In this third installment of our series on democracy, exclusion, and participation, Sophie Smit discusses the judiciary's role in protecting non-citizens' right to administrative action in South Africa, focusing on the termination of the Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) by the Department of Home Affairs. She notes that since non-citizens, including ZEP holders, lack the right to vote and thus political representation, they rely on the judiciary to protect their rights. Consequently, the Pretoria High Court found the termination unconstitutional due to a lack of fair process. She emphasizes the importance of the judiciary's duty to uphold constitutional rights for non-citizens while respecting executive decision-making.

In this week’s post, Dr. Hobden tackles an ongoing situation on Zimbabwean Exemption Permits (ZEP). The ZEP is a special permit allocated to undocumented Zimbabwean migrants to legalize their stay in South Africa. In a way, she is persuaded that the ZEP is revelatory of the boundaries of citizenship in South Africa. She argues that the ZEP issue demonstrates SA’s overtly rigid stance towards access to citizenship within the Republic.

Last year, the South African Minister of Home Affairs, Dr. Aaron Motswaledi announced the termination of the Zimbabwean Special Permits (ZEPs) set to expire at the end of 2021. Thato Gaffane argues that this decision is a violation of the international principle of non-refoulment and also, fatally flawed in as far as it lacks consideration for section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.