In a significant legal development, the Durban High Court on Tuesday struck off the roll an urgent application brought by the Southern Africa Refugee Organisations Forum (SAROF) against government ministers, related to the ongoing blockade of public healthcare facilities targeting foreign nationals.
The application, which named Health Minister Dr. Joe Phaahla and Acting Police Minister Nathi Nhleko as respondents, sought urgent relief to prevent immigrants from being denied access to public hospitals and clinics. This follows reported incidents in Johannesburg, Durban, and other parts of the country where groups have actively obstructed foreign nationals from receiving care.
However, the court found that the matter did not meet the requirements for urgency. The presiding judge noted that the alleged blockades began in July, yet SAROF waited until August to bring the application, a delay that undermined its claim for urgent intervention.
Legal representatives for the ministers argued successfully that their clients were the wrong parties to sue. The state attorney contended that the ministers were not directly responsible for the actions of private groups blocking access and that proper internal processes—such as formal complaints to hospital management, which could then escalate to the health minister—had not been followed.
The hearing was attended by members of Operation Dudula and the March and March movement, groups associated with the anti-immigrant protests. Following the ruling, a representative from Operation Dudula expressed strong approval of the court’s decision.
“We were very happy and excited with the manner in which the court dealt with this matter,” said a spokesperson identified only as Siso. He criticized the application as a “waste of time” and a deliberate attempt to overburden South Africa’s justice system.
The spokesperson’s comments then took a more severe and unsubstantiated turn, levelling explosive allegations against the refugee rights group. He suggested SAROF’s actions indicated “elements of terrorism” and were part of a plot to make South Africa “ungovernable” and a “banana republic.”
“We are starting to suspect that these people are funded by terrorist groups… whether Al-Shabaab, ISIS, Boko Haram,” he stated, demanding that SAROF publicly disclose its sources of funding. When pressed by the reporter, he admitted these claims were based on suspicion of the group’s tactics and advocacy rather than on any presented evidence.
With the ministers effectively “off the hook” for now, the legal path forward for SAROF is unclear. The group could potentially refile its application through standard, non-urgent court processes or directly target the activist groups like Operation Dudula, whose members have vowed they are ready for such a fight and remain “not intimidated.”
The case highlights the escalating tension around immigration and access to public services in South Africa, setting the stage for further legal and social battles.
