‘We are tired of foreign nationals’: 24 vehicles torched in Soweto and Durban as protests over asylum ruling erupt into violence

About 24 vehicles were reportedly set alight in Soweto and Durban on Thursday as protests over a Constitutional Court judgment on asylum applications escalated into clashes, attacks on businesses and renewed anti-migrant tensions.

The unrest followed a new directive from the Department of Home Affairs instructing refugee reception officers to accept asylum applications from anyone seeking protection, including people who entered South Africa irregularly.

The directive came after a recent Constitutional Court judgment dealing with access to the asylum process.

According to the judgment, asylum seekers may not be barred, detained or deported because of procedural or technical immigration issues, including irregular entry or failure to meet strict reporting deadlines, before their applications have been evaluated.

[do_widget id=super_rss_reader-3] –> –> The judgment also stated that officials may not require applicants to explain unlawful entry, produce an asylum transit visa or show “good cause” before applying for asylum.

Officials were also barred from imposing quotas or other restrictions on access to the asylum process.

The court’s decision and the Home Affairs directive triggered mixed reactions, with protesters in parts of the country interpreting the changes as a form of amnesty for undocumented foreign nationals.

The government has rejected that interpretation.

In Soweto, residents gathered at Home Affairs offices in Orlando West, initially describing their action as a peaceful demonstration against the judgment and what they believed would be its effect on immigration and access to economic opportunities.

By late afternoon, about 10 vehicles had reportedly been set alight in Soweto, while residents shut down two spaza shops operated by foreign nationals.

There were also reports that people moved through the area, removing foreign nationals from shops and forcing businesses to close.

Food was scattered on the ground as the situation deteriorated.

Some residents said they were trying to prevent people they believed to be undocumented from accessing Home Affairs services.

Tshepo Mposula said residents had gathered at the department’s offices because they were angry about the court ruling and wanted to stop undocumented people from accessing services.

Mposula said residents had managed to close four shops and that none had initially been looted.

He later said the situation escalated after residents claimed they had arrived to close the shops peacefully but were met with gunfire.

“We are counting about 10 cars that have been set alight because people were venting their frustration. We came to engage peacefully, but now they are firing shots at us. Unfortunately, we found ourselves in this situation,” Mposula said.

Mposula also said several people had been injured during the clashes, including an elderly woman and a man who were allegedly struck by stones.

He said he had also been told that a foreign national had suffered a head injury after being hit by a stone.

Those claims had not been independently verified, and officials had not released a full casualty report at the time of the initial reports.

Another resident, Monaka Manamela, described the developments in Orlando West as the beginning of a wider movement.

“You see what has started today? It’s going to be an ongoing thing. We are tired of foreign nationals. The honest truth is that they have triggered us,” Manamela said.

He criticised the government’s approach to asylum seekers and questioned what he described as efforts to legalise undocumented foreign nationals.

Manamela also referred to the R350 social relief grant, saying the president could “just take this R350” because, in his view, the grant was being used to make young people believe the government was doing enough for them.

The comments reflect anger over unemployment, access to business opportunities, public services and immigration, but they also show how the Constitutional Court judgment has become a trigger for wider community frustration.

The court ruling does not grant asylum automatically.

It requires authorities to allow people who claim protection to enter the formal asylum determination process so that their applications can be assessed under the law.

That distinction has been central to the government’s response to the protests.

In KwaZulu-Natal, protesters also set vehicles alight in Durban and allegedly looted shops.

A building was reportedly torched, while an apparent altercation with business owners contributed to a wider outbreak of violence.

At a shopping centre in the Point area, protesters allegedly threw stones at the windows of China Mall.

Earlier in the day, another group reportedly set a scrapyard alight outside the Home Affairs refugee office in Che Guevara Road.

About 14 vehicles were reportedly burned in Durban, although the full extent of the damage and the number of people injured had not been officially confirmed in the supplied information.

KwaZulu-Natal police spokesperson Colonel Robert Netshiunda said three foreign nationals had been arrested for assault.

The arrests were made as police worked to contain the unrest and investigate incidents connected to the protests.

