Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma Says Allowing Asylum Seekers To Apply For Asylum Will Never Happen

March and March Movement leader Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma has vowed to oppose the South African government’s proposed move to allow asylum seekers to submit asylum applications online, arguing that citizens were not consulted before the decision was considered.

Ngobese-Zuma has maintained that the proposed changes are unacceptable, insisting that South Africans should have been given an opportunity to express their views on a policy that could significantly affect the country’s immigration system.

The outspoken activist has positioned the issue as a matter of public participation, questioning why government decisions concerning asylum procedures should proceed without what she considers meaningful consultation with citizens.

Her remarks come amid growing tensions surrounding immigration, border management and the processing of asylum applications in South Africa. The March and March Movement has been campaigning for stricter immigration controls and the repatriation of undocumented foreign nationals, making asylum policy a central part of its demands.

Ngobese-Zuma’s opposition reflects the movement’s broader argument that immigration policies must prioritise the country’s interests while ensuring that government institutions can effectively manage applications and enforce existing legislation.

The proposed introduction of online asylum applications has become a contentious issue, particularly among groups concerned about the capacity of the Department of Home Affairs to verify applicants, prevent abuse of the system and address longstanding administrative challenges.

However, allowing applications to be submitted electronically would not, by itself, establish whether an applicant qualifies for asylum. Decisions must still be made within the applicable legal framework, which governs refugee protection and the assessment of individual claims.

South Africa’s asylum system operates under domestic legislation and international obligations requiring the country to consider qualifying claims for protection. Any changes to application procedures would therefore need to be implemented consistently with the law.

Ngobese-Zuma’s statement signals that the March and March Movement is prepared to continue challenging the proposal politically, with public consultation emerging as one of its principal objections.

Her intervention also adds to the wider debate over how government should balance immigration management, refugee protection and public concerns about border security.

The controversy places renewed attention on the relationship between policymakers and communities demanding a greater role in decisions affecting immigration. For the movement, the central issue is whether citizens were adequately consulted before the government considered changing the way asylum applications are submitted.

As the debate continues, the government’s position on implementation, consultation and safeguards will be important in determining how the proposal progresses and whether it faces further political resistance.

Meek_Feeds2 feedback-opera-news-app@opera.com