Defend Truth


Zondo questions ‘pathetic dereliction of duty’ after Home Affairs ignores ConCourt order for three years

Zondo questions ‘pathetic dereliction of duty’ after Home Affairs ignores ConCourt order for three years
Illustrative image | Sources: Chief Justice of South Africa Raymond Zondo. (Photo: Gallo Images / Papi Morake) | Home Affairs Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi. (Photo: Gallo Images / Frennie Shivambu) | Long queues outside the Home Affairs office in Paarl. (Photo: Gallo Images / ER Lombard)

Constitutional Court judges found themselves baffled by the conduct of the Department of Home Affairs after it ignored a 2017 court order to amend immigration legislation. The department returned to the court on Thursday to request a ‘revival’ of the order, which expired in June 2019.

The department offered no apology for its tardiness, saying the 2019 elections had caused a delay in completing the amended legislation as politicians prioritised campaigning. The department also cited the Covid pandemic, which began months after the deadline had already passed, and the fire at Parliament, as reasons why the Immigration Act had not been amended.

Chief Justice Raymond Zondo questioned the department’s lawyer, Mike Bofilatos SC, about whether he had “missed” the apology to the court in the department’s court papers.

“I may have missed this in the papers. But I don’t see any apology from the Minister or the Director General for what happened here. The order expired without the Minister and the Director General approaching this court asking for an extension. That is the usual thing to do,” Zondo said.

Read more in Daily Maverick

Bofilatos said the department was not requesting an extension, but rather wanted a revival of the order.

“What is the difference in substance in asking for an extension after the expiry of an order or asking for a revival of an order that has lapsed?” Zondo asked.


Bofilatos went on to say that Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi was asking for the court’s “indulgence… You can only compliment him for having come to court,” he said.

Zondo chuckled at Bofilatos’s suggestion that Motsoaledi should be complimented and responded: 

“I have been around for a long time. I don’t think I have seen anything like this. In terms of such an important order being allowed to lapse and the court being approached two years later.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Bofilatos clarified: “Well, Chief Justice, it’s actually three years at this point.”

“Why should the court not regard this as a pathetic dereliction of duty?” Zondo asked. Bofilatos offered no reply, saying he had made his submissions to the court.

Arbitrary detention

In 2016, Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) had taken Home Affairs to court over the practical application of Section 34 1(b) and (d) of the Immigration Act. The sections authorised the administrative detention of undocumented foreigners for the purposes of deportation. The detention period can be extended from 30 days by a court, to 90 days or a maximum of 120 days. 

At the time, LHR had argued that, in many cases, people were being detained for more than 120 days – sometimes for six months or longer – without appearing in court or being informed of their rights in some cases.

The applicant’s (LHR’s) papers paint an unfortunate picture of a widespread disregard for statutory requirements, which leads to a violation of the rights of vulnerable people. These lapses reveal shortcomings in the system enacted by the Immigration Act. A system that was designed to promote their ‘dignity and relevant human rights’,” the Constitutional Court said in the 2017 judgment.

This provision grants drastic powers to an administrative official, the immigration officer. It empowers the officer to deport an illegal foreigner without the need for a warrant authorised by a court.

“To ameliorate the harshness of the exercise of this power, the provision requires the immigration officer to give the affected foreigner a written notice of the decision to deport and his or her right to appeal against the decision.

“Notably, the very same provision authorises an immigration officer to arrest and detain an illegal foreigner, pending his or her deportation. The exercise of this power is not subject to any objectively determinable conditions. Nor does the section lay down any guidance for its exercise.  

“There can be no doubt that in present form, section 34 (1) offends against the rule of law by failing to guide immigration officers as to when they may arrest and detain illegal foreigners before deporting them. More so because this power may be exercised without the need for a warrant of a court,” the Constitutional Court found in 2017.

The court agreed that there was a need for judicial oversight in the process and a halt to arbitrary detention.

“It is apparent from the Bill of Rights in our Constitution and the jurisprudence of this Court on the matter that automatic judicial control or review forms an integral part of safeguards guaranteed against detention without trial,” the court found.


It ordered the department to amend the act to deal with these defects, giving it a 24-month deadline which ended in June 2019. 

The court also ordered that pending the finalisation of the legislation, “any illegal foreigner detained under section 34 (1) of the immigration act shall be brought before a court in person within 48 hours from the time of arrest or not later than the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours, if 48 hours expired outside ordinary court days.” This is similar to the provision for all other arrests within the Criminal Procedure Act.

In an affidavit before the court, Home Affairs Director General Livhuwani Makhode said even though the department published the Draft Immigration Amendment Bill in June 2018, the process had stalled.

“Shortly after October 2018, and with the looming national elections (held on 22 May 2019), parliamentary activity, within the context of legislation awaiting amendment or awaiting enactment, was drastically reduced as Parliamentary MPs were taken up by the more pressing issue of preparing and canvassing for the forthcoming elections. This, in turn, severely hampered the finalisation of the Bill which, ultimately, as a consequence of the election of May 2019, jettisoned the timeous finalisation of the draft Immigration Amendment Bill,” Makhode said.

The department said the lack of new legislation was creating a nightmare in the magistrates’ courts. 

In his heads of argument, Bofilatos said that in January 2022, “a senior Johannesburg Court Magistrate directed that Magistrates should no longer entertain Section 34 enquiries into the detention of illegal foreigners”.

Motsoaledi had written to Parliament in June 2022 saying there was an urgent need to introduce the legislation because “different interpretations were being given to this Court’s judgment” and “the… situation was leading to an inability to deport illegal foreigners”.

