‘First safe country principle ignored’ as asylum system buckles
· Citizen
South Africa’s asylum system is once again under strain, with nationals from countries far beyond its borders leading in applications and appeals.
Visit sportbet.reviews for more information.
According to the department of home affairs, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia and Bangladesh remained the top countries of origin for new asylum applicants last year.
None of these nations share a border with South Africa, meaning applicants travel through several states before arriving here.
Lawyers for Human Rights in a previous briefing to parliament said the “first safe country” principle, while not explicitly written into the 1951 Refugee Convention, is widely applied in Europe and North America to deter asylum shopping.
In Africa, however, the practice is common, with South Africa often becoming the final destination for migrants who bypass other states.
This reality was laid bare during a briefing to the portfolio committee on home affairs last month by Deputy Minister Njabulo Nzuza and director-general Livhuwani Makhode, who presented the department’s fourth quarter performance and expenditure report for 2025-26.
The committee also heard from the Refugee Appeals Authority of South Africa (Raasa) on the scale of the asylum backlog and the measures being taken to address it.
Asylum backlog grows
Raasa chair advocate Zilpha Raphesu reported that the authority’s surge initiative project had finalised 19 064 cases since inception, through appeal decisions, cancellations and no show cases determinations. Yet the backlog remains daunting.
As of last month, there were 161 000 pending appeals, comprising 70 976 active cases and 90 024 inactive ones.
Ethiopian nationals accounted for the largest category of appeals, followed by the DRC, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
With the exception of Zimbabwe, none of these countries share a border with SA.
Raphesu said 2 733 judicial review applications had further delayed finalisation of cases and deportation processes.
Many asylum seekers had entered through the Beitbridge border post, often providing unreliable contact details.
Inactive cases involved appellants who could no longer be traced or had abandoned their appeals.
The department’s acting director-general for immigration services, Mandla Madumisa, outlined the legal framework governing asylum access and recent court judgments affecting administration.
He conceded that litigation and constitutional challenges continued to hamper efficiency.
Concerns over economic migrants
ActionSA’s Lerato Ngobeni asked whether the figures presented reflected genuine refugees fleeing persecution, or simply administrative churn within what she called a “broken asylum system”.
Ngobeni also raised concerns about the demographics of asylum seekers, noting that many were single men arriving without spouses or children.
She suggested a significant proportion were economic migrants rather than refugees.
Raphesu acknowledged the complexity of adjudication, saying the authority had developed a strategy to focus on “low-hanging fruit” cases involving Ethiopian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani nationals, many of whom avoided hearings or failed to appear.
By contrast, appeals involving DRC nationals often required nuanced consideration, as they had genuine protection claims and opportunistic elements.
Committee chair Mosa Chabane (ANC) stressed the need for continued engagement with home affairs, Raasa, the Border Management Authority and the Cross Border Road Transport Agency to strengthen immigration enforcement, address corruption and improve border governance.