Key Takeaways
- On 8 October 2026, protests in Durban and Soweto resulted in 24 vehicles being set alight amid rising anti‑foreigner sentiment.
- The violence followed a July Constitutional Court ruling that struck down procedural barriers in South Africa’s Refugees Act, deeming them unconstitutional.
- Home Affairs issued a directive on 28 September to implement the ruling, which sparked backlash and was later withdrawn after the unrest.
- Anti‑foreigner groups such as March and March, led by Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma, amplified misinformation, linking the directive to claims of “free will” for migrants and strain on national resources.
- The Inter‑Ministerial Committee on Migration clarified that the court’s judgment does not grant automatic refugee status or permanent residence; all applicants must still undergo formal status determination.
- Political actors, including ActionSA’s Herman Mashaba and the Patriotic Alliance’s Gayton McKenzie, have used the issue to bolster electoral messaging ahead of the 4 November 2026 local government elections.
- Home Affairs acknowledged that refugee reception offices were overwhelmed by the sudden influx of applicants, prompting a review of its operational approach.
- The department has committed to drafting a new, sustainable plan that complies with the Constitutional Court’s order while addressing public safety concerns.
- Misinformation about refugee numbers accessing social grants (e.g., Sassa relief) has been debunked; official figures show a tiny fraction of the alleged millions.
- Migration will remain a salient, polarising issue in South Africa’s political landscape, shaped by both genuine policy challenges and opportunistic rhetoric.
The Spark of Violence: 24 Cars Torched in Durban and Soweto
On Thursday, 8 October 2026, a wave of anti‑foreigner protests swept through Durban and Soweto, culminating in the torching of 24 vehicles. Demonstrators targeted foreign‑owned shops, looted property, and clashed with residents, leaving several people injured. The unrest was not spontaneous; it erupted after a series of events that heightened tensions around asylum seekers and immigration policy. Eyewitnesses reported crowds chanting slogans against foreigners, while police struggled to contain the escalating violence. The scale of the destruction prompted immediate statements from government officials and civil‑society groups seeking to understand the underlying causes.
Judicial Roots: The Constitutional Court’s July Ruling on the Refugees Act
The turmoil traces back to a landmark judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in July 2026. The Court found that certain procedural requirements embedded in the Refugees Act were unconstitutional because they impeded genuine asylum seekers from accessing a merits‑based assessment of their claims. Specifically, the law mandated that asylum seekers enter South Africa through a designated port of entry, obtain a five‑day asylum transit visa, and present themselves at one of five refugee reception offices within that window, or else provide “compelling reasons” for non‑compliance. Failure to satisfy these steps could result in officers blocking or rejecting an application on the spot. The Court concluded that these barriers violated the constitutional right to dignity and the principle of non‑refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to places where they face persecution or serious harm.
Home Affairs’ Directive: Attempting to Implement the Court’s Order
In response to the ruling, the Department of Home Affairs issued a directive on 28 September 2026 aimed at aligning administrative practice with the Court’s decision. The instruction told refugee reception offices to accept anyone who appeared in person and expressed an intention to apply for asylum, regardless of how they had entered the country or whether they possessed a visa. It applied to individuals who had crossed borders unlawfully, used non‑designated entry points, lacked documentation, or missed the five‑day reporting deadline. The directive sought to remove the procedural hurdles the Court had condemned, thereby allowing asylum seekers to lodge their claims without being turned away for technical reasons.
Why the Directive Ignited Anger: The Rise of Anti‑Foreigner Mobilisation
The Home Affairs directive quickly became a flashpoint for a broader anti‑foreigner movement that had been gaining momentum throughout 2026. Groups such as March and March, which had already called for a 30 June “deadline” for foreign nationals to leave the country, seized on the directive as evidence that the government was facilitating an influx of migrants. Protesters argued that the measure would give illegal entrants “free will” to seek asylum, thereby straining scarce resources like jobs, healthcare, and education. The rhetoric intensified as the deadline approached, with vigilantes targeting people they suspected of being foreigners, destroying homes and businesses, and forcing communities to flee. The situation was further inflamed by the circulation of unverified claims on social media, which painted a picture of an uncontrolled migrant surge.
Voices of the Movement: Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma and March and March
At the forefront of the protests was Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma, the charismatic leader of March and March. She denounced the Constitutional Court ruling as “absolutely shocking” and warned that the Home Affairs directive would undermine South Africa’s sovereignty. In public statements, she claimed that even national documents were being “bought like cakes at a market,” suggesting a pervasive corruption linked to foreign nationals. Ngobese‑Zuma’s speeches and social‑media posts framed migration as the root cause of unemployment, crime, and strained public services, rallying supporters around a nationalist narrative. Her influence helped transform isolated grievances into a coordinated campaign of demonstrations, some of which turned violent.
Fact‑Checking the Claims: What the Court and Government Actually Said
Amid the fervor, the Inter‑Ministerial Committee on Migration stepped in to clarify the legal reality. It emphasized that the Court’s judgment did not automatically confer refugee status or permanent residence on anyone; nor did it legalise unlawful migration. Every applicant must still undergo the formal Refugee Status Determination process, where claims are examined against strict international and domestic criteria. The committee also warned that false or sensationalised information could exacerbate social tensions and erode trust in state institutions. Independent fact‑checks confirmed that allegations of millions of foreigners accessing social grants were baseless; official Sassa data showed only a fraction of the purported numbers.
Political Exploitation: Linking Migration to the Upcoming Elections
Analysts such as Professor Loren Landau of the African Centre for Migration and Society at Wits University observed that political actors across the spectrum have harnessed anti‑immigrant sentiment to bolster their electoral prospects. Notably, ActionSA leader Herman Mashaba and Patriotic Alliance leader Gayton McKenzie have repeatedly featured immigration in their campaign messaging. On 6 October 2026, Mashaba posted on X (formerly Twitter) urging citizens to vote for his party less than a month before the 4 November 2026 local government elections, attaching a viral but unverified claim that over three million refugees had applied for Sassa relief. Such tactics illustrate how migration has shifted from a peripheral issue to a central plank in party platforms, potentially shaping voter behaviour.
Operational Strain: Home Affairs Confronts Overwhelmed Reception Offices
The directive’s immediate impact exposed severe capacity constraints within the refugee reception system. On the same day as the protests, the Inter‑Ministerial Committee reported that offices were inundated with people seeking to lodge asylum claims, necessitating police assistance to manage queues. Home Affairs officials described feeling unsafe and warned that public order was at risk. In a Friday statement, the department’s director‑general acknowledged that the rapid implementation had produced “serious consequences that could not have been foreseen in the court order,” including overwhelmed facilities, threats to staff, and dangers to public safety. Consequently, the directive was withdrawn, and the department announced it would start afresh to devise a sustainable, compliant approach.
The Path Forward: Balancing Legal Obligations and Public Safety
Despite the setback, Home Affairs reiterated its respect for the judiciary and commitment to fulfil the Constitutional Court’s mandate. The department pledged to develop a new operational framework that removes procedural barriers while ensuring that refugee reception offices can function effectively and safely. Officials indicated that the revised plan would involve better resource allocation, staff training, and perhaps phased implementation to avoid sudden spikes in demand. As the 4 November elections approach, migration will remain a heated debate, with both genuine policy challenges and opportunistic rhetoric likely to influence public discourse and voter decisions. The episode underscores the importance of clear, evidence‑based communication to prevent misinformation from fuelling violence and destabilising social cohesion.