Border reform Bill welcomed, but rights concerns dominate public submissions
Public feedback on South Africa's One-Stop Border Post Bill, which Home Affairs Minister
A summary of the eight submissions, described as 'fairly substantive', was presented to parliament's home affairs portfolio committee on Tuesday.
They range from the United Nations' human rights office and labour federation Cosatu to legal advocacy groups and the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa.
The Bill aims to consolidate border procedures between South Africa and its neighbours at land ports of entry and is seen as a tool to improve efficiency and unlock regional economic integration.
The modernisation that the proposed legislation seeks is viewed as key to aligning with the strategies of the
But some fear the legislation, in its current form, could do so at the expense of the Constitution's most vulnerable subjects: asylum seekers, unaccompanied children and stateless individuals. Central to the concern is clause 7, which sets rules for readmitting individuals denied entry.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), migrants and refugee welfare organisation Scalabrini Centre, the South African Bishops' Conference and Lawyers for Human Rights have expressed 'significant concern' that the clause violates international and domestic refugee protections by potentially enabling refoulement — the forced return of asylum seekers to dangerous conditions — based solely on the legality of their entry.
The groups recommend that the clause is amended to clearly state that no one can be sent back to a country where they may be harmed, and ensure that people asking for asylum and stateless persons are protected, no matter how they entered South Africa.
The clause should also mention important parts of the Refugees Act and international laws that support these rights.
The Bill's preamble also drew criticism for omitting any mention of human rights or corruption — two issues deeply embedded in border governance.
The Scalabrini Centre, Bishops' Conference and the OHCHR called for references to constitutional rights and protections for vulnerable persons.
Clause 6 — permitting the free transfer of money and goods within a common control zone — was 'strongly objected' to by the Consumer Goods Council of South Africa, which submitted that it would allow South African and foreign officials to move money and goods across borders for vague 'official use' without being subject to customs, import/export or exchange control regulations.
Such unchecked authority poses a risk of facilitating money laundering, illicit trade and corruption, especially as South Africa remains on the Financial Action Task Force's
The Consumer Goods Council recommended that the clause be removed in its entirety.
Cosatu raised alarm over what it sees as a procedural misstep: the department of home affairs failed to table the Bill at Nedlac, the body responsible for tripartite consultations between government, business and labour.
This, it said, undermines both the legislative process and workers' interests, particularly regarding staffing, training, and resource allocation under the One-Stop Border Post regime.
Several submissions also spotlighted ambiguity regarding the roles of various enforcement agencies — from the Border Management Authority to the South African Revenue Service and the South African Police service — under a model of shared jurisdiction with neighbouring states.
Fears included overlapping authority, confusion over legal application in joint control zones and lack of clear conflict resolution mechanisms.
Although supporters — including think tanks and border governance experts — welcomed the Bill's intention to modernise and rationalise border posts, there was a clear call for a revised draft. Among the proposals: stronger human rights language, alignment with international law, independent oversight mechanisms, and public awareness campaigns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
an hour ago
- Mail & Guardian
MK takes Ramaphosa to constitutional court
Legal battle: Jacob Zuma and his uMkhonto weSizwe party took President Cyril Ramaphosa to the constitutional court this week. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G) Ex-president Jacob Zuma's legal team is challenging his successor's handling of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's suspension, accusing him of shielding allies This content is restricted to subscribers only . Join the M&G Community Our commitment at the Mail & Guardian is to ensure every reader enjoys the finest experience. Join the M&G community and support us in delivering in-depth news to you consistently. Subscription enables: - M&G community membership - independent journalism - access to all premium articles & features - a digital version of the weekly newspaper - invites to subscriber-only events - the opportunity to test new online features first Already a subscriber?