The violence in Soweto and Durban raised fears of a broader wave of xenophobic attacks, particularly because foreign-owned spaza shops and other small businesses were directly targeted.

The shutting down of businesses and the removal of foreign nationals from areas where they operate can place people at immediate risk and threaten livelihoods, regardless of their immigration status.

South African law does not permit communities to punish people, destroy property or block access to government services outside the legal process.

The Constitutional Court judgment also does not prevent authorities from screening, assessing or rejecting asylum applications under the law.

It requires officials to assess applications rather than refusing access solely because of technical immigration or entry-related issues.

The government is now seeking legal advice on how to manage asylum applications after the ruling prompted a review of immigration procedures.

Long queues formed outside refugee reception centres amid claims circulating on social media that the judgment created a blanket amnesty for undocumented foreigners.

The government has repeatedly rejected that claim.

Speaking at an inter-ministerial committee briefing on migration, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said the government was assessing options to deal with what it described as unintended consequences of the judgment.

She also raised the possibility of debating constitutional amendments through the national dialogue if South Africans believed the Constitution did not adequately protect their interests.

The comments underline the political pressure created by the ruling, but any constitutional amendment would have to follow the country’s formal legal and parliamentary processes.

Inter-ministerial committee chairperson Mamoloko Kubayi clarified that the ruling did not grant refugee status or permanent residence automatically.

“It simply requires that individuals who claim asylum be allowed to enter the formal determination process so their applications can be properly assessed under the law,” Kubayi said.

She also rejected claims circulating on social media that the ruling conferred new rights, including voting rights for refugees, or that Home Affairs offices would be overwhelmed and unable to serve South African citizens.

Kubayi urged the public to remain calm and avoid blockading Home Affairs offices, warning that such actions could prevent South Africans from accessing essential services.

The government’s clarification has been issued as communities deal with genuine concerns about immigration enforcement, public services, unemployment and crime, but officials have warned that misinformation could turn those concerns into violence.

The difference between seeking asylum and being granted refugee status is important.

An asylum application is a request for protection that must be considered. It does not automatically mean that the applicant will be recognised as a refugee, receive permanent residence or gain citizenship rights.

The application process allows officials to assess the person’s claim and determine whether protection is justified under South African and international law.

The protests also highlighted how court judgments can be misunderstood when complex legal language is reduced to messages shared on social media.

The government has said that it is reviewing the practical consequences of the ruling while seeking to keep the asylum system functioning.

Meanwhile, police face the immediate task of preventing further attacks, protecting people and property and investigating the alleged assault, arson, looting and public violence.

The incidents in Soweto and Durban have left businesses damaged, vehicles destroyed and residents fearful.

They have also renewed questions about how authorities should respond to community frustration without allowing demonstrations to become attacks on migrants or foreign-owned businesses.

South Africa has experienced repeated outbreaks of anti-migrant violence, often driven by allegations that foreign nationals are taking jobs, operating businesses illegally or accessing public services unfairly.

Such claims can be difficult to verify and can result in entire groups being targeted for the alleged conduct of individuals.

The state has a duty to enforce immigration and labour laws, but enforcement must be carried out through lawful procedures rather than mob action.

Police have not indicated that the Soweto and Durban incidents were coordinated, and investigations into the separate acts of violence are continuing.

The number of arrests, injuries and damaged properties may change as officials assess the scenes and gather evidence.

For now, the government is urging residents not to blockade Home Affairs offices or attack foreign nationals while it works through the legal and administrative implications of the Constitutional Court judgment.

The key message from officials is that the ruling opens access to the asylum determination process; it does not automatically legalise unlawful migration, grant refugee status or confer permanent residence.

Whether that explanation will calm tensions remains uncertain.

The events in Soweto and Durban show that the court decision has become intertwined with deeper anger over migration, economic hardship and public services.

Authorities will need to address those concerns while protecting vulnerable communities and ensuring that the asylum system operates within the law.

Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary Always Enabled Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information. Non-necessary Non-necessary Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website. SAVE & ACCEPT Loading Comments… You must be logged in to post a comment.