Introduction
As one of Africa’s most developed and industrialized countries, South Africa has become a major destination for migrants from neighboring countries and beyond over the past several decades. Hosting a substantial population of migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from various countries, South Africa has consistently faced numerous challenges in ensuring peaceful coexistence and safeguarding the fundamental rights of these communities. The country’s progressive Constitution, adopted following the end of apartheid, recognizes principles such as human dignity, equality, access to basic education, and healthcare services for everyone within its territory. Nevertheless, the gap between constitutional guarantees and realities on the ground has remained one of the country’s most persistent challenges.
In recent years, high unemployment, which reached 33.6 percent in the second quarter of 2026 according to official statistics, together with widespread poverty, profound economic inequality, and inefficiencies in administrative and immigration systems, has created conditions conducive to social frustration and the redirection of some public grievances toward migrants. Against this backdrop, anti-migrant groups such as Operation Dudula have emerged, invoking the protection of citizens’ rights while, in practice, contributing to restrictions on migrants’ rights, fostering fear and intimidation, and disrupting their access to essential services, including healthcare and education. However, on November 4, 2025, the Johannesburg High Court issued a significant ruling prohibiting specific acts of vigilantism and discrimination by the group, reaffirming the supremacy of the Constitution and the imperative of protecting the fundamental rights of all individuals, regardless of nationality. Welcomed by domestic and international human rights organizations, the judgment represents a turning point in the fight against xenophobia. Yet a fundamental question remains: Can a single judicial ruling eliminate the deep-rooted economic, social, and political causes of this phenomenon?
Incidents
Over the past several decades, South Africa has become one of the most important migration destinations on the African continent. Owing to its economic standing, broader labor market, and relative institutional stability, the country has hosted migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from various countries, including Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Burundi, Rwanda, and South Sudan. According to South Africa’s official 2022 Census, approximately 2.4 million international migrants were living in the country, representing 3.9 percent of its population at the time[1]. Unlike many other host countries in the region, South Africa does not operate a comprehensive camp-based refugee system, and a large proportion of refugees live in urban areas alongside local communities. While this arrangement creates greater opportunities for social and economic integration, it also exposes them to competition in the labor market, urban poverty, inadequate public services, and social tensions. Most migrants residing in South Africa originate from countries within the Southern African region, particularly Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Lesotho, and Malawi, and represent diverse groups in terms of their residence and employment status. Some possess valid residence documents or permits, while others face precarious immigration status due to missing documentation, expired permits, or administrative difficulties. A proportion of these migrants work in sectors such as casual labor, domestic services, agriculture, and street vending. Migrants from Asian countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, are also engaged in small-scale trade and the operation of local shops[2].
South Africa’s Constitution recognizes principles such as human dignity, equality, access to basic education, and healthcare services for everyone within the country’s territory. In practice, however, migrants and asylum seekers face challenges including administrative delays, difficulties renewing documentation, discrimination in accessing services, social insecurity, and, at times, xenophobic violence. In recent years, some of the grievances arising from unemployment, crime, poverty, and pressure on public services have been channelled into blaming migrants for these problems. This social and political environment has enabled groups such as Operation Dudula to invoke the protection of citizens’ rights while, in practice, contributing to restrictions on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. Such campaigns are framed through slogans calling for “cleansing,” “protecting communities,” or “removing illegal foreigners.” Yet these practices employ the language of democracy to justify the construction of migrants as outsiders. By portraying migrants as alien to society, such practices can legitimize their exclusion and increase the likelihood of violence against them[3].
- Operation Dudula
Operation Dudula is an anti-migrant movement and organization in South Africa that emerged around 2021 in Soweto, Johannesburg. Its name derives from the isiZulu language and means “to push out” or “to drive away[4].” Soweto, once at the forefront of resistance against apartheid and home to Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s first democratically elected president, has now become home to the country’s most prominent anti-migrant group[5]. The group claims to combat crime, drug trafficking, unemployment, and pressure on public services. In practice, however, it targets migrants and foreign nationals, particularly Africans arriving from sub-Saharan countries. Observers have characterized it as an anti-migrant vigilante group that has employed tactics such as demanding identity documents, intimidating migrant-owned businesses, and preventing foreign nationals from accessing public services.
