A petition calling for the dissolution of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has reportedly gathered approximately 20,000 signatures, intensifying debate over the role of the Chapter 9 constitutional institution.
The SAHRC, established under Section 184 of the Constitution, is mandated to promote, protect, and monitor human rights across South Africa. While the Commission maintains it remains committed to upholding constitutional rights and holding power accountable, critics argue it has failed to act impartially and no longer reflects the concerns of all South Africans.
Lwazi Gwijane, activist and entrepreneur who initiated the petition, outlined several grievances driving the call for disbandment. Gwijane stated the Commission’s mandate is to protect the rights of South Africans and legal residents, advocate for those rights, investigate grievances, and hold government accountable. However, Gwijane contends the SAHRC has fallen short in key areas.
Regarding housing, Gwijane cited corruption in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP), alleging that undocumented immigrants have accessed housing intended for South African citizens, while informal settlements continue to expand. On education, Gwijane raised concerns that South African children are being denied school placements, linking this to pressure on resources from undocumented migration. Gwijane referenced an estimate of approximately 15 million undocumented immigrants in the country—a figure that was questioned during the discussion due to the inherent difficulty of verifying such statistics.
Gwijane also criticized the SAHRC’s approach to spaza shop regulations, stating that when activists raise concerns about businesses allegedly operated by undocumented immigrants, the Commission has taken legal action against those activists rather than investigating the underlying socioeconomic concerns. Reference was made to tragic incidents in Soweto where children died after consuming products from informal retailers, with Gwijane questioning why the SAHRC did not produce reports holding relevant authorities accountable.
The discussion highlighted the constitutional framework governing the SAHRC. Section 184(3) requires the Commission to report annually on the realization of rights to housing, healthcare, food, water, social security, education, and the environment. A report was noted as having been released in September 2025. It was further noted that enforcement of immigration laws falls under the Department of Home Affairs, while business compliance matters involve the Department of Labour—distinct from the SAHRC’s monitoring and advocacy role.
Constitutional provisions recognize the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and all children in South Africa—including those without documentation—to access basic education. The SAHRC’s position, as described in the exchange, is that its mandate is bound by these constitutional provisions.
Gwijane clarified that the petition’s concern is not with immigrants who enter and reside in South Africa legally, but with the perception that the Commission prioritizes the interests of undocumented individuals over those of citizens, thereby exacerbating social tensions around resource allocation in housing, education, and healthcare.
The SAHRC was invited to participate in the discussion regarding these allegations but was unavailable to comment at the time. The Commission has previously stated its commitment to protecting constitutional rights for all people within South Africa’s jurisdiction.
As the petition continues to circulate, the debate underscores broader societal questions about institutional accountability, resource distribution, and the interpretation of constitutional obligations in a complex migration context.
