In a major victory for human rights advocates, the Constitutional Court of South Africa handed down a unanimous judgment on Tuesday, striking down highly controversial provisions of South Africa’s immigration law.

The ruling concludes a fierce legal battle spearheaded by the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Lawyers for Human Rights, dealing a profound blow to restrictive border enforcement practices.

The apex court officially confirmed a 2025 Western Cape High Court declaration that multiple sections of the Refugees Act and its corresponding regulations are unconstitutional and invalid.

The case, Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (Case 126/2025), specifically targeted sections 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h), 4(1)(i), and 21(1B) of the Refugees Act, along with several subsections of Refugee Regulations GNR1707.

Under these contested provisions, asylum seekers entering South Africa via unofficial ports of entry or those failing to report to a refugee reception office within a strict five-day window were forced to demonstrate "good cause" before even being allowed to lodge an asylum application.

The Constitutional Court found that these mechanisms effectively created a legal trapdoor, potentially disqualifying vulnerable individuals from refugee status before the actual merits of their cases could ever be considered.

Justice Steven Majiedt reaffirmed the international legal bedrock of non-refoulement, which explicitly prohibits returning refugees or asylum seekers to countries where they risk facing persecution, torture, or death.

The Court decisively ruled that procedural non-compliance, such as missing a filing deadline or crossing a border at an unofficial point, cannot be used as an arbitrary checkpoint to block access to the asylum system.

Furthermore, the court criticised the "good cause" requirement for lacking clear definitions or uniform guidelines, leaving desperate individuals at the mercy of inconsistent administrative officials.

The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF), which participated as an amicus curia (friend of the court) in both the High Court and Constitutional Court legs of the litigation, brought critical attention to how the law uniquely harmed minors.

The HSF argued that the procedural exclusions inflicted a "double harm" on the children of asylum seekers. If a parent failed to show "good cause", the child’s independent status as a rights holder was effectively erased, locking them out of legal systems and vital social protections.

The Constitutional Court explicitly validated these arguments, confirming that the struck-down provisions unjustifiably limited children's fundamental constitutional rights and stripped them of the most basic protections they are entitled to while residing in South Africa.

The judgment did not hold back in its criticism of the government's legal defence. Majiedt reprimanded the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) for advancing unsupported and sweeping allegations concerning Afghan and Bangladeshi nationals being heavily involved in human trafficking networks.

The apex court sternly warned State officials against leveraging "rhetoric that risks being perceived as xenophobic or racially charged", stressing that such arguments distort broader public narratives and place refugee communities in direct peril.

Reflecting its dissatisfaction with how the State handled the case, the Court scolded the respondents for litigating "exceptionally poorly" and slapped the department with an aggressive cost order, requiring them to pay the full legal fees of the applicants.

The DHA formally noted the decision, stating that it respects the authority of the Constitutional Court. Department officials confirmed they would study the judgment thoroughly to analyse its full regulatory implications before drafting an altered legislative pathway.

"We remain committed to protecting the integrity of South Africa's immigration system while ensuring that our policies and legislation continue to give effect to the Constitution and the country's international obligations," the department stated, pledging to walk a fine line between enforcing the rule of law and adjusting to the sweeping changes demanded by the court.