In August 2025, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), also known as Doctors Without Borders, reported that the group’s activities had severely affected thousands of patients across dozens of clinics, including pregnant women, children, and people living with serious health conditions, including diabetes and HIV[6]. The disruption of migrants’ access to healthcare escalated to the point that, in September 2025, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) filed a criminal complaint with the police against Operation Dudula following the death of a one-year-old child. The child’s mother, a Malawian national, alleged that members of Operation Dudula had prevented her and her sick child from entering a healthcare facility in Alexandra, and that the child had died the following day. Police launched an investigation into the incident, although establishing criminal responsibility for the child’s death on the part of the group’s members requires the completion of investigations and a determination by the relevant judicial authorities[7]. Beyond disrupting migrants’ access to essential services such as healthcare, which the group has sought to obstruct in recent years, Operation Dudula has also called for migrant children to be excluded from public schools, arguing that there are insufficient educational facilities for South African children[8]. Meanwhile, civil society organizations, including Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX), brought their complaints before the Johannesburg High Court, accusing Operation Dudula of mistreating foreign nationals and violating their rights[9].
- Court Ruling Against Operation Dudula
On November 4, 2025, the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa in Johannesburg, in a judgment delivered by Judge Leicester Adams, declared several of Operation Dudula’s vigilante and discriminatory practices unlawful. The court prohibited the group and two of its officials from demanding individuals’ identity documents, intimidating and harassing foreign nationals, engaging in hate speech based on nationality, social origin, or ethnicity, obstructing migrants’ access to healthcare and education, and unlawfully interfering with their residence and economic activities. However, the judgment did not dissolve the organization or prohibit all its lawful activities. Rather, it specifically sought to prevent conduct that violated South Africa’s Constitution and domestic laws[10]. Referring to the South African Constitution, the court clarified that, under Section 41 of the Immigration Act, the authority to demand identity or travel documents to establish an individual’s right to remain in the country rests with authorized immigration officials and police officers. Private individuals possess no such authority unless expressly permitted by law. The exercise of these powers also requires reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully present in the country, together with compliance with statutory limitations and safeguards protecting fundamental rights[11].
The court also ordered the South African government to take reasonable and effective measures to implement the National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. These measures included establishing an early warning and rapid response mechanism to address xenophobic threats, as well as collecting and publishing disaggregated data on hate crimes, the prosecution of perpetrators, and related criminal convictions. Furthermore, in interpreting Section 41 of the Immigration Act, the court clarified that the powers of police and immigration officials to demand identification documents must be based on reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the country. It also specified that warrantless searches conducted under this provision must be confined to public places and that the rights and best interests of children must be respected when exercising these powers. Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Africa Director of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), stated: “This judgment marks a major victory in the fight against xenophobia. “intimidation, harassment, and hate speech on the grounds of nationality, social origin, or ethnicity will not be tolerated in South Africa. We hope that Operation Dudula and others will comply with the court’s ruling[12].”
Despite the Johannesburg High Court’s ruling in November 2025, developments during 2026 demonstrated the persistence of migration-related tensions in South Africa. On October 8, 2026, anti-migrant protests in Soweto, a township of Johannesburg, and in Durban escalated into violent clashes, resulting in a total of 24 vehicles being set on fire and the looting of several foreign-owned shops. Some of the unrest arose from disputes surrounding the implementation of a Constitutional Court ruling concerning the processing of asylum applications. The South African government criticized the spread of misinformation about the implications of the judgment, emphasizing that the opportunity to submit an asylum application did not automatically confer lawful immigration status. On October 9, the Department of Home Affairs also withdrew a recently issued directive concerning the acceptance of asylum applications. These developments once again exposed the gap between judicial guarantees of migrants’ rights and the practical and social challenges involved in realizing those guarantees[13].
