In July, South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled that asylum seekers must be able to apply at Home Affairs regardless of how they entered the country. In the week of 6 October 2026, the implementation of that ruling became one of the most widely covered stories on South African radio. A Home Affairs directive, issued on 28 September, told refugee reception officers to accept all applicants. Stations then reported long queues, a shutdown of the Durban reception centre, and violent clashes in Durban and Soweto, with cars torched and shops looted.
Within days the department withdrew the directive. Minister Leon Schreiber said the department's earlier warnings had been dismissed as hypothetical and that Home Affairs now had proof of the operational strain. By the weekend, the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration, chaired by Justice Minister Mamoloko Kubai, said government would ask the courts for a supervisory order. Such an order would keep the judiciary involved in overseeing implementation and could buy Home Affairs more time. Kaya 959 reported that a new online registration system is due by 10 November.
The story is still open. Stations are asking whether the courts, the state or communities will shape what happens next.
From judgment to street protest
Stations framed this story mainly as a crisis of implementation rather than a debate about the law itself. The Constitutional Court's July ruling was already months old. What pushed it onto the airwaves in early October was the Home Affairs directive that put it into effect, and the public backlash that followed. Across six stations, coverage moved through four stages in roughly a week:
- outrage - clashes - retreat by Home Affairs - a return to court
The anger was audible from the first day of the period. On 6 October, SAfm carried the Progressive Forces of South Africa's Bonang Sepuluane saying "there is nothing constitutional about the ruling" and that communities would be most affected.1 The same evening, a Power FM presenter described marchers who had "shut down" the Durban refugee reception centre so that no applications could be processed. The presenter also noted that the department had itself warned it would be overwhelmed.2
Disinformation and the 'unintended consequences' line
Government's first response was defensive. On 7 October, 702 reported that Home Affairs was pushing back against what it called a "coordinated disinformation campaign". The department said the suspension of so-called good cause interviews was "not a political decision" but a direct consequence of a binding judgment.3
By 8 October the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration had convened an urgent meeting. 947 reported Mamoloko Kubai saying the judgment and directive had produced "unintended consequences", with thousands queueing outside reception centres and numbers that had overwhelmed Home Affairs.4
Not every minister sounded alarmed. Power FM carried Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni describing the ruling as "an opportunity" for Home Affairs to determine who qualifies to remain in the country, while government sought legal advice.5
The directive is withdrawn
After violent clashes in Soweto and Durban, Home Affairs pulled the directive on the morning of 9 October. Kaya 959 noted that it had been issued on 28 September and reported multiple protests in the Johannesburg CBD.6
Schreiber's explanation, repeated across 702 and Cape Talk bulletins, carried an edge towards the court. He said the department had raised concerns before the judgment, but those concerns were treated as "hypothetical" at the time. Home Affairs, he said, now had proof of the ruling's "difficult implications" for its operations.7 Cape Talk added that the withdrawal was meant to "explore alternatives".8
Where voices diverged
The sharpest disagreement on air was over the role of the judges. On SAfm, a Contralessa-aligned voice blamed "those few constitutional court judges". This speaker stressed that the judgment "was not unanimous" and had "sent the country into turmoil". They also restated Contralessa's call for judges to interpret the law rather than make policy.9
Other voices placed the blame on immigration policy rather than the bench. Power FM carried a view that the unrest could have been avoided if South Africa applied rules that other countries follow. The same report detailed clashes between foreign nationals and local residents, with cars torched and shops looted.10
On the ground, the climbdown did not settle tempers. 947's reporter in Soweto found residents unconvinced by the pause, one saying, "I feel it's too little to."11
The shift to a supervisory order
By 10 October, government was signalling that it wanted more time. SAfm reported the Acting Police Minister, named on air as Feroz Katalia, saying government was considering approaching the Constitutional Court for an extension.12
That position firmed up on 11 October. Kubai, as IMC chair, announced that government had been advised to seek a supervisory order. This would let the judiciary "retain oversight over the implementation process" and give guidance on how the judgment "should be operationalized". Kubai described the protests and the directive as "unintended outcomes". The announcement then ran almost hourly through the night on 702 and Cape Talk.13
Cape Talk's coverage also set out the hardened rules government plans to follow:
- Officials must still receive an intention to apply "expressed by anyone at any stage, including in detention". - A missed appointment without a valid reason means the application "falls off and the individual must be deported".14
The digital fix and the open questions
The operational answer, as Kaya 959 reported it, is a new online registration system due by 10 November. Kaya's morning show then turned the story to listeners with a broader question: when courts have to tell government how to do its job, does that strengthen or weaken faith in democracy?15
Several things remain unresolved:
- whether the courts grant the supervisory order and any extension - whether an appointment system can absorb demand that physical offices could not - whether the stricter deportation provisions withstand legal scrutiny - whether communities that protested accept a process still rooted in the original judgment
The corpus also shows how much of the on-air volume came from repeated news bulletins rather than extended discussion. That pattern suggests the deeper debate may still be ahead.
- 702
- 947
- Cape Talk
- Kaya 959
- Power FM
- SAfm
Citations
- 1.
“Organization, the Progressive Forces of South Africa, has expressed concern over the Constitutional Court's ruling on asylum seekers. The Concord ruled that South Africa's asylum system must reopen to new applicants. In light of this, Home Affairs says the refugee reception officers will now accept applications from everyone, including those who enter the country without a visa. PFSA's Bonang Sepuluane says there is nothing constitutional about the ruling, and communities will be the most affected by it.”
