Home Affairs ignored court order for two years
For two years, Home Affairs officials have successfully managed to dodge a court order to provide identity documents to a group of vulnerable, undocumented South African families in Sterkspruit and Aliwal North – but last week their luck ran out.
A Daily Maverick report says Judge Sunil Ruganana has now summoned two senior managers of the department, stationed at the Aliwal North and Sterkspruit offices, to explain themselves to the court.
He also ordered that the department’s DG provide reasons to the court why he should not be sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, suspended on condition that he complies with the court order.
The Department of Home Affairs (DHA) says a South African-born child cannot be registered if both parents do not have current identity documentation and if both are not present at the DHA office.
They also require that the parents pay thousands of rands for DNA tests before the births of their children are registered.
Grandparents who look after children must pay even more to provide the DHA with a positive ‘kinship DNA’ test.
The above rule resulted in a class action case in the Eastern Cape High Court (Makhanda) against the DHA in 2019, involving a group of more than 20 children and young adults from the Sterkspruit and Aliwal North areas.
The court ordered the DHA to pay for travel costs, accommodation and DNA tests, if this is what they require before registering a child.
The court also ordered officials to register children where one of the parents was not present.
The court ordered in April 2019 that all 24 children mentioned in court papers be registered within 30 days, failing which, the DHA should explain why they were not doing so.
The Daily Maverick report notes none of this has happened.
In December 2019, the same High Court made another order, in a different case, compelling the Department of Education to accept undocumented children.
Last week, Advocate Lilla Crouse, representing the families, asked that the department be held in contempt of court.
The court granted the order, but as there was no appearance by the department, asked that they return on 22 April to explain if there were reasons why this should not be granted.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
