Marcus Moloko
The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has interdicted members of Operation Dudula from engaging in a wide range of actions targeting foreign nationals.
The ruling, handed down on Tuesday, follows a joint application by civil society groups, including Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia, the South African Informal Traders Forum, and Abahlali baseMjondolo. They were represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI).
The court ruled in SERI’s favour, saying that only immigration or police officers are legally empowered under the Immigration Act to demand identity documents from individuals.
Private citizens, including members of Operation Dudula, had no authority unless explicitly empowered by law.
Operation Dudula, together with anti-foreigner group March and March, have in recent months been stopping people outside public clinics and demanding identification, saying that public health facilities should only be for South Africans. They have done the same at public schools, where they have handed “warning letters” to school authorities, “reminding” them that South African children must take preference over foreigners.
The court interdicted Operation Dudula and other respondents from:
Demanding passports and identity documents from any private individual to prove their right to be in the country.
Intimidating, harassing, threatening, or assaulting individuals identified as foreign nationals.
Threatening arrest or deportation if identity documents are not produced.
Threatening closure of businesses or confiscation of goods belonging to foreign nationals.
The court ruled that immigration or police officers are not authorised to do warrantless searches “in private places that include the home and places of study, work or business”.
The court said that immigration officers or police must “hold a reasonable suspicion” that a person is in the country illegally in order to ask them to identify themselves as a citizen, foreigner, or permanent resident.
The arrest and detention of children under 18 was also not permitted, said the court, “except as a measure of last resort and in a manner that is consistent with…the Constitution”.
INSIDE POLITICS