South Africa: Concourt Slams Home Affairs Lawyers As It Rules in Favour of Asylum Seekers

The EFF says the ruling is a victory against "bureaucratic technicalities" and blames the ANC for the asylum system's collapse.

The Helen Suzman Foundation, a co-applicant in the case, says the ruling protects children whose asylum claims depend on a parent's case.

Two organisations have welcomed this week's Constitutional Court ruling that asylum seekers cannot be turned away for missing paperwork or deadlines. The department that lost the case has not yet said anything publicly about it.

The EFF called the judgment "a victory for constitutionalism, human dignity, and the principle that justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of bureaucratic technicalities." The party said the rules struck down had, for years, been used to exclude people from the asylum system, exposing them to arrest, detention and deportation without their claims ever being properly heard.

The EFF blamed successive ANC governments for what it called the "deliberate" collapse of the asylum system through underfunding, corruption and the closure of refugee reception offices. It also cautioned against the ruling being misread. The party said protecting asylum seekers' constitutional rights is not the same as supporting uncontrolled migration, and does not take away South Africa's right to regulate immigration under the law.

The Helen Suzman Foundation, which joined Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town in bringing the case, said the ruling matters most for children. Senior researcher Chanel van der Linde said children could previously be excluded from refugee protection because of their parents' actions, something she called a "double harm," since children had no control over those circumstances and could face deportation without their own situation ever being considered.

The Constitutional Court also criticised the Department of Home Affairs directly during the case, saying it had made unsupported claims about Afghan and Bangladeshi nationals and warning against rhetoric that risks being seen as xenophobic.

The court ordered Home Affairs to pay the applicants' legal costs.

Home Affairs has not yet issued a public response to the ruling, which was handed down on Tuesday afternoon.

Read the original article on Scrolla.