‘Lazarus application’

Judge Steven Majiedt was critical of the department’s approach in this case, saying it had made a “Lazarus application”, going to the high court for an order that would essentially overrule a Constitutional Court decision.

“Here is the most striking problem in this case. They (Home Affairs) don’t… come to court when they realise in 2018 that they are not going to get this done. They have nine months to come to court. They don’t do that. They blame it on the elections. They blame it on the pandemic. The pandemic has nothing to do with the lethargy that happened here,” he said.

Representing Lawyers for Human Rights, advocate Steven Budlender criticised the conduct of the department and that of their legal team, saying taxpayers should not pay for this litigation.

“You can say what you want about the minister and his failure to do his job and his DG’s failure to do his job and the failure of their officials. But this is not how lawyers should be behaving when they represent clients. 

“What should happen is that the senior counsel and the attorneys involved should say, ‘You can’t behave like this. You’ve got to apologise, you’ve got to go cap in hand, we’ve got to cite LHR (in the court proceedings) and we’ve got to stop engaging in a hostile approach where you’re reporting Mr Ncube [LHR national director Zibusiso Wayne Ncube] for misconduct, where you say we should not get costs… And I’m afraid it is indicative of the approach of the department to NGOs in this sector,” he said.

The court will need to decide how to amend the current order to ensure the rights of those detained are not violated while the department concludes the legislation.

The LHR suggested a framework in which immigration officers and magistrates could be provided with some guidelines along with regular reports from the department on the progress of the new legislation.

The court was, however, concerned about overstepping by making an order that ventured into the realm of the legislature. DM


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Errol Price says:

    So the Chief Justice believes an apology is in order. Really ?
    Do the paticipants in this farce, Judges, lawyers and government clients not comprehend that this farce is worthy of a mad-hatters ‘ tea party ?
    It is the clearesr manifestation, if indeed one were still needed, that the proper functioning and interaction of the three arms of goverment as envisaged by the constitution ,has utterly broken down.
    Let the drafters of this ” greatest constitution in the world” explain to the dying people of Hammanskraal how their rights to clean water can be enforced, when orders which can actually be implemented are simply ignored.

  • Mark Cowell says:

    As a victim of DoHA tardiness, none of the above surprises. When the Rand is ZAR50 to £1 maybe the dorfs in charge will wake up

  • Ben Pieters says:

    Igoring a ConCourt order by the Government is the last nail in the coffin of our democracy. Little difference between Zim and SA these days. God help us.

  • D'Esprit Dan says:

    ‘A Pathetic Dereliction of Duty’ will be the ANC’s epitaph when it finally collapses under the weight of its corruption and malfeasance. I can’t think of a single person in power in the ANC who is a good, honest human being working hard for the upliftment and prosperity of South Africa.

  • Katharine Ambrose says:

    The people held in indefinite detention by these uncaring louts must wonder if the key has been thrown away. Are we going to see Motsoaledi in tears again as he was after people in the clutches of his last department were revealed to have died while incarcerated with Life Esidemeni?

  • Hermann Funk says:

    Nothing new here. Incompetent, overpaid civil servants at “work”.

  • Gregory Scott says:

    The fact is that these deployed cadres are more interested in canvassing for an election than actually doing the job that they are paid handsomely for by us the tax-paying citizen.
    Another fact is that ‘Lives Don’t Matter’, regardless of race.


    Are we surprised? ANC and apologies are mutually exclusive. You would have expected by now that the president had offered an apology for the ANC having reduced this country from a well-tuned technological and economic entity into a worthless, broke, banana republic.

    • Gerrie Pretorius says:

      Apology is foreign to Africa. Just accept it. Corruption and feeding from the Western trough while begging for more and at the same time stroking the head of Putin – that is ‘the African way’.

  • Gerrie Pretorius says:

    Simple solution – if you don’t adhere to a court order, you go to jail. No questions, no further trials, nothing! Just go to jail! The buck stops at the highest level, so either am or cr should be chucked in jail. See – easy as pie!??

    • Stuart Woodhead says:

      When will we ever see a cadre go to jail?
      The thieves can steal as much from VSBBank and the old dairy with no milk production etc etc but getting them into jail. Forget it. Mike Hellens will just get richer and richer!!!

  • David Le Page says:

    Laws are no substitute for culture. We need a living human rights culture in South Africa.

  • Jane Crankshaw says:

    BEE policies at their best at play here!
    How long do tax and rate payers have to stand by and watch their contributions being wasted by people who can’t or won’t do what they’re employed/empowered to do?
    I shake my head….it’s all I can do as I gave up hope a while back!

    • Uma Kabanye says:

      With R50m from Regiments Capital, and no doubt more from Russian friends for the 2019 election, of course no ANC MP wanted to look into dull old laws needing revision. It was party time!

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted


This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.

Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

Make your taxes work for you

Donate to Daily Maverick’s non-profit arm, the Scorpio Investigative Unit, by 29 February 2024 and you’ll qualify for a tax break.

We issue Section 18A tax certificates for all donations made to Daily Maverick. These can be presented to SARS for tax relief.

Make your donation today

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Become a Maverick Insider

This could have been a paywall

On another site this would have been a paywall. Maverick Insider keeps our content free for all.

Become an Insider
Otsile Nkadimeng - photo by Thom Pierce

A new community Actionist every week.

Meet the South Africans making a difference. Get Maverick Citizen in your inbox.