SA politicians also weaponise migration:
Headlines in recent weeks have been dominated by the meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and Donald Trump, after the US president granted asylum to white South African farmers.
Framed by Trump as a response to alleged land seizures and violence, the move has been widely criticised as a politically motivated gesture aimed at energising his conservative base ahead of the US mid-term elections. This culminated in a televised version of what Trump might conceive of as version two of The Apprentice in the Oval Office. Despite the ambush, the South African delegation held its ground and demonstrated that white farmers are hardly at disproportionate risk in the country. Many find Trump’s politicking distasteful in the context of having essentially characterised other asylum-seekers to the US as criminals or illegal migrants.
As much as Trump’s reality-TV delusions persist, this moment presents an opportunity for introspection, given South Africa’s own challenges with immigration. While the United States faces scrutiny for the politicisation of asylum, South African politicians have similarly weaponised migration to serve populist agendas. South Africa stands at the centre of intricate migration dynamics that continue to shape its socio-economic landscape, development trajectory, and national security concerns. As one of the continent’s most industrialised economies, South Africa has long been a destination for migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from across Africa.
In a bid to intensify efforts against illegal immigration, Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber recently launched Operation New Broom, a nationwide, technology-driven initiative aimed at identifying, arresting and deporting undocumented foreign nationals, particularly those occupying public spaces. The operation is supported by biometric verification systems, which help detect fraudulent documents and verify a person’s immigration status. This initiative forms part of a broader strategy to clamp down on illegal migration through the use of real-time data and enhanced border control mechanisms.
A substantial proportion of migrants cross the border without any documentation. The majority originate from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho and Nigeria. These migration flows were and are still driven by multiple push and pull factors, including economic hardship, civil unrest and environmental changes in migrants’ home countries. As climate change, organised crime and extremist activity intensifies in some areas, internal displacement and cross-border migration into South Africa are expected to increase, further complicating the country’s migration governance.
In an attempt to curb the influx, the South African government erected electric fences along its borders with Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This was inefficient; illegal migrants continue to enter illegally by damaging the fence. The establishment of the Border Management Authority (BMA) has augmented the fencing efforts. The BMA’s mandate is to manage and secure South Africa’s borders. This includes facilitating legitimate movement of people and goods while preventing and mitigating illegal activities at ports of entry and within the border law enforcement area. In the 2024–25 festive season, the BMA recorded a 215% increase in the prevention of illegal border crossings, intercepting more than 50 000 undocumented people, a sharp rise from 15 924 in the previous year.
Despite the deployment of drones, surveillance equipment and improved patrols, South Africa’s border security continues to be problematic. The BMA and the police have both acknowledged ongoing issues, including infrastructural decay and systemic corruption among border officials, which compromise the integrity of enforcement efforts.
The government has, since the democratic transition, enacted legislation intended to manage migration more effectively. The White Paper on International Migration (1999) laid the foundational policy vision, highlighting the importance of balancing national interests with human rights obligations. The Refugees Act of 1998 and the Immigration Act of 2002, later amended in 2004 and 2007, were designed to regulate the entry and residence of foreign nationals, establish procedures for asylum, and address irregular migration. Yet, implementation has often lagged behind legislative intent. There is a discernible disconnect between policy and practice, particularly with regard to consistent border control and fair refugee processing systems.
There is no definitive method to accurately determine the number of undocumented migrants in South Africa. Estimates vary widely and are often politicised. This is not unique to South Africa — globally, countries struggle to account for their undocumented populations because of the clandestine nature of illegal migration. But the Global Commission on International Migration and Institute of Race Relations have long argued that illegal migration has become a structural and permanent feature of the country’s population dynamics. Some reports suggest the undocumented population could be between two and five million, although these figures remain speculative.
