The Helen Suzman Foundation has gone to court to challenge Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi`s decision to terminate the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit.
The permit allows around 178 000 Zimbabwean nationals to live and work in South Africa.
Arguments were based on whether the decision was administrative or executive and if it was procedurally unfair and irrational.
Was the decision not to renew the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) an administrative or executive action or was it irrational, antithetical to the Constitution and procedurally unfair?

These are some of the questions that a full bench of the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria will seek to answer before delivering judgment in a case relating to the effective termination of the ZEP.

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) is challenging the decision of Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi after he announced in December 2021 that the ZEP would not be renewed.

During the economic and political strife in Zimbabwe in 2008 and 2009, many of the country`s citizens fled to South Africa.

At the time, the South African government decided to create a blanket exemption so that Zimbabweans could get permits to live and work in the country legally.

The permits were effectively extended by creating another permit over the years, which has since become known as the ZEP. More than 178 000 ZEP holders have been in South Africa for more than a decade.

Policy decision

During the two-day hearing, the court heard that Motsoaledi had not terminated the ZEP but that the programme had expired by effluxion of time.

The minister decided not to renew or create another permit for ZEP holders, as had been done in the years before. The minister also extended the validity of the ZEPs to help holders organise their affairs.

Advocate Ismail Jamie, SC, for the minister and director-general of home affairs, said ZEP holders were given until June 2023 to regularise their stay in South Africa by applying for other visas or asking to be exempt from the expiration of the ZEP through a waiver.

Jamie based a large part of his argument on it being a policy decision.

He explained that giving a blanket exemption to Zimbabwean nationals entering South Africa in the 2000s was a policy decision based on the issues in the neighbouring country at the time.

Similarly, the decision not to create a further exemption was also policy, which he said was based on rational reasons, which included budgetary constraints, improvements in the conditions in Zimbabwe and a backlog in the asylum system.

He said such a policy decision was not up for judicial scrutiny and that only the policy`s implementation could be challenged in a court of law. However, he conceded that the decision

still had to be rational and could not be antithetical to the Constitution.

He explained that giving a blanket exemption to Zimbabwean nationals entering South Africa in the 2000s was a policy decision based on the issues in the neighbouring country at the time.

Similarly, the decision not to create a further exemption was also policy, which he said was based on rational reasons, which included budgetary constraints, improvements in the conditions in Zimbabwe and a backlog in the asylum system.

He said such a policy decision was not up for judicial scrutiny and that only the policy`s implementation could be challenged in a court of law. However, he conceded that the decision still had to be rational and could not be antithetical to the Constitution.

Budlender said on the respondent`s version the principle of legality had been violated. This was because Motsoaledi said his decision was final and would not be reconsidered and that the call for representations was not made before the decision. And when the call was made, it did not relate to the decision to end the blanket exemption, Budlender added.

Budlender also maintained that the minister did not consider the impact of the decision on ZEP holders and their children.

`The inevitable effect of the minister`s decision is that, on 30 June 2023, tens of thousands of ZEP holders will be left undocumented. This is due to the legal and practical barriers to securing alternative visas and permits,` Budlender said.

While Ismail argued that it was considered, Budlender pointed out that there was no affidavit from the minister and, as such, no evidence of that consideration.

The All Truck Drivers` Forum and Allied South Africa, another party to the proceedings, argued that the minister was not empowered to extend the permit programme in the first place.

Advocate David Mtsweni, for the truckers, also raised arguments that no exceptional circumstances existed which allowed the creation of the exemption regime in the first place. Mtsweni said the blanket exemption programme was only meant for foreign nationals who were in the country lawfully, which was not the case for ZEP holders.

HSF wants a declaration of invalidity and for Motsoaledi`s decision to be set aside. It also wants a temporary order directing that, pending the conclusion of a fair process, existing ZEPs should be deemed valid, and that ZEP holders should continue to enjoy the protections afforded by Immigration Directive 1 of 2021 and Directive 2 of 2022.

Judgment has been reserved. V.4792

One of the highlighted topics: Critical Skills Visa.

