MARCH AND MARCH MOVEMENT: SOUTH AFRICAN ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MOVEMENT

Introduction

The March and March Movement was founded in March 2025 by Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, who started the movement because she believed the South African government was prioritising the interests of foreign nationals over those of South African citizens. She said she wanted to fight for citizens’ rights that she believed were being ignored. After receiving considerable public support, the movement was later joined by political parties such as the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), the Patriotic Alliance (PA), and ActionSA, as well as civic organisations including Amabhinca Nation and Operation Dudula. Ngizwe Mchunu, Phakel’umthakathi, and Xolani Khumalo subsequently spearheaded marches through various cities across the country, calling for the removal of undocumented foreigners, particularly those found to be in the country fraudulently. The movement also visited Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi and handed over a memorandum.

The movement said the memorandum was intended to draw the government’s attention to its demands as citizens. These demands included:

• Stricter immigration policies
• Stricter visa regulations
• A review of asylum policies
• Action against businesses employing undocumented foreign nationals
• Prioritisation of citizens’ rights

The South African Legal Framework Governing Illegal Immigration

Section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002¹ (the Immigration Act) provides that any person found in possession of a fraudulent permit, visa, passport, or identity document is a prohibited person: not eligible for entry into or residence in South Africa, and not permitted to apply for a visa. South Africa offers several visa categories depending on the purpose of the visit, including Electronic Travel Authorisation applications conducted online (subject to an application fee). Applicants must meet certain requirements on arrival, including holding a valid passport, a completed arrival card, proof of work or return travel, and information about accommodation and the purpose of the visit.

The main visa categories offered in South Africa are:

• Work visa: for highly skilled individuals, general employment, or intra-company transfers
• Study visa: for educational purposes
• Visitor’s visa: valid for ninety days for business or tourism travel within South Africa
• Medical visa: to undergo medical treatment
• Retirement visa: for temporary residents or retirees
• Corporate visa: granted to businesses that employ foreign nationals

Each visa application may be denied if the stated objective does not align with the actual purpose of the visit.

In A.K and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another², the case concerned a foreigner declared a prohibited person under section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act for possessing a fraudulent work visa, and the Director-General’s reluctance to waive the restriction under section 29(2) of the Act. In 2010, a Russian national obtained a work permit at the South African Embassy in Moscow, allowing her to enter the country for the first time. She later obtained a study visa with the assistance of an immigration consultant in Cape Town, which enabled her to remain in the country. She gave birth to a South African citizen child in 2014, and to a second South African citizen child in 2018, as a result of her relationship with a South African citizen life partner.

After living with her partner for two years, she applied for a spousal visa with work authorisation under section 11(6) of the Act³. Because she had previously submitted a fraudulent work visa, her application was denied. She was arrested and imprisoned on a charge of fraud shortly after giving birth prematurely, with her child cared for in a maternity ward incubator. She was released on bail some weeks later, after the fraud charges were provisionally withdrawn, despite the Department of Home Affairs’ continued opposition to bail and its acknowledgement of these serious personal circumstances.

In February 2019, she requested a declaration of non-prohibition under section 29(2) of the Act from the Director-General. This application was denied on the basis that she had previously submitted a fraudulent work visa in support of her spousal visa application. In May 2021, she approached the Western Cape High Court to have the Director-General’s decision reviewed and set aside. The court referred the matter back to the Director-General for a fresh ruling. When the Director-General again summarily denied her section 29(2) application, she returned to court, which set aside the Director-General’s second decision on its merits and ruled that she was not a prohibited person.

The case established several important principles in South African immigration and constitutional law:

• No strict liability for fraudulent visas: the court held that section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act cannot be applied as a strict liability provision. The Director-General must consider whether “good cause” has been shown under section 29(2) to lift the restriction.
• Fraud victims: the court accepted the applicant’s uncontested testimony that she had been the victim of a dishonest immigration official, and held that mere suspicion, or the fact that charges had not yet been laid against that official, was not sufficient justification for denying relief.
• Best interests of the child: the court found that the Department of Home Affairs had failed to consider the serious effects the mother’s deportation would have on her South African citizen children, placing strong emphasis on section 28 of the Constitution⁴ and the Children’s Act.
• Non-refoulement: the court referred to international law and section 2 of the Refugee Act 130 of 1998⁵, emphasising that it would be improper to deport someone to a situation where their physical safety and human dignity may be jeopardised, without a full investigation.