Challenges and Responses
- South Africa’s Large Migrant Population and the Persistence of Existing Conditions
Owing to its economic opportunities and regional standing, South Africa has remained one of the principal destinations for migrants on the African continent over the past several decades. Although the Johannesburg High Court’s ruling in November 2025 marked an important step toward the judicial protection of migrants’ rights by prohibiting Operation Dudula’s vigilante activities, evidence from the ground indicates that certain unlawful practices continued after the judgment was issued. Reports published in late 2025 documented ongoing efforts to prevent migrants from accessing healthcare services, while 2026 witnessed a renewed wave of anti-migrant protests and violence. These developments demonstrate that a judicial ruling alone has not been sufficient to curb xenophobic conduct and that the economic, social, and political roots of the conflict remain deeply entrenched. High unemployment, widespread poverty, and profound economic inequality continue to create conditions conducive to social frustration and the redirection of public anger toward migrants. Migrants play an important role in key economic sectors, including domestic services, agriculture, and construction. Nevertheless, many of them, particularly those without valid residence documents, face precarious employment and living conditions. Although South Africa’s Constitution and labor laws recognize fundamental protections for workers regardless of nationality, administrative and enforcement barriers, together with the social vulnerability of certain migrant communities, make it difficult for them to exercise these rights effectively. Under such circumstances, some migrant workers face risks including unpaid wages, the absence of formal employment contracts, poor working conditions, and job insecurity, while possessing limited bargaining power to protect themselves against potential exploitation by employers[14].
Official data from Statistics South Africa also reveal a significant gender disparity in migrant employment. According to 2022 data published in official reports, more than one million male migrants were employed in the country, compared with approximately 400,000 female migrants. In the distribution of the migrant population under examination by sex and economic activity status, employed men accounted for 45.8 percent of the total migrant population, while employed women represented 18.2 percent. This disparity, coupled with the higher proportion of women among the economically inactive population, points to considerable gender inequality in migrants’ employment circumstances[15].
Meanwhile, the revision of South Africa’s immigration and refugee protection policies has entered a new phase. In March 2026, the country’s Cabinet approved the Revised White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection, a policy document whose implementation requires amendments to the relevant legislation. One of the central elements of this policy is the proposed introduction of the “First Safe Country Principle,” which could restrict certain applicants’ access to the asylum system. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had previously warned about the regressive provisions of the proposed reforms. Nevertheless, during the revision process, the proposal for South Africa to withdraw from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol was abandoned. Alongside certain administrative and policy reforms, concerns remain regarding effective access to international protection, preventing the forcible return of individuals facing risks, administrative delays, and asylum seekers’ access to valid documentation[16]. Consequently, despite the judicial ruling against Operation Dudula’s vigilante activities, the continued presence of anti-migrant movements and the emergence of renewed waves of violence in 2026 have demonstrated that this issue remains one of South Africa’s unresolved structural and social challenges.
- Domestic Responses
In response to the activities of groups such as Operation Dudula outside healthcare facilities, Joe Phaahla, South Africa’s then Minister of Health, expressed concern in 2022, just one year after the emergence of the movement, about organized protests at certain healthcare facilities, particularly in Gauteng Province, during a visit to Kalafong Hospital. He emphasized that blocking the entrances to hospitals and clinics disrupted the orderly provision of healthcare services to vulnerable patients and that such actions violated the Constitution, deprived individuals of their fundamental rights, and were therefore unlawful. Phaahla reiterated that, under South Africa’s Constitution and laws, the government was obliged to ensure access to healthcare services and that no one should be denied emergency medical treatment. He further clarified that the constitutional right to health was not a qualified right and should be understood accordingly. While acknowledging that demand for healthcare services from nationals of neighboring countries could place additional pressure on the public health system, Phaahla maintained that addressing these pressures was the responsibility of the government and the relevant authorities, not ordinary citizens or street-based groups. He urged citizens to refrain from engaging in unlawful activities and warned that blocking access to healthcare facilities ultimately harmed the very citizens whom the protesters claimed to defend[17].
