The press has reported on the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) ignoring two court orders instructing it to release an unlawfully detained Chinese national, resulting in the Deputy Director General being in contempt of court. This comes as part of a broader trend of people having to take the Department to court in order for their rights to be upheld, with few consequences for those responsible. I will be writing to the Minister to ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken against this individual.

This latest report details a Chinese woman who was illegally detained, even after two court orders were issued for her release as her documentation was entirely in order. Times Live reports that the threat of a third court challenge and the judge taking the most unusual step of personally telephoning the Deputy Director-General : Immigration Services, Mr Jackson McKay, which eventually resulted in the release of the detainee. Acting Judge Roelof du Plessis is quoted as saying that ""I then spoke to MacKay, who told me that he knew the law better than any judge did and that he was not going to release the applicant. He also summarily terminated the telephone call by putting the phone down."

Mr McKay has since been found guilty of contempt of court. Unfortunately, Home Affairs do not view this transgression in the same serious light. Spokesperson for the DHA, Ronnie Mamoepa, is quoted as saying that McKay will not be disciplined as "You can't be found guilty twice". But it is precisely because of the DHA's dismal reputation and attitude towards court rulings and upholding people's rights, that behaviour such as Mr MacKay's should not be tolerated. Surely a senior official found to be in contempt of court should face the requisite disciplinary action from the Department?

Furthermore, Judge du Plessis has hit the Department with a hefty costs order of costs for the "arrogant" attitude of its officials who man immigration services at the airport, according to the media report. This adds to the R6.8 billion in pending legal claims the Department is already facing. Just last week, I questioned the costs of defending the dysfunctionality that reigns within the Department of Home Affairs. I submitted questions for written reply by the Minister requesting details of the number of court challenges against the Department of Home Affairs, the number decided against the Department (and we know that this includes most such challenges), and the costs incurred by the Department.

I will now be writing to the Minister to intervene and ensure that disciplinary action is indeed taken. She is, after all, currently in China to promote South Africa as an investment destination for Chinese business. She should show, unequivocally, that this country welcomes legal migrants that can and do add value to our economy, and that her officials will do all in their power to facilitate, and not hamper, their movements.