The socio-economic and political costs of irregular migration are often cited by critics of the government’s migration policies. Based on Professor Albert Venter‘s 2005 political risk model, as noted down by Machidi S Ngoasheng undocumented migrants can strain already overstretched public services and social welfare systems, particularly in health, housing, and education. The perception, and sometimes the reality of competition for scarce resources has fuelled xenophobic sentiment and periodic outbreaks of violence, which in turn strain South Africa’s diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries. For example, relations with Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Malawi have, at times, become tense following attacks on their nationals living in South Africa.
Civil society and political parties continue to play an influential role in shaping public discourse on immigration. While ActionSA and the Patriotic Alliance have pushed for stricter immigration enforcement and border controls, the Democratic Alliance has generally supported regulated immigration tied to economic opportunity and legal compliance.
The Economic Freedom Fighters, on the other hand, have condemned mass deportations and raised concerns about the financial and humanitarian costs of hardline immigration policies. The government spent more than R52 million deporting about 19 750 people during the period April to August 2024. The total number of deportations for the 2024-25 financial year reached nearly 47 000, an 18% increase from the previous year. Many of those deported re-enter, considering the risk worth incurring due to the desperate socio-economic conditions in the region.
Despite these problems, it is important to acknowledge the positive contributions that migrants make to South Africa’s economy and society. Many fill critical labour shortages, create businesses and bring cultural diversity. Effective migration management should not only focus on enforcement but also on integration, inclusion and sustainable development. A balanced and humane migration policy must consider the structural drivers of mobility across the region, such as poverty, inequality, and conflict, while also upholding the rule of law and national security.
While South Africa’s migration landscape is shaped by deep-rooted regional and global forces, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the country has consistently implemented evidence-based migration policies or applied them uniformly. Although frameworks such as the White Paper on International Migration (1999), the Refugees Act (1998), and the Immigration Act (2002) lay a strong legal foundation, their implementation has often been ad hoc, reactive and vulnerable to political influence. South Africa’s adoption of a non-encampment model for refugees and asylum seekers, rooted in a rights-based approach aligned with the Constitution and international obligations, is commendable in principle. It allows refugees to live freely rather than being confined to camps. But this model also presents significant administrative and logistical problems, particularly in ensuring access to services, legal protections and regular documentation.
One clear example of these difficulties is the persistent dysfunction within the asylum system, where application backlogs and lengthy appeals processes have left thousands in prolonged legal uncertainty. According to the United Nations Human Refugee Agency, South Africa continues to host one of the largest unresolved asylum caseloads globally, largely because of administrative inefficiencies and under-resourced institutions. These issues point to the urgent need for a more coherent, data-driven approach to migration governance that matches South Africa’s progressive legal commitments with practical capacity to implement them.
Another example is border management. Despite the creation of the BMA and increased investment in surveillance technologies, porous borders and corruption among officials undermine state efforts and contradict stated policy goals. To build a migration regime that is truly secure, fair and reflective of constitutional values, South Africa must commit to depoliticising migration governance, investing in institutional capacity and using reliable data to drive reform — rather than responding to public pressure or electoral cycles.
Leleti Maluleke is a peace and security researcher at Good Governance Africa.
The GAC GS3 Emzoom is a refreshing and a different offering in a flooded SUV market:
It might come to the point where we lose track of how many Chinese brands there are in South Africa.
We might even begin to lose track of how many compact SUVs are in the market because it has become congested with them.
Chinese brand GAC Motor entered two SUV models into the South African market in the middle of 2024: the Emzoom and the Emkoo.
In typical fashion, both cars looked good and came with all the fancy technology that we have become accustomed to getting in Chinese cars.
The Mail & Guardian got behind the wheel of the Emzoom, which is available in three variants: Comfort, Executive and R-Style.
We were lucky enough to get the top-of-the-range R-Style model and I was pleasantly surprised.
I knew that the exterior and interior were going to be appealing, because Chinese manufacturers always put a lot of emphasis on bringing out a neat product.
However, I did find some styling similarities with BMWs. For starters, on the R-Line trim, the black grille gets three gold panels, much like some BMWs, which have M-specific colours on their grilles.
The colour coding on the inside also provided some similarities. The same blue plastics you see around the aircon vents in BMWs are present in the Emzoom R-Style.
