The Department of Home Affairs has withdrawn a controversial directive on the processing of asylum seeker applications after its implementation overwhelmed refugee reception offices, placed officials at risk and coincided with violent anti-immigrant protests in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal.
In a statement on Friday, 9 October 2026, the department said the directive, issued by the Director-General of Home Affairs on 28 September, had been withdrawn following serious consequences that emerged after its implementation.
The decision comes after protests against the processing of asylum applications turned violent in Soweto, Johannesburg, and Durban on Thursday, with vehicles set alight, businesses looted and tensions between South Africans and foreign nationals escalating.
The violence included attacks on businesses owned by foreign nationals and vehicles being torched in the two cities. At least 24 vehicles were burned, with 10 in Soweto and 14 in Durban.
The unrest has intensified scrutiny of the government’s handling of the Constitutional Court judgment that changed how asylum applications must be processed.
The department said the directive was an operational attempt to implement the court’s order and was issued without the knowledge or involvement of the Home Affairs Minister or any other political office-bearer.
Claims that the directive was politically motivated were categorically rejected.
The department said the directive arose from a Constitutional Court case it had opposed, adding that its intention was to support the implementation of a binding judicial order.
However, the practical consequences of implementing the directive immediately created challenges that the department said could not have been foreseen in the court order.
“RRO operations were overwhelmed within a matter of days since the directive was issued, Home Affairs officials were placed at risk, and serious threats to public safety and order had emerged,” the department said.
The withdrawal means Home Affairs will now embark on a fresh process to determine the most appropriate operational approach to comply with the court’s ruling.
The department reaffirmed its respect for the judiciary and the rule of law, as well as its commitment to finding a sustainable way to implement the order.
Vehicles torched as protests turn violent
The announcement follows a day of unrest in which demonstrations against the processing of asylum applications descended into violence.
Acting National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Puleng Dimpane said 10 vehicles had been torched in Soweto and 14 in Durban.
Police vowed to identify and arrest those responsible for the destruction.
In Durban, protesters gathered in opposition to the continued processing of asylum applications, while businesses owned by foreign nationals were targeted during the unrest.
Police used rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse violent crowds in parts of the city, where protesters threw stones and debris.
The violence also affected residents and businesses in Durban’s central business district, North Beach, South Beach and Point areas.
In Soweto, clashes occurred near the Home Affairs office in Orlando West as tensions rose between South Africans and foreign nationals.
Shops were looted during the protests, while police moved to restore order.
The incidents have raised concerns about the consequences of escalating anti-immigrant sentiment, particularly when anger over government policy spills over into attacks on people, businesses and property.
Although demonstrators have raised concerns about illegal immigration and the country’s asylum system, the violence has also placed foreign nationals and their businesses at risk.
Police have warned that the right to protest does not give anyone the right to commit criminal acts.
What the Constitutional Court ruled
The dispute stems from a Constitutional Court judgment delivered on 7 July 2026 in the matter involving the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and the Department of Home Affairs.
The court confirmed the invalidity of provisions of the Refugees Act that imposed procedural barriers on people seeking asylum in South Africa.
The judgment addressed restrictions that could prevent asylum seekers from having their claims assessed on their merits because of procedural non-compliance.
These included provisions relating to people who entered the country irregularly, failed to meet certain reporting requirements or could not satisfy prescribed requirements for making an asylum application.
The court’s ruling was rooted in constitutional protections and the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning people to places where they face the relevant risks of persecution or other serious harm.
The judgment does not automatically grant refugee status to everyone who applies for asylum.
Rather, it means that procedural failures cannot, in themselves, be used to prevent asylum claims from receiving the required assessment.
The department had opposed the legal challenge but acknowledged its constitutional obligation to implement the binding judgment.
In a statement on 7 October, Home Affairs said it was concerned about what it described as a coordinated disinformation campaign surrounding the ruling.
The department said false claims had circulated suggesting that the suspension of good-cause interviews had been initiated by the minister, the department or political parties.
It rejected those claims and said the matter would be referred to the Independent Electoral Commission for consideration under the newly published Code of Conduct on Countering Disinformation.
The department’s latest announcement now places the focus on developing a workable system that can accommodate asylum applications while complying with the court order.
Pressure mounts on government
The withdrawal of the directive comes as the government faces pressure to address operational challenges at refugee reception offices while responding to public anger over immigration.
The department acknowledged that the directive had resulted in an influx of applicants that overwhelmed reception offices within days.
The latest developments highlight the difficulties of implementing a significant legal ruling within an already strained administrative system.
However, the operational challenges do not remove the government’s obligation to comply with the court’s judgment.
The department must now determine how to process applications sustainably while ensuring that officials can perform their duties without being placed at risk and that public order is maintained.
The violent protests have added another dimension to the challenge, with authorities having to respond to criminal acts alongside concerns about immigration administration.
The destruction of vehicles and attacks on businesses have also raised questions about the protection of property and the safety of people caught up in the unrest.
The government has maintained that the court ruling has been misrepresented in public debate, while police have promised action against those responsible for the violence.
The immediate question is how Home Affairs will implement the judgment following the withdrawal of its directive.
The department has committed to a fresh operational process but has not, in its 9 October announcement, set out the details of the replacement arrangements.
It also reaffirmed that its approach would respect the judiciary and the rule of law.
For now, the withdrawal marks a retreat from the department’s initial operational response, but it does not reverse the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
Home Affairs must still find a sustainable way to process asylum applications in accordance with the law, as authorities work to restore order following the violence in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal.
