Latest news with #LawyersForHumanRights
Mail & Guardian
6 days ago
- General
- Mail & Guardian
Immigrant families left homeless after eviction from army land in Marievale
On Thursday, members of the South African Defence Force evicted people living in Happiness Village, a settlement on military land in Marievale. Photos: Kimberly Mutandiro Dozens of people, mostly immigrants, spent the weekend with relatives and friends after their shacks, built on army land in Marievale, were demolished. On Thursday, members of the South African Defence Force (SANDF) evicted people living in the settlement known as Happiness Village. This was not the first For months the army has been negotiating with the residents of Happiness Village to relocate to the Zamani informal settlement in Duduza. However, resident Mateo Maphosa and six of his friends say they were not included in the relocation offer. Maphosa said he watched helplessly as an army vehicle drove through two shacks where he had lived with six others. While he managed to remove his bed, utensils, clothes and blankets, Maphosa and his friends now sleep outside with their belongings stashed in a nearby bushy area. 'If only they had left our shacks … Now we will have to sleep outside in this cold winter,' said Maphosa. Happiness Village residents gather where their shacks once stood. Happiness Village's last stand Happiness Village came into existence after people were unlawfully evicted from buildings on Marievale Military Base in 2017. The families then erected shacks near their old homes. Represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, they have been fighting their eviction for years. In 2018, the army and the City of Ekurhuleni were About 85 families, who work and attend schools near Happiness Village, refused to relocate. In July last year, 54 families were relocated to Duduza's Ebenezar informal settlement. Most of the people who remained behind were immigrants. They say they are excluded from the relocation plans because they are undocumented. According to community leader Chris Koitsioe, the army and municipality failed to provide adequate alternative housing as required by the court. 'The soldiers had no right to demolish shacks. The people were illegally evicted because they were excluded from the initial court order, and the law says one should not be evicted without being provided with alternative accommodation,' said Koitsioe. Louise du Plessis from Lawyers for Human Rights confirmed that they had told the army to apply for another court order before evicting the group of immigrants who were not in the initial court order. But the army insisted that everyone would be evicted, and yet it had not provided enough shacks for the relocation. The lawyers are negotiating with the municipality, out of court, to ensure that extra shacks are provided at Zamani informal settlement, for a broken sewer system to be fixed, and for them to be provided with electricity. In the meantime, community representatives arranged for the immigrants to temporarily share shacks with people who had been relocated. Army responds South African National Defence Force spokesperson Prince Tshabalala told GroundUp that the recent eviction at Marievale 'was carried out in a peaceful and lawful manner' in accordance with valid court orders issued by both the magistrates' and high courts. 'These judgments followed an extensive legal process in which the Department of Defence was granted the right to reclaim the land from unlawful occupation.' Tshabalala denied claims that the municipality had not offered alternative accommodation to all the affected families. 'While the majority accepted the relocation and were peacefully resettled, a few individuals refused the offer on the grounds that the proposed accommodation was not to their satisfaction. 'The SANDF remains committed to upholding the rule of law while ensuring that all operations are conducted with dignity and minimal disruption,' he said. Some of the belongings left on the roadside after Happiness Village was demolished on Thursday. This article was first published on
Mail & Guardian
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
Border reform Bill welcomed, but rights concerns dominate public submissions
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. 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.
News24
16-05-2025
- Politics
- News24
Parts of Refugees Act found unconstitutional by High Court
The Western Cape High Court has found sections of the Refugees Act to be unconstitutional. The act was challenged by organisations who said it had allowed for refugees to be arrested as they arrive to apply for asylum. The court found the regulations prevented newcomer asylum seekers from accessing the asylum system. Sections of the Refugees Act have been deemed inconsistent with the Constitution – by the Western Cape High Court. The court ruled in favour of an application brought by the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), which challenged the 2020 amendments to the Refugees Act and regulations. The organisations say the amendments resulted in refugees being arrested as they arrive to apply for asylum. The organisations argued that the Department of Home Affairs has used the provisions to prohibit newcomer asylum seekers from accessing the asylum system in South Africa and that they undermine human rights and refugee law. Scalabrini's Head of Advocacy and Legal Advisor James Chapman said the matter will still need to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, and there is no interim relief offered by the High Court. However, he said the outcome was positive in that it would bring South Africa in line with international laws around asylum rights. 'It's a splendid outcome to have the full bench of the High Court rule in our favour and find that the provisions in question are unconstitutional and prevent access to the system,' he said. READ | 'Fear of equality' is not persecution worthy of refugee status, experts and lawyers say 'What is going to be interesting to see is how Home Affairs responds to the judgment. The next step will be to see asylum seekers approach refugee centres and see how Home Affairs applies the provisions.' In her judgment, Justice Judith Cloete found that under the amendments, new grounds for exclusion from refugee status are placed in the hands of a refugee status determination officer. An asylum seeker does not qualify for refugee status if such an officer 'has reason to believe' the asylum seeker has committed an offence in relation to travel or sojourn documents, cannot provide 'compelling reasons' for illegal border crossing, or cannot provide 'compelling reasons' for failure to report to a refugee reception office within five days of entry. According to Scalabrini, since November 2023, new asylum applicants have been subject to arrest, detention, and deportation without the opportunity to undergo a refugee status determination interview. The arrests stem from preliminary interviews conducted by immigration officials, who assess whether applicants have good cause for failing to enter the country through a designated port of entry and obtain an asylum transit visa at the border. Most applicants are found to lack good cause, resulting in their arrest for deportation, they said. This process effectively denies people access to the asylum system, the two organisations argued, and violates the principle of non-refoulement. ALSO READ | High Court declares sections of Refugees Act unconstitutional Non-refoulement, a cornerstone of refugee protection, ensures that people are not sent back to a country where they face a real risk of persecution, torture, or serious harm. Nabeelah Mia, the head of LHR's Penal Reform and Detention Monitoring Programme, in a previous statement said: 'Our obligations under international refugee law are very clear – newcomer asylum seekers cannot be penalised for the way they entered and remained in South Africa, until their claims are finalised.' Mia continued: When newcomer asylum seekers come to South Africa seeking refuge, the primary question in assessing their claims is whether they are at risk of persecution and harm if they are returned to their country of origin. 'By not allowing newcomer asylum seekers to access the asylum system, we risk sending people back to situations where they will be harmed, tortured, or even killed.' Judge Cloete said the matter dealt with the issue of amendments that had created a 'process which may scupper [an asylum seeker's] application in the sole discretion of a bureaucratic official (whether it be an immigration officer or refugee status determination officer)'. READ MORE | It would be a 'challenge' for South Africans to qualify as refugees in US, says lawyer Cloete stressed that 'any person who meets the requirements for refugee status is a refugee even before they are formally recognised as such'. Last year, Scalabrini was awarded an interdict that temporarily halted the initiation of any process to deport a foreign national who has indicated an intent to apply for asylum, until their application has been finalised. The order, handed down by acting Judge Brendan Manca in September, was done in agreement with the minister and director-general of Home Affairs, the chief director of asylum seeker management, and the refugee appeals authority. Foreign nationals are required to report to a refugee reception office and indicate their intent to apply for asylum within five days of entering South Africa.
