Shift to a camp-based approach in South Africa raises concerns following the closure of Musina center

Several hundred Malawian citizens resided in a temporary repatriation center on Derban Drive Inn, which was closed by the eThekwini municipality and relocated to a new center in Musina, Limpopo province. The article examines whether this move signifies a shift towards managing undocumented migrants and asylum seekers in South Africa through a camp system.

South Africa began processing applications from undocumented migrants at the temporary repatriation center in Musina, Limpopo province, in a border town with Zimbabwe, in July 2026. This followed several weeks of increased xenophobic rhetoric and violence against migrants.

This facility has raised questions about the country potentially moving towards a more camp-based method of managing migrants and refugees, which would be a significant departure from South Africa's post-apartheid refugee policy.

Previously, South Africa generally allowed refugees and asylum seekers to live, work, and study in urban centers instead of confining them to designated refugee camps.

By 2025, the country hosted over 160,000 refugees and asylum seekers from places such as Zimbabwe, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burundi.

Legal Basis and Definition of a Refugee

Legally, all refugees are migrants, but not all migrants have refugee status. A refugee is a person who has crossed an international border seeking protection due to a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

International law provides protection for people in such circumstances, notably through the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. In Africa, the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention expanded the definition of a refugee to include those fleeing external aggression, occupation, or events seriously disturbing public order.

However, these conventions are historical documents drafted primarily during the colonial or early post-colonial period, leading to several gaps. Critics note that they do not adequately account for modern forms of displacement, such as those caused by climate change.

In reality, the definition of who is a migrant or a refugee is often blurred. Like all international legal documents, refugee conventions should be viewed as 'living instruments,' allowing for reinterpretation as circumstances change.

How Does South Africa's Refugee System Function?

In 2025, there were over 167,000 refugees and asylum seekers in South Africa, most of whom lived in urban communities. An asylum seeker is a person whose application for refugee status has not yet been legally processed or decided.

Asylum seekers are required to renew temporary permits under Section 22, usually every six months, at refugee reception offices. This places a significant burden on them.

Many asylum seeker applications are rejected at the initial stage, and the appeal process is lengthy. A 2019 audit showed that resolving the accumulated backlog of appeals would have taken 68 years. In 2026, funding for the South African Refugee Appeals Authority was cut, reducing its panel of judges from 36 to just nine.

Now, asylum seekers wait five to ten years or longer for a decision. During this time, they face restrictions on work, study, movement, and access to humanitarian aid.

The legal framework concerning refugees and asylum seekers is also evolving. In May 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled that asylum seekers whose applications, including appeals, were rejected do not necessarily have the right to reapply as refugees. The Department of Home Affairs noted this as a victory.

Two months later, the same court ruled that procedural irregularities, such as failing to obtain a Section 22 permit within five days of entering the country, are not sufficient grounds for disqualifying a person from receiving refugee status. On this occasion, the human rights organization Scalabrini celebrated this.

It is this complex process for asylum seekers, the changing and convoluted legal system, and the need for humanitarian assistance for some asylum seekers that raise the question: might a camp become the better way forward while they wait?

In other words, can camps offer a solution for protection? Or will they diminish the rights of refugees and asylum seekers in a country once considered exemplary?

What Do Testimonies Say About Refugee Camps and Protection?

Refugee camps are humanitarian and political spaces created to provide refugees with settlement, protection, and assistance, especially after mass movements into host countries. Host governments decide whether to create camps and how they function, but they often collaborate closely with humanitarian agencies. The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) plays a central role here, given its global mandate for protecting refugees and their rights.

In practice, governments often cooperate with UNHCR to manage camps and coordinate NGOs providing services such as housing, food, water, and medical care.

Although camps are intended as temporary spaces of protection, many exist for years or even decades. They remain designed as temporary structures even when they transform into long-term infrastructure.

And despite the emphasis on protection, camps are not safe havens. Scholars describe them as spaces of order and control, a form of 'human warehousing' and a 'place of non-existence.' Political actors manage them, controlling the daily lives of refugees. UNHCR relies on host states for access and on donor states for funding to provide protection.

The legal basis for creating camps is also debated. The 1951 Refugee Convention does not require refugees to be housed in camps. Establishing camps is a political choice, not a legal obligation. Nevertheless, camps have become the standard humanitarian response and often severely restrict refugees' freedom of movement.