Another significant earlier initiative aimed at combating xenophobia within South Africa involved Navi Pillay, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and recipient of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, and her work investigating violence against migrants. In 2015, following violent attacks against foreign nationals in KwaZulu-Natal Province, Pillay chaired the seven-member Special Reference Group on Migration and Community Integration in KwaZulu-Natal. The group was tasked with examining the causes and consequences of the attacks and proposing measures to prevent their recurrence. Its report was publicly released in April 2016[18]. Among its recommendations, the group emphasized facilitating registration and the issuance of appropriate documentation for undocumented migrants without criminalizing their existing presence in the country or requiring them to return to their countries of origin. Other proposals included training police officers, social security personnel, and healthcare workers on the rights of foreign nationals; combating misinformation about migrant populations; promoting accountability among leaders for their public statements; and establishing mechanisms for dialogue between migrants and local communities. These recommendations were subsequently reflected in the country’s official policymaking. Notably, the National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, adopted in 2019, explicitly identified implementation of the recommendations made by the group chaired by Pillay as one of the measures to be undertaken[19].
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), in an official statement issued on November 6, 2025, also welcomed the court’s judgment and emphasized its pivotal role as a constitutional institution mandated to promote, protect, and monitor human rights. Cited as the thirteenth respondent in the case, the Commission submitted evidence and legal arguments in support of a human rights-based interpretation of Section 41 of the Immigration Act. It maintained that the enforcement of immigration laws must be consistent with constitutional safeguards and international human rights obligations, particularly the rights to dignity, privacy, liberty, and the best interests of the child. Referring to the case of a 15-year-old South African child who had been arrested for not having identity documents and detained alongside adults, the Commission warned against the broad discretionary powers exercised by police officers in this area and called for a restrictive interpretation to prevent abuse. Recalling its earlier position in July 2025, when it had declared the actions of vigilante groups unlawful, in violation of constitutional rights, and detrimental to the rule of law, the Commission stressed the importance of continued monitoring of the judgment’s implementation. It also expressed hope that the ruling would bring an end to the ongoing harassment and intimidation of foreign nationals and undocumented individuals. Finally, the Commission once again called on state authorities to discharge their responsibilities by restoring law and order and ensuring the effective protection of constitutional rights[20].
- International Responses
In a report, the BBC examined Operation Dudula’s efforts to deny migrants access to healthcare services. The report documented how members of the group gathered outside certain clinics and hospitals, particularly in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal provinces, checking identity documents and preventing individuals without South African identity cards from entering. In one documented incident in Diepsloot, women from Zimbabwe and Mozambique who had visited a clinic to obtain medication for chronic illnesses were denied healthcare services solely because they did not possess South African identity cards. Operation Dudula’s leaders justify these practices by citing resource shortages, mounting pressure on the public healthcare system, and the need to prioritize South African citizens. However, South Africa’s Constitution recognizes the right of everyone within the country to access healthcare services, regardless of nationality or immigration status. Human rights advocates, including Fatima Hassan of the Health Justice Initiative, described these actions in interviews with the BBC as a form of vigilantism and a clear violation of the rule of law[21].
In May 2026, Washington, D.C.-based Diplomatic Watch Magazine also published a report examining the diplomatic and regional dimensions of xenophobia in South Africa, characterizing the issue as a test of Pan-African solidarity. The report highlighted the activities of groups such as Operation Dudula, which emerged in Soweto in 2021 and subsequently developed into a quasi-political force with branches across the country. It underscored growing tensions between South African citizens and migrants, both documented and undocumented. According to the report, recent protests in Pretoria, threats to prevent foreign children from enrolling in public schools, and arbitrary detentions had prompted strong diplomatic reactions from countries such as Ghana and Nigeria, including the summoning of South African ambassadors and the issuance of official warnings to their nationals. Analysts cited in the report warned that the continuation of these developments could undermine South Africa’s standing as a regional power and one of the African continent’s most influential countries, while also creating obstacles to the implementation of the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Identifying high unemployment and profound economic inequality as the principal sources of public dissatisfaction, the report emphasized that, despite its verbal condemnations, the South African government had failed to manage migration effectively or create sufficient employment opportunities. Vigilante groups had consequently stepped into this vacuum, presenting their activities as acts of “patriotism.” Ultimately, the report called for comprehensive measures, including stronger border controls, the humane enforcement of immigration laws, job creation, and public education to counter misinformation. It concluded that the government’s ability to strike a balance between legitimate security concerns and constitutional values would determine the country’s future trajectory within the region[22].
