The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) has condemned disinformation about the Constitutional Court’s 7 July 2026 judgment in the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town matter, which concerns the processing of asylum applications.
“Despite it being public knowledge that this case was vigorously opposed by the department and that it led to a binding ruling of the Constitutional Court, nefarious actors have launched a large scale disinformation campaign targeting the Minister of Home Affairs and other officials, claiming that the decision to suspend good cause interviews was taken at the initiative of the Minister, the department or political parties. This is categorically false,” the department said in a statement on Wednesday.
In July, the DHA said it would study the judgment handed down by the court in the matter between the Scalabrini Centre and the Minister of Home Affairs.
The Scalabrini Centre is a non-profit organisation that assists migrants, refugees and local South Africans.
The case between the centre and the Minister concerns the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Refugees Act relating to the asylum application process. The Constitutional Court confirmed the Western Cape High Court's declaration that these provisions were unconstitutional and invalid.
The court declared sections of the Refugees Act, which allowed for immigration officials to deport an asylum seeker if they are in the country without a transit visa, unconstitutional. A transit visa is issued at a port of entry to allow a person to travel to a refugee reception centre and apply for asylum.
The Scalabrini Centre, represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, challenged the Minister of Home Affairs regarding practices related to asylum seekers and the "good cause" interviews required for their applications. If applicants failed to meet these conditions, they had to provide immigration officers with a valid reason and show “good cause” for lacking the required visa. "Good cause" interviews were conducted to determine whether someone, who did not have the required documentation, could proceed with an asylum application.
READ | Home Affairs notes Constitutional Court judgment
The case was brought to the Western Cape High Court, where the applicants argued that certain provisions of the Refugees Act unjustly barred individuals with irregular immigration status from seeking asylum, violating their constitutional rights and international non-refoulement principles.
On Wednesday, the DHA said the Constitutional Court judgment is binding, adding that the “department is constitutionally obliged to implement”.
“An operational directive was subsequently issued solely to give effect to that judgment, as is standard practice to ensure compliance with rulings of the highest court in the land. Claims that this judgment by the Constitutional Court grants asylum seekers citizenship or provides for the blanket legalisation of foreign nationals are also categorically false.
“Respect for binding court judgments is fundamental to the rule of law and our constitutional democracy,” the DHA said.
The department said it will continue to fulfil its constitutional obligations, irrespective of whether it was successful in the litigation concerned.
“The matter will be referred to the Independent Electoral Commission for further action in terms of the newly published Code of Conduct on Countering Disinformation,” said the DHA.
The Code provides rail guards for the conduct of political parties, candidates and anyone acting on political parties’ or candidates' instruction, authority or for reward across all election-related communication, whether online or offline, paid or unpaid. The Code protects legitimate debate and robust debate.
The department further called on South Africans to help combat the growing scourge of disinformation and incitement by verifying information. -SAnews.gov.za