What Are the Problems with Refugee Camps?

Various difficulties arise for people living in camps after their establishment. Harsh living conditions and human rights violations are well-documented. These include gender and sexual violence, daily denial of rights, limited legal support, economic marginalization, restricted political participation, and general structural 'containment.'

Consequently, living conditions are generally severe. Camps are mainly intentionally located in remote areas, physically, socially, and economically isolating residents from surrounding host communities. As a result, livelihoods suffer. Decisions regarding housing and daily life are made by aid agencies and state structures.

Does the Musina temporary center signal a change in South Africa's refugee camp policy?

The Musina center is not a UNHCR-managed refugee center. There is also no indication that it will become one. The revised white paper on citizenship, immigration, and refugee protection, approved by the cabinet in 2026, contains no plans for establishing refugee camps.

Nevertheless, several issues require attention. Firstly, UNHCR faces a massive reduction in funding, consistent with the overall decline in humanitarian aid. The organization aims to reduce, not build new camps. As of June 30, 2026, only 18% of its annual budget is funded for a multi-country operation covering South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia.

Secondly, establishing camps in poor conditions can always cause tension with host communities, which also require humanitarian aid. In a situation where xenophobic violence is partially fueled by tensions between refugees and host communities, this is far from ideal.

Thirdly, the current trend is away from the camp approach, as seen, for example, in Kenya. Allowing the free market and self-settlement to solve refugee problems can be extremely problematic. But it is in this space that South Africa is likely to find a sustainable path forward—a path that remains true to its obligations of protection while allowing refugees to contribute to and benefit from the communities in which they live.

iol.co.zaJuly 20, 07:53

ActionSA Leader Herman Mashaba States Responsibility for Refugees Lies with Their Home Countries, Not South Africa

Herman Mashaba, leader of the ActionSA party, stated that undocumented foreign nationals who find themselves in difficult situations after deportation should receive assistance from their home countries, not from South Africa.

Immigration Stance

Mashaba emphasized that if his party gains power, it will deport all illegally present foreigners in the country back to their home countries. He made these remarks during a recent interview with the publication IOL.

These statements came amid growing protests against illegal immigration across South Africa, with some groups demanding that undocumented foreigners leave the country. Hundreds of migrants continue to arrive at the repatriation center as authorities conduct deportations and voluntary returns through the Musina Repatriation Centre.

Migrant Situation

The increase in arrivals is linked to the closure of the Durban Repatriation Centre and occurs against a backdrop of intensified calls from anti-immigration organizations to expel illegal immigrants from South Africa. Some foreigners have already been deported or voluntarily returned to countries such as Mozambique and Malawi, while tensions surrounding illegal immigration continue to rise. Others remain without the means to return home, which, in Mashaba's view, is not a problem for South Africa.

He stated directly in the IOL interview: 'It is not a South African problem. Let it be the problem of those countries. It is not our problem.' Mashaba added that South Africa should not serve as a refuge for criminals, as people who entered the country illegally are criminals. He noted that no one can expect South Africa to take on or allow other countries to offload their problems onto it. Therefore, if South Africa sends them to Musina or elsewhere, it becomes the problem of the respective country.

Mashaba's Plans and Statements

Mashaba reiterated that this is not South Africa's responsibility. He called on South Africans and the global community to know that the country faces not only illegal migrants from Africa but also illegal immigrants from distant places such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China, and many other countries. Mashaba, who has long made strong statements on immigration issues, insists on the complete deportation of all illegal immigrants if his party gains a mandate to govern. He stated that they would ensure that people illegally in the country, as well as those who illegally obtained South African citizenship, are held accountable. He intends to fight for the revocation of these citizenships and ensure their return, aiming for mass deportations, as he believes this is the only way to restore dignity to South Africans.

He also stated that he is unconcerned by criticism seeking to promote illegality and chaos in South Africa, emphasizing that the country cannot be built on chaos and can only develop when everyone respects the rule of law.

Political Situation Analysis

Independent political analyst Gudnauf Mashego commented that Mashaba is campaigning on an issue that goes beyond the scope of local government authority. Mashego noted that Mashaba is running in local elections, and the local government does not have the right to set immigration policy. He also speculated that even at the national level, his chances of winning are slim, so his statements do not carry much weight.