- Key Insight: Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast track to working in South Afr...
- This matter relates to critical skills visa and its broader implications.
- Individuals are advised to seek professional guidance.

Is your profession on the Critical Skills List? This visa is your fast trac V.6139
Click here for full article

One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, became a victim of identity theft in 2012 when fraudulent transactions occurred, using her personal details.

-The Pretoria High Court found that the department of home affairs had violated constitutional rights without due process.
-Only half of Lawyers for Human Rights` test group has been unblocked, while 385 000 identities remain blocked nationwide.
-LHR appeals extension, urges affected people to seek help now.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) are intensifying pressure on the department of home affairs over the national ID-blocking crisis, accusing the state of acting too slowly to unblock qualifying individuals despite a landmark court ruling.

In January last year, the Pretoria High Court found that the department`s practice of blocking IDs without due process was unlawful and unconstitutional. One of the applicants, Phindile Mazibuko, a Swati citizen and South African permanent resident since 1998, fell victim to identity theft in 2012 when fraudsters used her personal details.

 V.6133
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6128
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6129
Click here for full article

A Washington state mother and her 6-year-old son have been released after spending more than three weeks in US immigration detention due to a brief trip to Canada and a small paperwork mistake, her attorney told CNN on Saturday.

Sarah Shaw, a New Zealand citizen who has lived legally in the US since she arrived in 2021, was detained at the Blaine, Washington, Customs and Border Protection checkpoint when returning home after dropping her two oldest children off at the Vancouver airport for a flight to visit their grandparents in New Zealand. Shaw, 33, chose the flight out of Vancouver because it was direct and she didn`t want her children to have to navigate a layover alone, her attorney Minda Thorward, told CNN.

 V.6130
Click here for full article

On 22 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court dismissed Sitrusrand Boerdery`s review of the Department of Employment and Labour`s refusal to issue a Working Conditions and Salary Benchmarking Certificate, an essential precondition for obtaining corporate visas under the Immigration Act.

Acting Judge Kekana AJ held that the Department`s decision was lawful, rational and procedurally fair. This judgment illustrates how businesses can - and must - structure their corporate visa applications to meet statutory requirements, and how legal practitioners should prepare robust review challenges when administrative authorities decline to recommend foreign-work permits.

 V.6131
Click here for full article

The United States could forfeit an estimated 9.4 billion dollars in visitor spending over the next three years following the introduction of a new 250 dollars `visa integrity fee,` according to industry groups, who warn the policy risks undermining tourism and costing thousands of jobs.
The United States’ decision to introduce a 250 dollars `visa integrity fee` on international visitors has triggered sharp criticism from the global tourism industry, with officials warning that the measure could deter millions of travellers and cost the U.S. economy billions.
The 250dollar `visa integrity fee,` part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed on July 4, 2025, will take effect later this year. According to immigration law firm Envoy Global, it applies to all nonimmigrant visa holders which include students, tourists, temporary workers, and business visitors particularly from African countries. V.6132
Click here for full article

The Border Management Authority (BMA) has doubled its staff at Airports in South Africa , including immigration officers.

What does this mean for travelers? V.6127
Click here for full article

1. Right to Legal Representation•You have the right to consult with a legal representative.•Contact an immigration practitioner, legal aid clinic, or attorney urgently.•Do not sign any documents without understanding them fully. 2. Section 34 of the Immigration Act•You must be brought to court with 48 hours to confirm arrest but you can remain locked up very long as courts figure out what to do with you •If you`re found to be illegally in South Africa, you may be detained for up to 30 days (extendable by a magistrate) pending deportation.•BUT this cannot happen arbitrarily. You must be informed of your rights, and Home Affairs must follow due process.- becomes a nightmare , you could lose your job , business , place to stay V.6121
Click here for full article

Driving for Bolt, Uber, Mr D, or Checkers Sixty60?If you`re undocumented, you`re risking more than just your income.The Risks if You`re Not Legal: - Vehicle impoundment - Heavy fines - Arrest & deportation - Permanent bans from working in SA V.6122
Click here for full article