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Emphasise the ‘just' aspect of the just energy transition
Undermining: Communities that rely on fossil fuels for their livelihoods must be taken into consideration in the transition to cleaner energy. Photo: Delwyn Verasamy South Africa's nationwide electricity blackouts have been suspended, but the nation still faces a 'risk of another energy crisis', the 2025 But, for the transition to be fair and effective, it must be anchored in strategies that prioritise equity and inclusion. Without this foundation, inequalities and the marginalisation of vulnerable groups, such as those who rely on fossil fuel industries and infrastructure for their livelihoods, will intensify. Through the implementation of several national frameworks and strategic plans to execute the shift, South Africa's commitment to a just transition is evident, but the real challenge is ensuring it lives up to the promise not only of energy security but also of justice. The Examples include a poorly maintained and ageing Eskom was a primary site through which 'state capture' was executed, further undermining justice in energy reliability, access and affordability. These issues underscore the importance of prioritising a shift toward more sustainable and decentralised energy sources — a vital component in addressing the energy crisis. Based on the The Just Transition Framework is a strategic plan to guide the transition's actions and desired outcomes and affirms the commitment to inclusion and equity. It states among the goals 'decent work for all, social inclusion, and the eradication of poverty'. Across the initiatives carried out thus far, such as the Just Transition Framework and Implementation Plan, the significance placed on socio-economic considerations is encouraging. But acknowledgement is just the starting point and actualising these considerations demands more than mere words. There are considerable disparities in the extent to which social equity measures are integrated into provincial and city-level transition plans. In the findings of a research report by SouthSouthNorth and Net Zero Tracker it emerged that only the Western Cape and Johannesburg have extensive 'just' transition considerations in place to support communities during the shift. These considerations mainly refer to social justice factors and principles: equity, fairness and access. The majority of the country is still behind in establishing strategies that realise the core principle of the just energy transition — that 'no one is left behind'. The lack of comprehensive social equity strategies in the provinces for the transition is alarming. Most vulnerable are regions reliant on coal, which accounts for more than 80% of our energy supply. Beyond the harm to the natural environment, dependence on this fossil fuel is a concern because it amplifies the potential adverse effects associated with the decarbonisation process. Examples include loss of livelihoods, job redundancy, a skills mismatch post transition, compromised energy security and potential economic devastation for coal-reliant communities. These are likely to affect, to varying degrees, any country undergoing a shift to green energy but, given South Africa's dependence on coal both for export revenue and generating electricity, mitigating these negative effects becomes proportionally greater. Although there are considerable risks associated with the transition, this does not negate the need to shift to greener energy sources and should not be used to oppose the transition. Hypothetically, if we persist with our current energy system, remaining a fossil-fuel-dependent country will have considerably worse socio-economic implications than those of the just energy transition. Indeed, the hidden costs of coal are significant. Drawing from insights in It is thus clear that the most sustainable and prudent move is to proceed with the transition. With the compelling argument that the transition is inevitable, it becomes even more important to reinforce that it should be carried out justly. But at the provincial The question policymakers ought to consider is, how can we effectively actualise the 'just' element — prioritising inclusion and equity — of the energy transition in the immediate, intermediate and longer term? National frameworks such as the Just Energy Transition Framework, the Just Transition Investment Plan and the Implementation Plan include moderately comprehensive 'just' principles, considerations and measures. The issue is many provincial and city-level plans do not have the same scope as national frameworks. There are also clear inconsistencies and a lack of nationwide alignment in relation to the development and implementation of transition plans that are 'just'. Some provinces have comprehensive plans in place; others have minimal to none. Moreover, there are intra-provincial discrepancies — meaning that urban centres (such as Johannesburg and Cape Town) in a province often exhibit more robust transition efforts than the province where they are situated. This nationwide misalignment is a major obstacle to overcome in ensuring that no one is left behind during the transition process. The importance of taking a people-centred, bottom-up approach in all stages of the transition cannot be overstated. Community consultation and participation ensures the needs and interests of stakeholders are incorporated into policy. The result of this is two-fold: it reinforces the principle of nobody being left behind and strengthens grassroot-level support and trust in the transition. As stated by Narend Singh, the deputy minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment, 'It is essential that we approach this transition with humanity, providing support, training and creating new opportunities within the renewable energy sector.' Interventions that foster inclusion are reskilling and training initiatives as well as targeted social protection programmes. Actualising these is a fundamental step in translating the 'just' dimension of the energy transition into practical implementation. To ensure the transition aligns with its intended purpose, it ought to have a strong foundation rooted in concrete and consistent support strategies, as well as inclusion and equitable access to transition benefits. Ignoring these fundamentals risks intensifying socio-economic inequalities. Ultimately, the 'just' aspect of the just energy transition is both a practical necessity and a moral imperative for building South Africa's sustainable future. Sisanda Lupondwana is a research intern in the Natural Resource Governance and Climate Change programme at Good Governance Africa.