In Mashego's opinion, immigration will remain an important electoral issue because many voters are unaware of the limits of local government authority. Local elections are scheduled for November 4, 2026. The analyst observed that Mashaba seems to be trying to preempt the political narrative, believing that Patriotic Alliance (PA) leader Gethon McKenzie successfully mobilized support for his 'Abahambe' campaign before the previous elections. Mashego also mentioned that the uMkhonto weSizwe party is also aiming to use this topic.

Mashego concluded that while such a strategy may attract political support, the parties will ultimately fail because immigration policy is determined by the national government, not municipalities. He stressed that the right to establish immigration policy belongs to the national government, and that South Africa will never have one political party with an absolute majority, but rather governments of national unity.

Overall Political Climate

Political analyst Solly Rashilo believes that immigration has become one of the defining political issues of the country. He noted that the surge in anti-immigration protests, with a 'deadline' of June 30th, concerns over violence, and record deportations of over 53,000 people reflect deep public dissatisfaction with unemployment, crime, and pressure on public services. Rashilo added that many political parties are using this issue, putting additional pressure on the African National Congress (ANC), which leads the Government of National Unity (GNU). He warned that while the topic resonates as a substitute for signs of governance failures, it carries the risk of accusations of xenophobia and will remain relevant during the elections.

iol.co.zaJuly 20, 07:00

Misunderstanding Zulu views on immigration could worsen divisions

The article's author argues that there is a deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of the anti-illegal immigration movement 'March and March,' where its goals are mistakenly portrayed as xenophobic and reflective of Zulu views.

Zulu Cultural Values

The article mentions Nkosisikhona Ndabandaba, a proud representative of the Zulu people and founder of an organization that mentors boys to become responsible men, who is one of the leaders supporting this movement. The author insists that Zulu culture is based on respect, hospitality, and social cohesion, and cannot be equated with xenophobia.

The Zulu people traditionally highly value treating others with dignity and respect, regardless of their social status or origin. Their deep pride in language, heritage, and traditions is often misunderstood because some mistake cultural pride for ethnic nationalism or arrogance.

History of Coexistence in KwaZulu-Natal

Historical context shows that the province of KwaZulu-Natal has been home to people of various social strata living peacefully for many generations. Communities such as Sotho, AmaBhaka, AmaMpondo, Indians, Coloureds, Whites, and Chinese, as well as many African citizens, have become part of the province's social structure.

Examples of such communities include Mariannhill and Chatsworth, where Malawian and Zanzibari families have lived alongside local residents for decades, contributing to the cultural and economic life of the province. Their presence has become an accepted and valued part of many communities.

Context of Protests and Economy

Demands for local communities to play a larger role in controlling the economy of settlements, especially in sectors like spaza shops and barber shops, are often interpreted by outsiders as xenophobic. However, many supporters of these campaigns argue that their concern is not about immigration itself, but about illegal migration, unfair competition, and the feeling of local entrepreneurs being excluded from economic opportunities.

Therefore, movements like 'March and March' should be viewed in a broader context. The stated goal of these movements is to oppose illegal immigration, not hostility towards all immigrants.

Long-Term Coexistence

If Zulu communities were inherently xenophobic, it would be difficult to explain the long-standing acceptance of the Amanyasa people from Malawi, many of whom have lived in KwaZulu-Natal for generations. Families such as Phiris and Gondwe have become part of communities across the province. Similarly, Zanzibari communities, whose cultural and religious traditions are often closely linked to the traditions of local Muslim and Indian communities, have established deep roots and generally coexist peacefully with their neighbors.

It is important to consider this history, as more commentators are ready to conflate opposition to illegal immigration with xenophobia. Such a broad characterization risks ignoring the province's long tradition of coexistence and oversimplifying a complex socio-economic discussion.

Balance Between Criticism and Acceptance

At the same time, it would be equally wrong to deny that genuinely xenophobic individuals have joined these protest movements. Their rhetoric and actions must be unequivocally rejected. They must not be allowed to overshadow or redefine the concerns of those advocating for legal immigration, enhanced border control, and greater participation of local communities in the economy.

To conduct a meaningful national dialogue, this distinction must be acknowledged. South Africa can simultaneously reject xenophobia, welcome legal migrants who contribute to society, and engage in reasoned debates about illegal immigration, border security, and inclusive local economic development, without reducing every issue to prejudice.