Key Takeaways
- The “March and March” movement promised weekly Thursday protests after the June 30 shutdown, but the actions have shifted from peaceful demonstration to localized intimidation targeting suspected undocumented migrants.
- Door‑to‑door campaigns in Alexandra, Katlehong and other Johannesburg suburbs involved confrontations, demands for clan names to prove South African identity, destruction of street‑vendor stalls, and threats to damage migrant‑owned property.
- Organisers claimed the actions were not motivated by hunger or looting, yet participants denied any tribal or xenophobic motive despite visible Zulu cultural elements in the marches.
- Vigilante groups also targeted businesses believed to employ undocumented workers, leading to heated exchanges and police intervention to calm tensions.
- Human‑rights organisations condemned the activities as unlawful vigilantism that undermines the rule of law and warned that such precedents could endanger any unpopular group in the future.
The Promise and the June 30 Shutdown
Following the nationwide shutdown on June 30, the March and March coalition announced that it would continue its protests every Thursday. Organisers framed the ongoing actions as a sustained effort to pressure authorities on immigration issues, promising a regular presence in Johannesburg’s streets. The initial announcement suggested a continuation of peaceful demonstration, but the reality on the ground quickly diverged from that narrative.
The Alexandra Door‑to‑Door Campaign
In Alexandra, a few hundred participants embarked on a “door‑to‑door” operation, moving through residential lanes and informal trading areas. They described the effort as a peaceful protest against undocumented migration, yet the conduct on the street resembled an intimidation sweep rather than a lawful demonstration. Residents reported being stopped at their homes and questioned about the nationality of occupants.
Harassment and Clan‑Name Demands
One of the most striking incidents occurred when a group of aggressive men surrounded a woman trading on the sidewalk. They demanded that she recite her clan names to prove she was South African, a tactic used to ascertain legal status without any official authority. The woman, visibly frightened, complied under duress, highlighting how the mob used cultural markers as a tool of exclusion.
Destruction of Vendor Stalls and Property Threats
Street‑vendor stalls suspected of being run by migrants were targeted for destruction. Vendors reported that their carts were overturned, goods scattered, and in some cases, their merchandise seized. Simultaneously, threats were made to damage the property of individuals believed to harbour undocumented migrants, creating an atmosphere of fear that extended beyond verbal confrontation.
Organiser’s Statements and Identity Proof
Before leaving the KwaNobuhle hostel in the morning, organiser Induna Myeza addressed the crowd, insisting that the group would not loot because they “were not hungry.” He declared their intent to “check for illegal immigrants who hide in houses and put locks on those houses,” framing the action as a community‑led enforcement measure. Later, a man from Mpumalanga held up his ID card to passing marchers in an attempt to verify his South African identity, yet many in the mob continued to question his legitimacy despite the documentation.
Denial of Tribalism and Unity Claims
Participant Mathapelo Senyolo rejected suggestions that the march was driven by tribalism or xenophobia. She acknowledged that many marchers were Zulu and sang Zulu songs, but insisted that the underlying sentiment was national unity: “We are all South Africans, fighting for the same goal.” This statement attempted to reconcile the visible ethnic expression with a claim of inclusive patriotism, even as the actions themselves singled out individuals based on perceived foreignness.
Katlehong Door‑to‑Door and Business Harassment
A similar pattern unfolded in Katlehong, where roughly 200 residents conducted a door‑to‑door campaign targeting homes where migrants were renting from South African landlords. The group issued notices to vacate, asserting that the occupants were unlawfully present. The march then proceeded to Alex Ngonyama’s panel‑beating business in the Phake section, where workers were accused of being undocumented migrants. Ngonyama protested loudly, asking how he would survive if forced to shut down, while the mob insisted he was breaking the law by employing foreigners.
Police Intervention in Katlehong
The confrontation between Ngonyama and Katiso Ramothiba, the group’s leader, grew heated, prompting police to step in and calm the situation. Officers separated the parties, mediated the dispute, and prevented the situation from escalating into violence. Their presence underscored the fragile line between community self‑policing and the state’s monopoly on lawful enforcement.
Rosettenville Women’s Vigil outside McDonald’s
In Rosettenville, a smaller contingent of mostly women gathered outside the local McDonald’s, singing and holding signs. While the gathering appeared less confrontational, migrant‑owned businesses in the immediate vicinity reported being pressured to close, whereas others remained open amid the tension. The women’s vigil illustrated how the protest tactics varied across suburbs, blending cultural expression with economic pressure on perceived foreign enterprises.
Spread of Vigilante Actions Across Johannesburg
Reports indicated that similar groups were moving through other parts of Johannesburg on the same Thursday, targeting homes and businesses where migrants were suspected to live or work. The actions were described by participants as “peaceful protests,” yet observers noted a consistent pattern of intimidation, property threats, and forced evictions. The coordinated nature of these efforts suggested an emerging vigilante network rather than isolated incidents.
Human‑Rights Perspective on Vigilantism
Mpho Makhubela, spokesperson for Lawyers for Human Rights, condemned the activities, stating they were “not lawful protests” but amounted to vigilantism inconsistent with South African law and the constitution. He warned that allowing such actions to continue unchecked risked normalising vigilantism as a substitute for lawful governance, creating a dangerous precedent where any unpopular group could become a target. His remarks emphasized that the rule of law must apply equally to everyone, regardless of perceived immigration status.
Xenophobia Crisis Warning
Mike Ndlovu of Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia characterised the events as “a crisis of humanity,” dismissing any notion of peacefulness in the mob’s behaviour. He argued that the underlying drive was hostility toward those perceived as different, and that the cultural symbols displayed in the marches could not mask the xenophobic intent. Ndlovu’s warning reinforced the concern that the current trajectory could exacerbate social fractures if left unaddressed.
Conclusion and Source Attribution
The Thursday actions initially advertised as a continuation of the March and March protest movement have evolved into a series of localized intimidation campaigns aimed at suspected undocumented migrants. From door‑to‑door searches and clan‑name interrogations in Alexandra to business harassment in Katlehong and quiet vigils in Rosettenville, the pattern reveals a shift from lawful demonstration to vigilante enforcement. Human‑rights advocates caution that such developments threaten democratic norms and could endanger any marginalized community in the future. This account is based on reporting by Our City News, a nonprofit newsroom serving Johannesburg.