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
From terra nullius to terrible delay in land restitution and rights
South Africa's land reform journey is still shaped by the legacies of colonial conquest and apartheid. (Madelene Cronjé) During colonisation and apartheid, the law was used as a weapon to justify the seizure of African land. For many black people dispossessed of their property, the promise of land restoration in democratic South Africa has remained out of reach. Two of the most important legal tools for land reform are the land restitution system and the new Expropriation Act. Both are failing. Many human rights organisations such as the Centre for Applied Legal Studies continue to support individuals and communities who filed land claims decades ago through the land restitution system. These people were promised a legal route to reclaim their land under the Restitution of Land Rights Act. Despite following all the rules and processes, many of these claims have been stuck in government systems all this time. One of the major issues lies with state institutions such as the Regional Land Claims Commissions. Even when claims are legally recognised and published in the Government Gazette , delays are all too common. Families are often left waiting for years for proper land mapping, valuation reports or final decisions. Many receive conflicting information or no updates at all. In some cases, land is sold or transferred without their knowledge, even while their claim is still active. This is not just poor service delivery; it is a serious failure of justice. The courts have noticed this too. In a case known as Mvelase vs Director-General of Rural Development and Land Reform , the land court ruled that the department of rural development and land reform had failed not just land claimants, but the constitutional promise of land reform for all people in South Africa. Legal experts such as Hans Jurie Moolman agree. In his 2025 article on the history of land reform law, Moolman These issues are not limited to the land restitution system. In January 2025, the Expropriation Act was signed into law. This sets out how the government can expropriate land in the public interest including in some cases without paying compensation. This Act is not about restoring land to people who were dispossessed under apartheid laws but about broader land reform and addressing a long history of inequality. The Act sets out clear procedures, such as the need for negotiations, access to courts and guidelines for when no compensation might be appropriate. It also replaces outdated apartheid-era laws and applies to all levels of government. The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has But the law is measured, not radical. It offers a framework that leans toward caution, not bold and true, tangible change. Can a law so careful in its wording and limited in its scope truly undo centuries of land dispossession? While it might be a step forward on paper, its ability to bring about real justice depends on how it is used. The Constitution, in section 25, protects property rights and allows for land reform. But it does not clearly deal with the historical injustice of how land was taken in the first place. It avoids legalising past land theft but it also doesn't go far enough to reverse its consequences. As a result, when the state hesitates to act boldly, and when departments fail to carry out their duties, the law's promise remains unfulfilled. The Expropriation Act is being challenged in court by AfriForum, a group that argues the law threatens constitutional rights, investor confidence and the economy. Their opposition does not come in the language of conquest, but of constitutionalism. They do not argue that land should never return to black hands, but that doing so threatens 'order'. It is a familiar tactic of preserving historical privilege using the language of rights and legal stability. This is where the heart of the land reform struggle lies. The law appears to move us towards justice, but those who benefit from injustice often use the same law to defend their position. Courts become places where transformation must ask for permission, where property rights are treated as untouchable and where dispossession is never fully named. South Africa's land reform crisis is not just about gaps in the law, but about how the law is implemented, and who it really serves. Too often, government departments rely on narrow, market-based approaches that care more about protecting property than correcting injustice. In the end, the very systems designed to bring about change end up reinforcing the status quo. Until state institutions are rebuilt with integrity and intent, until the legal system is willing not just to manage the legacy of conquest but to disrupt it, the gap between law and justice will remain. And many will continue to wait, not because their claims are unclear, but because the system still does not know how to recognise their truth. The work ahead is not only legal, but also political, social and deeply historical. We need to continue to rethink the foundations of South Africa's land laws and challenge the colonial values that still shape them. Restitution and land reform cannot just be technical processes. They must be about restoring dignity, correcting injustice and returning land to those who were unjustly robbed of it. Blossom Matizirofa is based in the Home, Land and Rural Democracy programme at the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, Wits University.
