This was according to an affidavit handed to the Cape High Court on Tuesday before the court ruled that immigration regulations Buthelezi had gazetted on March 8 be set aside.
In Buthelezi's affidavit, he contends that the major difference between the interim and the final regulations lay in the fact that the financial thresholds and other requirements relating to permits had been substantially reduced.
"Accordingly, under the new regulations, financial thresholds have been reduced... in respect of long-term visitor permits, business permits for investors, relatives' permits and retired persons' permits," said Buthelezi.
However, the effect of Tuesday's ruling by Judge Hennie Erasmus meant that the interim regulations, which was in place for the past 12 months, would continue to remain in force.
Meanwhile, the specialist immigration lawyer whose March court application forced Buthelezi to publish the immigration regulations and precipitated a showdown between President Thabo Mbeki and Buthelezi, said the judge's ruling held "massive implications".
According to Gary Eisenberg -- who the state alleged during court proceedings might even have colluded with Buthelezi to secure the court order to gazette the regulations -- potential immigrants to South Africa wanted service delivery.
"What people have wanted is certainty of law," he said, adding that it was "impossible" to quantify the potential economic and other costs to South Africa.
Eisenberg said, for example, if an Australian businessman wanted to come to South Africa, then he needed to obtain a two-year business permit and show that he could introduce into SA as part of a book value the minimum of R2.5-million.
If he couldn't and brought in less, then he needed a special recommendation from the Department of Trade and Industry.
"The new regulations allowed for a far more flexible and fair approach from a factual perspective," he said.
Tuesday's ruling was characterised by an increasingly acrimonious exchange President Thabo Mbeki and Buthelezi, with the April elections as a constant backdrop.
Mbeki's counsel Michael Donen, SC, among others, essentially argued that Buthelezi had gone beyond his powers when he published the regulations, despite the fact that cabinet was busy mulling over the regulations.
Donen maintained that Buthelezi had created consequences for other government portfolios and had directly affected South Africa's international relations and national policy.
He also submitted that Buthelezi had acted in a "mala fide or improper manner".
However, Buthelezi's counsel, David Unterhalter, SC, said at the heart of the matter was the issue of cooperative governance and the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative spheres.
Unterhalter submitted that his client was acting in terms of being a "legislative functionary" as assigned to him by Parliament.
He warned of a "presidential state" where every time legislation was enacted and passed along for implementation to any minister, and it was deemed to be national policy, then the president could intervene.
By early Tuesday evening, it was unclear whether the judge's decision would be appealed.
Unterhalter had in argument said the Constitutional Court would be the best place to deal with the immigration controversy - Sapa.
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE SAVE THIS ARTICLE FEEDBACK
To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here