This is probably because Thomas Schemera, who has held key roles at both BMW M and Hyundai, is now the chief operating officer and senior vice president of GAC International.
Alongside the ambient lighting inside the Emzoom, the air conditioning and volume dials also get a rainbow light around them. These style features give the car a fun and sporty atmosphere.
Manufacturers sometimes try too hard to make compact SUVs feel luxurious with fancy screens, decked out interiors and the absence of buttons. While the Emzoom still has the fancy screens and is decked out, it doesn’t aim for a luxurious interior, but rather something that boosts adrenaline.
The Emzoom comes with the standard 1.5 litre turbocharged petrol engine that we are accustomed to getting in Chinese compact SUVs. Paired with a dual-clutch transmission gearbox, it will deliver 130kW of power and 270Nm of torque.
The coolest feature of the car is the exhaust system which is designed to produce sound through “active exhaust valves”. These can be toggled between open and closed, allowing for a louder and more sporty sound when open, especially in the sport mode.
It adds to the fun feel the Emzoom was meant to have. You could actually fool people into thinking you were driving a sports car.
But this feature also has a downside. I became obsessed with the exhaust sound, continually putting the car into sport mode. This exposed the sensitivity of the accelerator, making the car move too quickly. This is not ideal when navigating into tight parking spots or even pulling into your garage.
Besides that, the Emzoom provides excellent handling and effortlessly picks up speed when you need it to.
I experienced some turbo-lag, but it was not bad at all. It didn’t make the vehicle feel unresponsive.
The other downside is the fuel consumption. This is a pretty compact vehicle and, while GAC claims a consumption figure of 6.2 litres/100km, I averaged 8.1 litres/100km.
Overall, I really enjoyed the GAC GS3 Emzoom. It felt different and refreshing. I loved the fact that GAC went all out in making it a fun and sporty experience without producing a performance monster.
You get everything you need — and the lovely exhaust sound as a bonus but, in a flooded SUV market, it is difficult to say whether the Emzoom will make a splash.
Pricing
GS3 EMZOOM 1.5L T Comfort — from: R419 900
GS3 EMZOOM 1.5L T Executive — from: R439 900
GS3 EMZOOM 1.5L T R-Style — from: R489 900
New law: Protecting South Africans from tobacco is no foreign agenda:
The passage of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill is a decisive moment for public health in South Africa. Yet, as we edge closer to enacting life-saving legislation, a familiar narrative has emerged, one that is designed to sow confusion and delay progress.
Accusations suggesting that the drafting of this legislation is influenced by foreign NGOs are not only baseless but strategically designed to detract from the real issue at hand: protecting our people, especially youth, from the harmful effects of tobacco.
South Africa ratified the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005. The treaty obliges its signatories to adopt stringent public health measures and safeguard them from interference by the tobacco industry.
These obligations include consulting technical experts, researchers and civil society organisations to develop sound, evidence-based policies. This is not foreign meddling; it is the global standard for formulating robust tobacco control legislation.
The department of health led the drafting of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill, working through established channels. Stakeholders across sectors as well as the broader public have weighed in, and parliament will review every aspect of the bill before its passage.
The narrative that South Africa is ceding its policymaking to external agendas is nothing more than an industry-led distraction. It is designed to confuse, politicise and derail a procedurally sound process that aligns with our constitutional and international commitments.
For decades, the tobacco industry has relied on diversion tactics, questioning the integrity of organisations and individuals who are advocating for public health reforms. South Africa is merely the latest chapter in this global playbook. But make no mistake, this bill is neither a foreign imposition nor the product of external pressure. It is the culmination of years of evidence-based recommendations and domestic public input, aligned with South Africa’s sovereign obligations under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
The tobacco industry thrives not only on selling products that harm health but also on derailing policies that could save lives. Around the world, the industry has wielded its significant resources to manufacture doubt, discredit public health advocates and shift attention away from the substance of legislation — all to pave the way to profit from deadly tobacco and nicotine products, which include cigarettes, heated tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.
