Johannesburg – The South African Department of Home Affairs (DHA) on Tuesday announced that it would abide by a court ruling ordering it to process the asylum application of Afghanistan nationals it previously turned away.
The court issued the judgment earlier on Tuesday, which the DHA said it will abide by and take necessary steps to give effect to.
The dispute began earlier this month on 15 February 2023 when the DHA refused to accede to a demand from attorneys representing unnamed Afghanistan nationals to issue them with asylum transit visas to enter South Africa through the Beitbridge Border post.
The DHA said while it was preparing a response to the letter, on 16 February 2023, a group of 22 Afghanistan nationals in the company of American citizens arrived at the Beitbridge border post.
They requested to be issued with asylum transit visas in order for them to enter South Africa, where they intended to apply for asylum.
However, SA immigration officers refused to accede to the request.
The Afghanistan nationals had been issued multiple-entry tourist visas by the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe on 20 January 2023.
Lawyers representing the 22 Afghanistan nationals rushed to Pretoria High Court on an extremely urgent basis (in the absence of the DHA) and the Court issued an interim order allowing them to be issued with asylum transit visas.
The Court, however, allowed the DHA to anticipate the interim order within 24 hours.
The DHA did exactly that and the Court refused to confirm the interim order to allow the DHA to file its answering papers.
The matter was heard by the court on 20 February 2023.
On Tuesday, the court issued a judgment confirming its interim order as final – meaning that the DHA would have to allow the Afghanistan nationals to enter South Africa to apply for asylum.
“The decision to abide, shows that the DHA respects the rule of law. However, this should not be interpreted as opening floodgates for spurious asylum claims,” the department said.
“The DHA will not hesitate to fight the cases in Court as it has done in this instance.”
