Taxonomies
- Case indexes > Refugees > Administrative action > Procedure for the determination of refugee status
- Case indexes > Refugees > Arrest and detention
- Case indexes > Refugees > Deportation
- Case indexes > Refugees > Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
- Case indexes > Refugees > Immigration law
- Case indexes > Refugees > Refoulement > Principle of non-refoulement
- Case indexes > Refugees > Refugee > Rights of refugees
- Flynote
-
Section 12(1) of the Constitution — principle of non-refoulement — section 49(1) and 34 of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 — illegal foreigner’s intention to apply for asylum — lawfulness of detention.
- Case summary
-
The court noted the undeniable infringement of the applicant's section 12 right to freedom and security of person under the Constitution, establishing jurisdiction. Recognizing the urgency, given the applicant's ongoing detention and imminent deportation threat to a country with potential harm, the court granted leave for a direct appeal in the interest of justice.
Addressing whether the applicant could be released from immigration detention upon expressing asylum intention, the court referred to Regulations, determining that the declaration must occur at a port of entry. Sections 4(1)(h) and (i) and 21(1B) of the Refugees Amendment Act, along with regulations 7 and 8(3), provided illegal foreigners an opportunity to declare asylum intention in an interview with an immigration officer if they did not express it at a port of entry.
Concerning the time period for illegal foreigners to apply for an asylum seeker permit, the court followed Ruta and Abore cases, emphasizing that once the intention is expressed, applicants should be given an opportunity. Any delay in expressing intention does not disqualify asylum applications, and the principle of non-refoulement protects applicants from deportation until their refugee status is conclusively determined.
This document is 452.5 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 12
Judgment 8
- Besserglik v Minister of Trade Industry and Tourism and Others (Minister of Justice intervening) [1996] ZACC 8 (14 May 1996)
- Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others [2009] ZACC 14 (3 June 2009)
- Bruce and Another v Fleecytex Johannesburg CC and Others [1998] ZACC 3 (24 March 1998)
- D A v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2021] ZACC 50 (30 December 2021)
- Mazibuko v Sisulu and Another [2013] ZACC 28 (27 August 2013)
- Ruta v Minister of Home Affairs [2018] ZACC 52 (20 December 2018)
- Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs [2004] ZACC 19 (15 October 2004)
- e.tv (Pty) Limited v Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies and Others; Media Monitoring Africa and Another v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others [2022] ZACC 22 (28 June 2022)
Legislation 4
Documents citing this one 4
Judgment 4
- Gombe v S (CA&R 06/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 22 (2 May 2024)
- Lembore and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2023-097076; 2023-097111; 2023-097292; 2023-097427; 2023-100081; 2023-100526) [2024] ZAGPJHC 123 (8 February 2024)
- S v Tamang and Another (A91/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1090 (28 September 2023)
- Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 51/23) [2023] ZACC 45 (12 December 2023)