Whether in Pakistan, the Philippines or South Africa, the playbook remains the same: scatter unfounded accusations of foreign interference, ignite nationalist sentiments and bury meaningful discourse on protecting lives beneath conspiracy theories. The industry will use any tactic, including mischaracterising the policy process, to try to stop legislation that has an impact on its business.
South Africa is witnessing this tactic up close. Shifting the conversation away from the bill’s purpose, the industry claims that the government’s policymaking is compromised by external influence, even threatening litigation to challenge the legislation. Specifically, it is targeting the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which, together with other experts, provided technical guidance during discussions on the bill. But this is what’s not being said. The campaign consultant involved is a South African citizen, a former director in the department of health, and someone with decades of experience in public health at both national and global levels. She is not a “foreign operative” but a lifelong servant to the health of this country.
The real purpose of the Tobacco Products and Electronic Delivery Systems Control Bill is to curb the harm caused by tobacco and nicotine products, particularly among the youth. Young people in South Africa are under siege; they’re targeted by an industry that relies on addiction to sustain its multibillion-dollar business model. Emerging nicotine products like e-cigarettes and heated tobacco are marketed with flavours, slick designs and celebrity endorsements that glamourise use while increasing dependence.
According to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey of 2021, 29.4% of adults in South Africa use tobacco products, smoked and non-smoked. A new national survey conducted for the African Centre for Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Policy Research, based at the University of Pretoria, shows that this had increased significantly, to 36.8% in 2024.
Tobacco smoking, specifically, has hit a high of 33.9% or 14.9 million, a prevalence level last seen in 1993. Use of novel tobacco products like e-cigarettes, heated tobacco products and oral nicotine pouches among young people aged 16 to 34 has risen to 13.5% or 2.6 million young people.
This burden translates to thousands of preventable deaths and a strained healthcare system. The new bill takes critical steps forward by proposing a comprehensive ban on smoking in public spaces, mandating standardised packaging, curbing advertising and prohibiting sales to children, as well as regulating unregulated novel products that didn’t exist when the legislation was passed.
Ironically, while lobbyists accuse public health advocates of being controlled by foreign entities, the tobacco industry itself is dominated by multinational corporations like British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco. These profit-driven conglomerates, which operate in South Africa, are the real foreign entities that are prioritising shareholder returns over the health of the general population. Their financial interests lie in keeping South Africa addicted, not free from tobacco harm.
Time is critical when it comes to public health policymaking. Any delay in passing the bill equates to more lives being lost and more young South Africans becoming hooked on harmful products. By politicising public health discussions, the tobacco industry and its allies aim to manipulate timelines and erode momentum. Since the first publication of the bill in 2018 up to 2024, the total number of smokers has increased from 9.5 million to 14.9 million and vaping among young people has reached an all-time high.
At its core, this issue is simple — as South Africans, do we want to prioritise the profits of multinational tobacco companies or the health of our people? The delay tactics and conspiracy theories detract from the real questions we must ask our policymakers and ourselves as a nation. How do we safeguard future generations from the harm caused by tobacco? How do we align our policies with science and evidence? How do we ensure that multinational corporations cannot exploit our youth for profit?
The bill before parliament reflects a long-standing public health mandate, shaped by years of domestic input and aligned with our international obligations. Smoking-related illnesses claim about 40 000 South African lives annually. This bill offers a way forward and is a chance to break cycles of addiction, disease and suffering.
The time for decisive action has arrived. It is incumbent upon all of us to reject tactics that perpetuate harm and support measures that secure the well-being of our nation. The science is settled. The need is urgent. The delay is political. Choosing health is not only the right thing to do; it is the only thing to do.
Professor Lekan Ayo-Yusuf is the head of the School of Health Systems and Public Health at the University of Pretoria, director of the National Council Against Smoking and director of the Africa Centre for Tobacco Industry Monitoring and Policy Research.
Submit and get free exposure here: Showcase Your Business | Advertise Your Special Offers.