A similar approach was taken in Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another⁶, concerning an illegal foreigner who delayed expressing his intention to apply for asylum. The High Court ruled that the protections of the Refugee Act are triggered the moment an undocumented immigrant expresses a desire to apply for asylum, and that this immediately protects the person from unlawful deportation and detention while the asylum claim is being processed. The judgment established:

• Triggering asylum protection: the asylum process begins as soon as a person shows a desire to apply for it, rather than only once a formal application has been submitted at a Refugee Reception Office.
• Unlawful detention: arresting and detaining an asylum seeker under the Immigration Act on the basis that they are an illegal immigrant is unlawful if they have expressed an intention to apply for asylum.
• Protection against deportation: expressing a desire to seek asylum protects an illegal immigrant from unlawful deportation, particularly where their life would be at risk in their country of origin.

Challenges Facing South African Citizens

The movement argues that weak enforcement of the legal framework above has produced a number of difficulties for South African citizens. These claims, summarised below, reflect the movement’s own position and have not all been independently verified; readers should treat the specific factual assertions with appropriate caution and consult primary sources where possible.

• Education: the movement contends that some South African children are not enrolled in their local schools and must travel to schools further from home due to overcrowding, which it attributes partly to difficulties foreign national children face in obtaining documentation.
• Healthcare: it is alleged that local clinics and hospitals are overcrowded and facing shortages of medication and budget pressure due to rising patient loads, with some claiming that foreign nationals enter the country to collect and resell medication rather than to seek treatment for themselves.
• Underpaid labour: some businesses are accused of contravening labour law by employing undocumented foreign nationals at below-standard wages, which the movement says undermines working conditions and employment opportunities for citizens.
• Informal trading: the movement alleges that some foreign-owned spaza shops sell expired food, particularly in townships, and that competition over market stalls between informal traders has led to conflict.
• Border security: porous borders make it difficult to manage entry into the country, which the movement links to cross-border crimes such as human trafficking, smuggling, and vehicle theft.
• Documentation fraud: there are allegations that some immigration officials have been involved in forging and selling identity documents, passports, and other official documents.
• Illegal occupation of buildings: the movement claims that abandoned urban buildings have been taken over by criminal operations, including drug dealing and other serious crimes, undermining law enforcement in affected areas.

Conclusion

The legal framework and case law discussed above suggest that a central cause of these difficulties is the weakness of South Africa’s visa and asylum enforcement mechanisms. In the author’s view, foreign nationals should not be permitted to enter or remain in the country while verification of their status is still pending, since allowing this creates opportunities for others to cross the border without valid documentation and rely on a pending application as a shield. The Department of Home Affairs also needs to address allegations of corruption among its own officials in relation to the documentation of foreign nationals. To address these issues, the government, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Border Management Authority should pursue the deportation of illegal foreigners where appropriate and reform the laws governing visa, asylum, and other entry documentation, alongside stricter verification by the immigration system.

Reference(S):

Case law:

• A.K and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2693/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 52; 2023 (3) SA 538 (WCC) (10 March 2023)
• Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (A5053/2021; A5054/2021; A5055/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 253; 2023 (5) SA 178 (GJ) (14 March 2023)

Legislation:

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
• Immigration Act 13 of 2002
• Refugees Act 130 of 1998

Secondary sources:

• South African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII) (2023), https://www.saflii.org

1. Section 29(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002.
2. A.K and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2693/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 52.
3. Section 11(6) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002.
4. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
5. Section 2 of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998.
6. Abraham and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another [2023] ZAGPJHC 253; 2023 (5) SA 178 (GJ).