claims surrounding the Constitutional Court decision were being circulated and that the matter would be referred to the Independent Electoral Commission under the country's newly published code dealing with disinformation.
The department said claims that the change had been initiated by the Home Affairs minister or political parties were false.
WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT CANCEL THE COURT JUDGMENT
The decision to withdraw the directive does not mean that the Constitutional Court's July judgment has been overturned.
The judgment remains binding.
Instead, Home Affairs says it will develop a new operational approach for implementing the court's decision.
The department said the original directive had been an attempt to operationalise the court order but that the consequences had become clear only after implementation.
According to the department, refugee reception offices became overwhelmed within days, officials were placed at risk and public-order concerns emerged.
The government now faces the difficult task of balancing two competing requirements: complying with a binding constitutional ruling while maintaining an asylum system that can function effectively and safely.
Home Affairs said it respected the judiciary and the rule of law and would continue working toward a sustainable method of implementing the court order.
FOREIGN NATIONALS CAUGHT IN THE TENSION
The latest unrest has raised concerns among foreign nationals living and working in South Africa.
Many migrants operate small businesses, including informal shops and other enterprises in townships and urban communities.
The protests have again exposed the vulnerability of foreign-owned businesses during periods of anti-immigrant mobilisation.
Reuters reported that anti-migrant sentiment in South Africa has been fuelled by claims that migrants are responsible for unemployment and crime. Social scientists have disputed those claims, pointing to the country's deeper structural problems, including severe unemployment and inequality.
South Africa has experienced several waves of anti-immigrant unrest in recent years.
The latest violence is particularly sensitive because it involves a constitutional question concerning access to asylum, rather than simply a dispute over undocumented immigration.
That distinction is important because South Africa is bound by domestic and international obligations concerning refugees and people seeking protection.
IMPACT ON REGIONAL RELATIONS
The latest protests could also have consequences beyond South Africa's borders.
The country hosts large numbers of migrants from other African states, including neighbouring countries.
When violence against foreign nationals occurs, governments and communities in other countries can become concerned about the safety of their citizens living in South Africa.
Previous outbreaks of xenophobic violence have strained South Africa's relations with other African countries and prompted foreign nationals to leave affected communities.
The latest incidents have therefore attracted attention beyond South Africa because the country remains one of the continent's most important economic destinations.
South Africa's migration policies can have implications for movement across the Southern African region and for relations with countries whose citizens live and work there.
POLICE MOVE TO RESTORE ORDER
South African police said calm had returned to affected areas after additional public-order deployments.
Acting National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Puleng Dimpane said police had responded to the violence and warned that criminal activity would not be tolerated.
In Durban, KwaZulu-Natal police spokesperson Colonel Robert Netshiunda said the situation had stabilised following the police response.
Authorities are expected to investigate the burning of vehicles, looting and other criminal acts committed during the protests.
The police response comes amid broader concerns that demonstrations linked to immigration issues can rapidly turn into attacks against individuals or businesses.
The government has urged residents to raise concerns through lawful channels rather than resorting to violence.
THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
South Africa now faces a complicated policy challenge.
The government must implement a Constitutional Court ruling that expands access to the asylum process while preventing the system from becoming overwhelmed.
At the same time, authorities must counter misinformation and ensure that members of the public understand what the judgment actually means.
The government must also protect refugee reception offices and their staff while ensuring that people seeking international protection can access the legal process.
The withdrawal of the directive provides the authorities with an opportunity to redesign the operational system.
However, the decision also comes after violence has already erupted, meaning public confidence in the government's handling of the issue will be closely watched.
A LARGER IMMIGRATION DEBATE
The latest developments form part of a much wider debate over immigration in South Africa.
High unemployment, pressure on public services, crime concerns and competition for economic opportunities have contributed to public anger over undocumented migration.
But the government and researchers have warned against blaming migrants for complex socioeconomic problems.
The Constitutional Court ruling adds another dimension to the debate by reinforcing the principle that people seeking asylum should have their claims assessed according to the law.
The challenge is to maintain that principle while ensuring that immigration controls remain effective and that the asylum system is not abused.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Department of Home Affairs says it will begin a fresh process to determine how best to implement the Constitutional Court judgment.
The revised approach is expected to address the operational difficulties experienced at refugee reception offices while continuing to comply with the court order.
The government will also need to address the misinformation that has contributed to public confusion.
For South Africa's foreign nationals, the immediate priority remains safety as authorities work to stabilise affected communities.
For the government, the issue has become a test of its ability to balance constitutional obligations, border management, public order and the rights of people seeking protection.
The withdrawal of the directive is therefore not the end of the controversy.
Rather, it marks the beginning of another phase in South Africa's struggle to manage asylum applications amid intense public debate over immigration.
The coming days will show how Home Affairs restructures the process and whether the new approach can reduce pressure on refugee reception centres while preserving access to the asylum system.
For now, South African authorities say the immediate violence has been brought under control, but the underlying debate over migration, asylum and the country's obligations remains unresolved.