Conclusion
Although the landmark ruling of the Johannesburg High Court in November 2025 represents a significant step toward securing justice and reaffirming the rule of law, it should not be regarded as the definitive end of xenophobia in South Africa. This phenomenon is deeply rooted in unstable socioeconomic structures, and as long as widespread unemployment, poverty, inequality, and inefficiencies in the immigration system persist, vigilante groups are likely to re-emerge under new guises and with different slogans. Human rights organizations and civil society groups have welcomed the judgment, rightly emphasizing the need for continued monitoring of its implementation and the government’s commitment to putting the National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance into practice. However, unless accompanied by structural and economic reforms, these measures risk becoming little more than superficial and temporary remedies.
Strong diplomatic reactions from African countries and warnings issued by international organizations demonstrate that xenophobia in South Africa is no longer merely a domestic concern; it has become a challenge to Pan-African solidarity and the country’s regional standing. South Africa now faces the difficult test of translating into practice the ideals of justice that it championed across the continent following its struggle against apartheid. The country’s future depends on its government’s ability to strike a delicate balance between addressing the pressing needs of its own citizens and upholding constitutional values and international obligations. Ensuring human security for all residents, regardless of nationality or immigration status, is not only a moral and legal imperative but also an essential prerequisite for achieving sustainable economic growth and preserving South Africa’s dignity and standing as a model for the entire continent.
References
[1] Ngcobo, K. (2025, November 5). Anti-migrant group ordered to stop blocking foreigners from South African healthcare. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1m37yr5v3po
[2] Ueberbach, S. (2025, November 11). A vigilante group is subjecting migrants to harassment and intimidation. Tagesschau. From: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/afrika/suedafrika-operation-dudula-gericht-100.html
[3] Sinwell, L., & Maggott, T., & Ngwane, T. (2026, June 8). South Africa’s anti‑migrant campaigns use the language of democracy: why that’s dangerous. The Conversation. From: https://theconversation.com/south-africas-anti-migrant-campaigns-use-the-language-of-democracy-why-thats-dangerous-284370
[4] Allison, S. (2023, September 26). South African anti-migrant ‘vigilantes’ register as party for next year’s polls. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/sep/26/south-africa-anti-migrant-vigilante-operation-dudula-registers-as-party-2024-elections
[5] Charlie, A., & Ford, T. (2023, September 17). Inside South Africa’s Operation Dudula: ‘Why we hate foreigners’. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66808346
[6] AFP. (2025, December 4). S.Africa must tackle ‘xenophobic’ health clinic protests, court says. AFP. From: https://us.afpnews.com/article/?safrica-must-tackle-xenophobic-health-clinic-protests-court-says,87383CU
[7] SABC. (2025, September 22). SA political party opens criminal case against anti-illegal immigrant organisation. SABC. From: http://web.sabc.co.za/sabc/home/channelafrica/news/details?id=e9be940c-844f-4454-a0e4-719284864cbb&title=SA+political+party+opens+criminal+case+against+anti-illegal+immigrant+organisation
[8] Schwikowski, M. (2025, June 10). South Africa: ‘Operation Dudula’ hunts down illegal migrants. DW. From: https://www.dw.com/en/south-africa-operation-dudula-hunts-down-illegal-migrants/a-74199726?maca=en-rss-en-world-4025-rdf
