Photo: Mujahid Safodien/IRIN

A group migrants from Zimbabwe (file photo): The Chairperson of the SAHRC has approached the Department of Home Affairs to bring this matter to their attention.

Cape Town — More than 300 new asylum-seekers staged a protest outside the Department of Home Affairs' Refugee Centre on Cape Town's Foreshore yesterday. The protest comes after Home Affairs turned away hundreds of asylum-seekers in defiance of a Western Cape High Court judgement instructing the department to process new applicants at the service centre.

A protester explained, "The day after the court's judgement I went to the Home Affairs' new offices to apply for a new permit but I was chased away like a dog."

Addressing Home Affairs officials during the protest, Braam Hanekom the director of People Against Suffering, Oppression and Poverty (PASSOP) said, "Do not lie in court on affidavits that these people are not here because they are here." Hanekom was referring to the Department's argument in their appeal against the ruling that no new asylum-seekers had presented themselves for processing at the centre. Judge Dennis Davis dismissed this claim after detailed lists of asylum-seekers who had been turned away were presented as evidence in court by PASSOP and the Scalabrini Centre.

Speaking to the protesting asylum-seekers Hanekom said, "The protest will end when they take new applicants. Unfortunately Home Affairs does not want to do that. We are here to find out if they are going to fulfill their legal obligation to respect the court which ruled that they should serve new applicants."

Judge Davis ruled that the Department of Home Affairs could not appeal the interim order issued by him that new asylum seekers should be served at the Cape Town Refugee Reception office.

The judge noted that delaying implementation of the order would cause grievous harm to asylum seekers as they would be forced to travel thousands of kilometres to be documented and renew their permits. Undocumented, they would be subject to arrest and deportation. He explained that the expenses to Home Affairs of assisting newcomers were negligible compared to this harm.

He further said that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would rule differently. He ruled that even if Home Affairs appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals they would still have to accept newcomers in the interim.

Home Affairs did not respond to our emails or telephone messages requesting comment on the judgment.