- 2.
“Asylum applications and the Con Court ruling, the Constitutional Court ruling, because it's very, very serious. And we've seen that March and March went to shut down the Home Affairs Refugee Reception Center today in Durban. And they were protesting there. They shut down that place. So they could not document, there were no refugee applications that could be processed. But it's interesting because the department themselves have been quoted to say they are overwhelmed, they are going to be overwhelmed, and they start.”
- 3.
“This is what happened in your world. Home Affairs is pushing back against what it calls a coordinated disinformation campaign over a constitutional court judgment on the processing of asylum applications. The department says false claims are circulating that Home Affairs Minister Leon Treiber or the ministry decided to suspend so-called good cause interviews for asylum seekers. It says the change was not a political decision, but the direct consequence of a binding constitution.”
- 4.
“Mamoloku Kubae says the Constitutional Court judgment on asylum applications has had unintended consequences for the country's migration system. The judgment and subsequent Home Affairs Directive has opened the asylum application process to foreign nationals, regardless of how they entered the country. This has led to long queues outside refugee reception centers with thousands of people turning up to apply for asylum. Kubae says the numbers have overwhelmed Home Affairs. This morning's briefing comes as tensions between locals and”
- 5.
“To the story, now government is intensifying efforts to address immigration and asylum challenges in South Africa. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni says the recent Constitutional Court ruling on asylum seekers provides an opportunity for the Department of Home Affairs to determine who qualifies to remain in the country. Nchabeni says government is seeking legal advice on the ruling further action.”
- 6.
“Looting and violence, residents have been out on the streets after the Home Affairs Department reopened the country's asylum application system. This in compliance with the recent Constitutional Court ruling that allowed asylum seekers to apply regardless of how they entered South Africa. Just this morning, the department withdrew its directive on the applications issued on the 28th of September. Meanwhile, multiple protests have been reported in Johannesburg CBD.”
- 7.
“Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber says the department now has proof to present to the Constitutional Court that its ruling on asylum seeker applications has difficult implications on its operations. The department says it raised concerns over the potential consequences of the ruling. However, the minister says those concerns were hypothetical at the time. Yesterday, violent clashes erupted in Soweto and Durban over the department's instruction for its offices to accommodate all asylum applicants, regardless.”
- 8.
“Constitutional Court that its ruling on asylum seeker applications has difficult implications on operations. The department says it raised concerns over the potential consequences of the ruling, but the minister says those were hypothetical at the time. Yesterday, there were violent clashes in Soweto and Durban over the department's instruction for its offices to accommodate all asylum applicants regardless of how they entered the country. Schreiber says the withdrawal of that directive is to explore alternatives.”
- 9.
“Thanks to those few constitutional court judges who allowed asylum seekers, documented or undocumented, to go to home affairs offices to be legalized. The judgment, of course, was not unanimous. This judgment has sent the country into turmoil. Contralessa has been calling upon judges to just interpret the law, not to deal with policies.”
- 10.
“Been avoided if South Africa implemented rules many other countries around the world follow. This says unrest erupted following public outrage over the Constitutional Court ruling, which allows asylum seekers access to the application process, even if they enter the country irregularly or fail to report to refugee reception officers within the required period. These protest actions have since seen clashes between foreign nationals and local residents, with cars being torched while several shops looted. Now, the Department of Home Affairs has.”
- 11.
“Regarding asylum seekers. In July, the Constitutional Court invalidated certain provisions of the Refugee Act. This effectively allows illegal immigrants to gain access in application for asylums, although it does not automatically grant such status. Karender Jack Mahan reports. Just as protesters gathered at the Soweto Home Affairs Office yesterday, the Home Affairs Department confirmed it would pause its implementation of the court order. But residents weren't convinced. I feel it's too little to.”
- 12.
“The bottom of the hour now. Acting Police Minister Feroz Katalia says the government is considering approaching the Constitutional Court to ask for more time to implement its ruling on asylum seekers. This comes in the wake of violent protests that erupted in Durban and Soweto this week. This is linked to a directive that was issued by the Home Affairs Department to reopen the refugee reception offices following a ruling by the Constitutional Court in July this year. The court ruled that the state should consider asylum seekers.”
- 13.
“Of the Constitutional Court judgment on asylum seekers. It follows violent protests and tensions surrounding the ruling, and a subsequent Home Affairs Directive developments Kubai describes as unintended outcomes. She says following legal consultations, the government has been advised to return to court and seek an order that would allow the judiciary to retain oversight over the implementation process. This would also allow the court to provide guidance on how its judgment should be operationalized.”
- 14.
“Constitutional court judgment on asylum seekers following violent protests linked to the ruling and a subsequent Home Affairs Department, a directive rather. IMC Chair Justice Mamuloko Kubai. Officials must still receive an intention to make a first application expressed by anyone at any stage, including in detention. If the appointment is not attended, no extension is sought that has valid reason, this application falls off and the individual must be deported.”
- 15.
“On the front page this morning, on Friday, Home Affairs pulled back its asylum directive after a week of tension. And the government will now ask the courts to oversee how the Constitutional Court's ruling is carried out and possibly to grant more time while Home Affairs works on a new online registration system due by the 10th of November. We then ask you this morning: when the courts have to step in and tell the government how to do its job, does that strengthen your faith in democracy or weaken your faith?”