The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: “I don’t have a plan for Africa, I have a plan for South Africa.”

This statement has never been about turning our backs on the African continent. It is about recognising the fundamental responsibility of any South African government: to put the interests of South Africans first, to secure our borders, to protect our economy, to create jobs and to ensure that our laws are enforced.

South Africa has every right to expect its immigration system to be lawful, effective and properly administered. We also have a right to ask difficult questions when the people advising government on immigration policy have professional interests or backgrounds that may intersect with the decisions of the department they are advising.

That is why I believe the appointment of Stefanie de Saude-Darbandi to the Immigration Advisory Board (IBA) deserves public scrutiny.

In April 2025, Home Affairs Minister, Leon Schreiber, announced the reconstitution of the IBA, which was inactive for more than a decade. The Board is established under the Immigration Act and is mandated to advise the Minister on immigration regulation, policy and other matters referred to it.

Ms de Saude-Darbandi was appointed as one of five independent members, selected on the basis of knowledge and experience relating to immigration law, control, adjudication or enforcement.

There is nothing inherently wrong with appointing an experienced immigration legal expert to an advisory body. In fact, government needs people with expertise. But expertise must always be accompanied by context, integrity and rigorous safeguards against conflicts of interest.

The question South Africans are entitled to ask is therefore simple: What safeguards are in place when a person who has represented clients in immigration-related matters is appointed to advise the very department whose policies and decisions affect that field of legal practice?

This is not an accusation of wrongdoing. It is a legitimate question about governance. I have already expressed my concern about this appointment on a tweet saying: “I find it difficult to understand the rationale behind this appointment.” I stand by that concern.

Minister Schreiber has said that the IBAis intended to bring together independent expertise and provide evidence-based advice to address South Africa’s immigration challenges. That places more emphasis on the public understanding how conflicts of interest are identified, declared and managed.

So, Minister Schreiber, South Africans deserve answers. Was a comprehensive risk assessment conducted before the appointments were made? Were the professional interests and/or clients relationships of all independent Board members considered? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that a Board member does not participate in discussions or recommendations involving matters in which they may have a direct or indirect professional interest?

And, most importantly, how does the Minister ensure that the Board’s advice is always guided by the national interest and not by the interests of any particular constituency? These are not unreasonable questions. They are precisely the questions that should be asked in a constitutional democracy.

The Immigration Act itself recognises the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. The law provides safeguards where a member has an interest that could prevent them from acting fairly, impartially and properly.

The principle is clear, expertise is valuable, but independence and transparency are equally important. This is particularly important given the state of South Africa’s immigration system. The immigration debate in our country has become increasingly polarised. 

On one side are communities who feel that unregulated immigration places pressure on public services and economic opportunities. On the other are those who insist that migrants and asylum seekers must be treated humanely to uphold the Constitution and international law. Both principles can be true at the same time. South Africa can uphold human rights and enforce its immigration laws.

We can welcome people who enter the country legally, contribute to our economy and comply with our laws, while taking decisive action against those who enter or remain in the country unlawfully.

This is not xenophobia; it is the rule of law.

At the same time, when foreign-owned businesses or undocumented migrants are attacked, their shops looted or their property destroyed, the state must act. Mob justice cannot replace the rule of law.

No South African should be above the law, but neither should any foreign national be subjected to violence because of their nationality or immigration status. We cannot condemn violence against foreign nationals while simultaneously refusing to confront the legitimate concerns of South Africans who believe that the government has lost control of its borders.

The answer cannot be selective outrage.

It must be law enforcement.

It must be border management.

It must be proper documentation.

It must be swift action against corruption within Home Affairs.

And it must be a system in which those who qualify for legal entry and residence are treated efficiently, while those who have no legal basis to remain in South Africa are dealt with according to the law.

The Immigration Act provides the legal framework for managing immigration, while Home Affairs is responsible for the effective, secure and humane management of immigration, asylum seekers and refugees.

The challenge is therefore not whether South Africa should have immigration laws. The challenge is whether those laws are being enforced consistently, fairly and effectively. For years, we have seen concerns about undocumented immigration, fraudulent documentation, corruption and weak border management. We cannot continue pretending that these problems do not exist.

When South Africans raise these concerns, they deserve to be heard. When they ask why the government appears unable to control illegal immigration, they deserve answers. When they ask why the country’s immigration laws are not enforced, they deserve accountability. Instead, South Africans are often made to feel as though they are somehow wrong for raising these concerns. I reject that.

South Africans have every right to demand that their government puts their interests first. This is what I meant when I said: “I don’t have a plan for Africa, I have a plan for South Africa.”

South Africa cannot solve the problems of an entire continent while failing to solve the problems within its own borders.

We must be able to have a frank conversation about immigration without being accused of xenophobia every time we demand enforcement of the law. Equally, we must be able to defend the dignity and safety of migrants without being accused of supporting illegal immigration. These positions are not mutually exclusive.

What is mutually exclusive is claiming to support the rule of law while allowing illegal immigration to become a political football. This is why I remain concerned about the direction of immigration policy under the Government of National Unity.

I have previously said: “It is clear that the GNU is for illegal immigration in South Africa.”

If the GNU is not for illegal immigration, then it must demonstrate this through its actions. It must secure our borders. It must strengthen Home Affairs. It must tackle corruption. It must enforce the Immigration Act.

South Africa deserves an immigration system that is humane but firm, compassionate but lawful, and open to those who qualify while uncompromising against those who abuse the system. We also deserve transparency from those entrusted with designing that system. 

That is why I am asking Minister Leon Schreiber directly: How was the appointment of every independent member of the Immigration Advisory Board assessed for potential conflicts of interest? What safeguards are in place to ensure that Board members recuse themselves on a case by case basis? How does the Minister intend to reassure South Africans that immigration policy is being developed solely in the public interest?

These questions are not unreasonable. They are not xenophobic. They are not un-African. They are questions about governance and accountability. The media must also apply the same standard of scrutiny to government decisions.

South Africans deserve to know who is advising their government on one of the most sensitive and consequential issues facing our country. They deserve to know that advisors in government are acting independently. They deserve to know that the government they elected is putting South Africa first.

Our immigration system must work. Our borders must be secure. Our laws must be enforced. Our people must be protected. And those who come to South Africa legally and contribute positively to our country must be treated with dignity and respect.

There is no contradiction in saying all of this. It is possible to be compassionate without being careless. It is possible to be humane without abandoning the law. And it is possible to be proudly South African without being afrophobic. 

That is the South Africa I believe in. A South Africa that welcomes those who come here legally. A South Africa that protects legitimate refugees and asylum seekers. A South Africa that has zero tolerance for xenophobic violence. Most importantly, a South Africa that has secure borders, functioning institutions and an immigration system that is firmly rooted in the law. That is the South Africa we must build.

And that is what I mean when I say: “I don’t have a plan for Africa. I have a plan for South Africa.”

Issued by ActionSA Joburg Mayoral candidate Herman Mashaba