For asylum seekers in South Africa, the practical meaning of a recent Constitutional Court judgment will soon come down to a receipt. Under a new system the Department of Home Affairs plans to introduce by 10 November 2026, a person who declares an intention to seek asylum will register online, receive a document recording their personal particulars, biometric information and reference number, and be given an appointment at a Refugee Reception Office. That receipt will serve as proof that the person has declared an intention to seek asylum, though it will not amount to a section 22 visa or recognition of refugee status.
The measures were announced on Sunday in Pretoria by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Migration, which has spent recent weeks weighing the consequences of a judgment handed down on 7 July 2026. The court declared unconstitutional the sections of the Refugees Act that allowed immigration officials to deport an asylum seeker found in the country without a transit visa, the document issued at a port of entry that allows a person to travel to a refugee reception centre and apply for asylum.
For the people the ruling affects, the new registration model is designed to translate a legal protection into everyday practice. According to the IMC, the system will operationalise the protection against refoulement, the forced return of a person to a place where they may face persecution or serious harm, which attaches by operation of law the moment someone declares an intention to seek asylum. Home Affairs will instruct its officials and the Border Management Authority that holders of valid receipts must not be removed, refouled, arrested or detained solely for being in the country without a visa, pending the lodging and final determination of their applications. The South African Police Service, the Department of Correctional Services, the National Prosecuting Authority and the courts will also be informed of the arrangements.
The system is built with vulnerable applicants in mind. Assisted registration will be available at Refugee Reception Offices and, on request, for people held in police or immigration detention, with help provided through officials, legal representatives and civil society partners in the main languages. Confidentiality safeguards, protection of personal information, published service standards, a complaints mechanism and statistics available to the courts will form part of the framework.
There are limits, and the IMC was candid about them. The protection applies to people registering an intention to make a first asylum application. Those whose claims have been finally rejected will not be able to reactivate protection simply by declaring a new intention to apply. Where a rejected applicant raises a specific, genuinely new claim that removal would expose them to persecution or serious harm, the matter should be referred for legal advice before removal. Applicants who miss their appointments without seeking an extension will lose them, and rejected applicants will be flagged to prevent abuse of the system.
Behind the administrative detail lies a government wrestling with how to comply with a court order it says it cannot yet implement in full. Following legal consultations, Government has been advised that it may approach the courts for a supervisory order to oversee the implementation process and provide guidance on the measures needed to give effect to the judgment. Such an order could allow the court to retain oversight and grant a suspension period during which Home Affairs strengthens its administrative, human resource, infrastructure and processing capacity.
“Accordingly, Government will request the Court to provide guidance on the nature and scope of the supervisory measures that may be required, as well as the appropriate duration of any suspension period necessary to build the operational capacity required for implementation,” said IMC Chair Mmamoloko Kubayi. “The objective is not to delay compliance, but to ensure effective and sustainable compliance that serves both the administration of justice and the broader public interest.”
Kubayi acknowledged the tension at the heart of the process. “We are in a situation where the IMC must find a balance between compliance with the court order and listening to the concerns of many South Africans, and we believe we will be able to find that balance, though we need time and patience that we will request formally from the court and that we are requesting today from our citizens,” she said. The IMC stressed that Government remains legally bound to comply with the existing court order while pursuing further guidance, and that it remains committed to the Constitution, the rule of law and South Africa’s national and international obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers.
Meanwhile, further legal movement is already scheduled. Relevant departments and entities have been directed to participate in a High Court hearing on 29 October 2026, where a panel of judges appointed by the Judge President of the Gauteng Division of the High Court will consider two conflicting directives on the same legal question concerning asylum seekers. The outcome will bear on how the Constitutional Court judgment is implemented administratively.
In parallel, the Minister of Home Affairs is drafting legislation aligned with the Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection, which Cabinet has approved. The IMC has asked the Minister to fast-track the process, and the bill is expected to go through Parliament in the next financial year. It will provide for remote lodging of asylum applications and address the first safe country principle as outlined in the White Paper. Home Affairs has also reported progress on the President’s June announcement that refugee reception centres will be moved to ports of entry, beginning with Beitbridge in December. Government will consider public proposals for establishing refugee camps, particularly for people whose applications are still being processed, taking legal and financial implications into account.
For now, the IMC’s message to South Africans and other stakeholders is patience. “South Africa remains a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. Matters relating to asylum, migration, and border management must be addressed through lawful processes and not through misinformation, intimidation, incitement, or acts of violence,” Kubayi said. Whether the court grants the time the government is asking for, and how the 29 October hearing shapes the path to the 10 November rollout, remains to be seen.