March and March wants border refugee camps after ConCourt asylum ruling

• Civic organisation March and March announced it will contest the implementation of South Africa's asylum regulations after a Constitutional Court ruling
• March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma argued the current framework incentivises abuse by economic migrants and wastes state resources
• The group proposed establishing enclosed border refugee camps to screen applicants before granting access to the domestic economy

SOUTH AFRICA — Civic organisation March and March has announced its intention to challenge the implementation of South Africa's asylum regulations following a Constitutional Court ruling that affirmed asylum seekers' right to administrative processing and individual merit assessments.

March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma stated that while the organisation understands the court's legal reasoning, it views the existing statutory framework as harmful to South African citizens and intends to pursue both public and legal avenues to contest the ruling's application.

March and March's case against open-access processing

At the centre of the organisation's opposition is the concern that allowing asylum applicants freedom of movement, employment rights, and business opportunities during the processing period creates a loophole that economic migrants can exploit. Ngobese-Zuma cited Department of Home Affairs figures suggesting that approximately 95% of asylum applicants are ultimately found to be non-genuine refugees upon final adjudication. She argued this makes open-access processing a drain on state resources and enables prolonged legal challenges against deportation orders.

As an alternative, March and March have called for the establishment of dedicated, enclosed refugee camps at border entry points, where applicants would be detained, verified, and screened before being permitted access to the broader domestic economy.

Constitutional court ruling stands

The Constitutional Court's ruling reaffirmed South Africa's obligations under both international and domestic law to evaluate every asylum claim on its individual merits and to keep processing channels accessible to applicants. The apex court did not waver from this position despite arguments to the contrary.

March and March's announcement places it in direct tension with the court's legal interpretation, setting up what could become a protracted legal and political battle over how the country's asylum framework is administered in practice.

More on March and March and South African politics

• Briefly News recently reported that two March and March members were granted bail after their arrest during a Durban protest over a Home Affairs directive.
• The NPA denied claims that arrest warrants had been issued against March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma and Xolani Zuma, prompting debate online.
• March and March protesters targeted Tembisa Hospital over R2.6 billion corruption claims, demanding answers from the government.

Source: Briefly News

Authors:

Hot: