NGOs In Trouble: Black-Led Group Takes On The United Nations Over Foreigners In South Africa

The March and March movement, operating under the SA First forum, has announced that it has been admitted as a Friend of the Court in a Full Bench matter concerning the arrest and detention of asylum seekers in South Africa, marking what the organisation characterises as a significant development in legal proceedings addressing immigration policy.

Jacinta Zuma, posting on social media on behalf of March and March, confirmed receipt of a court order granting amicus curiae (Friend of the Court) status to the organisation. Amicus status permits non-parties to present arguments before courts in matters of public interest, allowing broader perspectives to inform judicial decision-making.

The Full Bench matter involves conflicting judgments issued by Judge Motha and Judge Wilson, with the latter identified as co-founder of the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (Seri). The case addresses legal and constitutional questions surrounding asylum seeker detention and related applications, representing a complex intersection of immigration law, human rights, and administrative justice.

March and March positions itself as advocating for South African citizens’ interests regarding immigration policy and border management. The organisation has emerged as a prominent voice in debates about undocumented immigration, labour market impacts, and service delivery consequences of large migrant populations. The movement has emphasised that concerns about immigration management do not constitute xenophobia but rather legitimate policy discourse.

Zuma’s statement notes that multiple organisations currently represent migrant interests in proceedings, including the United Nations, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Kopanang Africa. March and March characterises its amicus intervention as uniquely representing South African citizen interests outside formal government channels, suggesting this marks a departure from previous litigation patterns where civil society organisations primarily represented migrant or asylum seeker perspectives.

The organisation frames its court intervention within broader narratives about democratic representation and whose interests receive legal consideration in immigration-related proceedings. March and March contends that South African citizens’ concerns about immigration policy have historically received insufficient legal representation relative to migrant advocacy organisations.

The case involves substantive legal questions regarding state detention powers, asylum procedures, and constitutional obligations balancing national sovereignty with international humanitarian commitments. Judicial resolution of conflicting judgments carries implications for how South Africa manages asylum seeker populations and implements immigration legislation.

Civil society organisations supporting migrant rights have historically dominated amicus interventions in immigration litigation, reflecting international human rights frameworks emphasising protection of vulnerable populations. March and March’s admission as amicus represents increased legal contestation of immigration policy, with organisations advocating alternative perspectives now securing formal court access.

The litigation occurs within South Africa’s intensifying debates about immigration, economic integration, and citizenship boundaries. Political parties including ActionSA and the MK Party have prioritised immigration restrictions during recent elections, reflecting constituent concerns about undocumented foreign nationals operating informal businesses and competing for employment.

March and March’s amicus status signals that courts will now hear arguments specifically articulating South African citizen perspectives on asylum seeker detention and immigration management, broadening judicial consideration of competing policy interests and constitutional values in immigration disputes.

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