The SA First Forum, led by Xolani Zuma, has been admitted as a friend of the court in a major South African legal dispute over the detention of undocumented foreign nationals seeking asylum.
March and March leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma announced the development, which comes amid growing disagreement among judges over how immigration laws should be applied.
The case centres on whether undocumented foreign nationals should be released from immigration detention after expressing an intention to apply for asylum.
Gauteng Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba has referred 33 immigration applications to a full bench of judges. The hearings are scheduled for November 16 to 18.
The referral follows conflicting judgments by Judges Mandlenkosi Motha and Stuart Wilson.
In an earlier judgment, Judge Motha questioned why grassroots movements such as March and March and Operation Dudula were not represented in court proceedings dealing with immigration matters affecting ordinary South Africans.
He argued that well-funded organisations appeared to dominate legal discussions, while poor communities had little opportunity to present their concerns.
Motha warned that courts risked becoming places where only the voices of well-resourced organisations were heard.
The disagreement became clearer in two separate cases involving undocumented migrants detained at the Lindela Repatriation Centre.
Motha ruled that foreign nationals should not automatically be released simply because they had indicated an intention to seek asylum. Instead, he directed the Department of Home Affairs to process their applications at Lindela or transport them to refugee reception offices. They could not be deported while their applications were being considered.
Judge Wilson took a different position. He ruled that immigration detention becomes unlawful once a detained person expresses an intention to apply for asylum.
The full bench will now determine which interpretation is consistent with an earlier Constitutional Court ruling.
Wilson also criticised Motha’s reference to March and March and Operation Dudula, describing them as xenophobic organisations and questioning whether they genuinely represented poor South Africans.
The case has also raised questions about foreign funding of organisations involved in constitutional litigation. Some organisations, including the Scalabrini Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights, receive financial support from international institutions.
The wider debate concerns whether poor South Africans have sufficient resources to challenge policies and decisions that directly affect their lives.
South Africa continues to struggle with unemployment, poverty, inequality and unequal access to economic opportunities. These problems are particularly severe in poor black communities, where competition for jobs, housing and public services remains intense.
Supporters of stronger immigration enforcement argue that the government must address undocumented migration while protecting local workers and ensuring that immigration laws are properly enforced.
The admission of SA First Forum as a friend of the court introduces another perspective into the proceedings.
Although the full bench will decide the legal question surrounding asylum detention, the case has opened a broader debate about representation, immigration and whether the concerns of disadvantaged South Africans receive sufficient attention in the country’s constitutional democracy.
Courtesy of IOL