[9] SABC. (2025, June 13). SA anti-immigration Operation Dudula vows to continue campaign amid legal challenge. SABC. From: http://web.sabc.co.za/sabc/home/channelafrica/news/details?id=e6746284-ebb0-4bf2-aa68-2526c40c4a51&title=SA%20anti-immigration%20Operation%20Dudula%20vows%20to%20continue%20campaign%20amid%20legal%20challenge
[10] Sithole, S. (2025, November). Operation Dudula to appeal court ruling against its controversial healthcare campaign. The Star. From: https://thestar.co.za/news/2025-11-07-operation-dudula-to-appeal-court-ruling-against-its-controversial-healthcare-campaign/
[11] Sithole, S. (2025, November). Operation Dudula to appeal Johannesburg High Court ruling on undocumented immigrants. IOL. From: https://iol.co.za/news/south-africa/2025-11-06-operation-dudula-to-appeal-johannesburg-high-court-ruling-on-undocumented-immigrants/
[12] ICJ. (2025, November 6). The South African High Court confirms that Operation Dudula perpetrated intimidation, harassment, incitement to violence and hate speech on grounds of nationality, social origin or ethnicity and other unlawful acts. ICJ. From: https://www.icj.org/the-south-african-high-court-confirms-that-operation-dudula-perpetrated-intimidation-harassment-incitement-to-violence-and-hate-speech-on-grounds-of-nationality-social-origin-or-ethnicity-and-othe/
[13] Reuters. (2026, October 9). South Africa withdraws asylum directive after anti-migrant violence. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/south-africa-withdraws-asylum-directive-after-anti-migrant-violence-2026-10-09/
[14] SIHMA. (n.d). Invisible Labour, Visible Impact: Rethinking Migration Policy and Precarity in South Africa. SIHMA. From: https://sihma.org.za/Blog-on-the-move/invisible-labour-visible-impact-rethinking-migration-policy-and-precarity-in-south-africa?lang=en?lang=fr
[15] Statistics South Africa. (2025, February 19). Understanding South Africa’s Immigrant and Internal Migration Stats. Statistics South Africa. From: https://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=18042
[16] UNCHR. (n.d). South Africa. UNCHR. From: https://www.unhcr.org/us/where-we-work/countries/south-africa
[17] Government of South Africa. (2022, September 1). Minister Joe Phaahla on a site-visit to Kalafong Hospital, Tshwane. Government of South Africa. From: https://www.gov.za/news/media-statements/minister-joe-phaahla-site-visit-%C2%A0kalafong-hospital-tshwane-01-sep-2022
[18] South African Human Rights Commission. (2026, July). National Human Rights Institution Report on the South African Government’s combined Fourth to Eight Periodic Country Report under the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. South African Human Rights Commission. From: https://sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/SAHRC%20NHRI%20REPORT%20TO%20CERD-%20FINAL%2025.7.16.pdf
[19] Republic of South Africa. (2019). National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. Republic of South Africa. From: https://www.justice.gov.za/nap/docs/NAP-20190313.pdf
[20] SAHRC. (2025, November 6). Media Statement: SAHRC welcomes judgment in Kopanang Africa against Xenophobia & 3 Others V Operation Dudula & 12 Others, High Court. SAHRC. From: https://www.sahrc.org.za/index.php/sahrc-media/news-2/item/4380-media-statement-south-african-human-rights-commission-statement-on-alleged-harassment-and-hate-speech-utterances-by-mr-ngizwe-mchunu
[21] Lakaje, M. (2025, October 18). ‘We have to prioritise South Africans’: Anti-migrant movement blocks foreigners from healthcare. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr43l19qn3ko
[22] Okewoye, S. (2026, May 1). How South Africa’s Xenophobia Is Testing African Solidarity and Diplomatic Ties. Diplomatic Watch. From: https://diplomaticwatch.com/how-south-africas-xenophobia-is-testing-african-solidarity-and-diplomatic-ties/
