Government is free to change the policy
The government is free to change the policy on the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit, lawyers for the Minister of Home Affairs have argued in court.
• No rights will be taken away when the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) system comes to an end in June, lawyers for the Minister of Home Affairs told the Pretoria High Court on Wednesday.
• The court is hearing an application by the Helen Suzman Foundation and the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa to have the minister set aside the decision.
• Advocate Ismail Jamie said rights that were temporarily conferred in the first place had been allowed to lapse through the passage of time.
• He said it would be impractical to expect the government to have consulted 178,000 ZEP holders.
The lapsing of the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) system was a political decision by the Minister of Home Affairs, and does not take away the rights of ZEP holders, the government has argued in court.
Advocate Ismail Jamie, counsel for the Minister of Home Affairs, told a full bench of the Pretoria High Court that there was no decision to terminate the ZEP system, as argued by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) and the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA) in a case that seeks to set aside the minister’s decision to terminate the ZEP system on 30 June 2023.
Rights that were temporarily conferred in the first place had been allowed to lapse through the passage of time, he said. No rights had been taken away.
“Just as government was free to adopt (a visa exemption) policy in respect of Zimbabweans as it relates to the conditions prevailing in that country in 2008 and 2009, it is free to change that policy in 2023,” says Jamie.
Blanket visa exemptions for Zimbabweans illegally in SA were introduced in 2009 under the Dispensation of Zimbabweans Project (DZP). That gave legal status to about 250,000 Zimbabweans who had fled political and economic instability at home. It allowed them to live, work, study and open businesses in SA. This scheme was extended and renamed the Zimbabwean Special Permit (ZSP) in 2014 and the ZEP in 2017. In 2021, Home Affairs Minister Aaron Motsoaledi announced that the ZEP system would not be renewed, though two temporary extensions were granted until 30 June 2023.
When asked by Justice Gcina Malindi on whether ZEP holders had a right to consultation on a matter that affected the rights they had acquired under the permit system, Jamie replied that consultation with ZEP holders will take place when ZEP holders apply for alternative visas or waivers.
“Practically, it is impossible to expect government to consult 180,000 ZEP holders, and to consider the personal circumstances of ZEP holders and their families. It would have taken years to assess impact on that level. That’s impractical and not required by

law,” said Jamie.
In response, Advocate Steven Budlender, for the Helen Suzman Foundation, argued that there was no consultation with affected parties either before or after the decision to terminate the ZEP system. The minister’s claim that it was impractical to canvass 178,000 opinions as to how it would impact them was irrational, as this was standard procedure whenever legislation or policy is proposed by government, he said. “There was plenty of time to issue a notice of comment, yet this was not done in this case,” said Budlender. “All public power has to be rational and there must be a rational process.”
The court heard considerable debate as to whether the minister’s decision was subject to review in terms of the standard of procedural fairness under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), or legal rationality. Jamie argued that PAJA did not apply, but that even if it did, the minister’s decision was procedurally fair in that ZEP holders were given 18 months to regularise their affairs. They were also given an opportunity to make representations to Home Affairs and apply for waivers or alternative visas.
Budlender disputed the claim made by counsel for the minister that this was a cabinet decision, saying it was the director-general of Home Affairs who made the decision. The minister had failed to consider the adverse impact of the decision on ZEP holders and their children. There was no affidavit from the minister explaining what steps he had taken to consider these impacts. “We sit here with no evidence that a single person has been granted a waiver. The minister has a duty of candour to this court,” said Budlender.
The Helen Suzman Foundation argued that it is not saying the exemption permit system can never come to an end, but that decisions that affect the rights of ZEP holders and their families must be properly considered. The minister’s decision limited the rights of ZEP holders since they would find themselves at risk of deportation, loss of jobs and closure of bank accounts after 30 June 2023.
David Simonsz, representing the Consortium for Refugees and Migrants in South Africa (CoRMSA), challenged the minister’s claim that there was no need to consult affected parties before making a decision as momentous as terminating the ZEP system. There was no consultation with those affected when the DZP was granted, or ended, nor were Zimbabweans consulted when the later programmes were introduced and ended. “The idea that at no point they had a right to be heard is wrong. When decisions are made that have an impact on you, you have a right to be heard,” said Simonsz.
www.samigration.com V.4793

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