Anti-immigrant protesters marched through Bellville on 23 May 2026, blocking Voortrekker Road and forcing businesses to close, two days before the government was due to convene an emergency meeting at the Union Buildings in Pretoria to address a rising tide of xenophobia and anti-foreigner marches.
About 100 supporters of the group March and March, led by Jacinta Ngobese-Zuma, walked from Du Toit Park to the Parow Police Station along Voortrekker Road, demanding the arrest of undocumented immigrants. A heavy public-order police presence kept marchers separate from onlookers, and the group dispersed after 14:00.
Protesters carried placards bearing slogans such as “Enough is Enough” and “Go fix your countries! We are fixing ours!”
Ngobese-Zuma told the crowd: “We are the rainbow nation, and then everyone saw this harmony as an invitation. They took advantage of our ubuntu. Well, ubuntu is suspended until further notice!
“We don’t want a situation where foreign nationals are always painted as the victims and we are the villains. It’s our country, and we’re tired of explaining there is no xenophobia in the country.”
Organisers warned the protests could intensify if the government did not respond to their demands, which also included raids on illegally occupied buildings and a requirement that South African companies prioritise local workers over foreign nationals. Operation Dudula also participated in the march.
Civic organisations respond
Dozens of civic organisations, including Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia, Chronicles of Refugees and Immigrants and Africa Unite, issued a joint statement condemning the march.
“March and March pretends to oppose only undocumented migration, but in practice it fuels hostility and violence towards migrants as a whole, especially poor African migrants,” it said. “We stand with migrants, refugees, undocumented people and all those targeted by xenophobic politics.”
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) wrote to police urging peaceful conduct. SA Human Rights Commissioner Aseza Gungubele cautioned: “We don’t condone any form of violence or harassment of anyone. We have seen the scenes of 2008 and have lost so many lives.”
ALSO READ: African countries must tackle instability driving migration, says South Africa
He acknowledged that underlying grievances existed, but warned against scapegoating: “There are legitimate concerns and general issues of service delivery. We raise it with the relevant authorities. But that does not mean you must scapegoat it.”
Government convenes emergency security talks
On 25 May 2026, all ministers and senior officials of the Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster met at the Union Buildings to discuss the escalating protests. The cluster said it would finalise a framework for a national action plan to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
“In response to the broader challenge of illegal immigration and general social-cohesion issues, the ministers will meet to finalise a framework on the national action plan to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
The ministers also planned to engage political parties and groups involved in the mass protests to establish rules of engagement and discuss government approaches to illegal immigration. Police Minister Firoz Cachalia was among officials involved in the response.
Constitutional Court rules on refugee rights
The unrest unfolded against the backdrop of a landmark Constitutional Court judgment handed down on 12 May 2026 in the matter of Director-General, Department of Home Affairs and Others v Irankunda and Another.
The court found there was no clear right in the Refugees Act to submit a subsequent asylum application once a first application had been finally rejected, but affirmed that materially changed circumstances can and should be raised at any stage of the asylum process.
Giving the ruling, Justice Jody Kollapen, a respected human rights legal figure and former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission, noted a “fundamental difference between first-time and subsequent claims” and that how subsequent claims should be regulated “falls within the realm of the country’s legislative branch.”
The Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town, together with Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR), announced on 22 May it would approach the Constitutional Court to seek confirmation of the judgment.
It expressed concern that the ruling, as it stands, leaves a statutory gap that could expose refugees whose circumstances change after a final rejection to the risk of falling foul of the principle of non-refoulement, not returning the asylum seeker to the place they left or fled from to face persecution.
The centre called on Parliament to create a clear procedural mechanism for subsequent asylum claims to close the protection gap identified by the court.
