By JD GLOBAL MEDIA
South Africa’s Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia and KwaZulu-Natal Premier Thamsanqa Ntuli have visited Durban’s central business district to assess security conditions following violent anti-immigration protests that left vehicles burnt, businesses damaged and foreign nationals facing renewed safety concerns.
The visit on Friday, 9 October 2026, brought together provincial leadership and senior police officials as authorities worked to contain tensions after Thursday’s unrest in Durban and Johannesburg’s Soweto township. Police reported that 14 vehicles were torched in Durban and 10 in Soweto, while foreign-owned shops were looted during the disturbances.
Cachalia said he was satisfied with the police response after receiving briefings from law-enforcement officials. He also acknowledged that South Africans have concerns about irregular immigration, while stressing that demonstrations and public grievances must remain within the law.
The government’s response comes amid wider national debate over a Constitutional Court judgment concerning access to the asylum system and a subsequent Home Affairs directive that was withdrawn after refugee reception offices became overwhelmed.
Authorities are now facing two connected responsibilities: maintaining public order and protecting people and businesses from violence, while ensuring that immigration and asylum matters are handled through lawful government processes rather than intimidation or vigilantism.
The developments in Durban have raised questions about police readiness, the protection of foreign nationals, the consequences for local businesses and how government intends to address public concerns without allowing further disorder.
Senior Government Officials Visit The Durban CBD
Cachalia and Ntuli visited affected parts of Durban’s central business district on Friday alongside senior police leadership, including KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi and acting provincial police commissioner Major-General Phumelele Makoba.
The delegation assessed the security situation after a period of unrest in which protesters opposed the processing of asylum applications at Home Affairs facilities.
The visit followed operational briefings and came as police continued managing crowds and monitoring areas affected by the demonstrations. The presence of provincial and national leadership reflected the seriousness of the incidents and the need to coordinate the response across different levels of government.
The immediate task was to assess the damage, understand developments on the ground and determine how police resources should be deployed to maintain public order.
The unrest had disrupted parts of the city centre, with vehicles left burnt on streets and businesses affected by looting and damage. Such incidents can have consequences beyond the immediate confrontation, including interruptions to trading, transport difficulties and uncertainty for workers and residents.
Officials also faced the challenge of balancing the constitutional right to peaceful protest with their duty to prevent violence and protect property.
Cachalia said he was satisfied with the police response after receiving a briefing on the events. He also said he had no reason, based on the information presented to him, to conclude that the violence had been orchestrated.
His comments were an assessment of the information available to him at the time. Police investigations into individual incidents and any alleged offences remain separate matters.
The visit did not, by itself, resolve the broader dispute over immigration policy or the processing of asylum claims. It was part of the government’s immediate response to the security consequences of the protests.
Police Reinforce Their Presence As Tensions Continue
Police operations remained central to the response as demonstrations continued in Durban following Thursday’s violence.
The South African Police Service said public-order deployments had been reinforced in areas experiencing protests, gatherings or indications of possible unrest. Officers were tasked with managing crowds, protecting people and property, and responding to criminal activity.
KwaZulu-Natal police also said additional resources were being redeployed from other parts of the province to strengthen the police presence in Durban.
Police officials explained that crowd management requires a careful balance. Officers must allow lawful demonstrations to take place while intervening when public safety is threatened or criminal conduct occurs.
The provincial police statement said officers were using public-order management tactics and techniques to control large crowds. Where situations became unmanageable, police said they would use legally permitted measures, including stun grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets, subject to applicable rules governing the use of force.
Police also said intelligence officers were assessing developments and identifying people of interest. Investigators would follow up when appropriate, gather evidence and make arrests where there were sufficient grounds to do so.
The approach is intended to prevent further damage while avoiding unnecessary escalation. However, maintaining order during large demonstrations can be difficult when crowds move through busy commercial areas and tensions remain high.
The police response must also be evaluated against its legal responsibilities. Officers are expected to protect life, act lawfully and apply force only within the relevant legal and operational limits.
The deployment of additional personnel does not guarantee that every incident will be prevented, but it gives authorities more capacity to monitor potential flashpoints and respond to emerging threats.
For residents and businesses, the key question is whether the police presence can prevent further violence and allow ordinary activities to resume safely.
Cachalia Calls For Lawful Expression Of Immigration Concerns
Cachalia acknowledged that South Africans have concerns about irregular immigration, but warned that the way protests are organised can contribute to escalating tensions.
He said organisers must take responsibility for ensuring that grievances are expressed lawfully. He referred to the risks associated with building tension, setting deadlines, calling for shutdowns and encouraging people to gather at government offices in ways that may lead to individuals taking the law into their own hands.
His comments reflect the government’s position that immigration concerns should be addressed through appropriate legal and administrative processes.
Public demonstrations are a recognised form of civic participation, and people may lawfully express disagreement with government policy. However, the right to protest does not authorise arson, assault, looting, intimidation or the destruction of property.
The distinction is important in the current circumstances because the protests have included demands for stronger action against undocumented immigration, while the resulting violence has affected people and businesses beyond the immediate dispute.
Authorities have said they understand that communities have concerns about immigration administration. Those concerns require a government response through legislation, enforcement, border management and the proper operation of the asylum system.
They do not give individuals or groups the authority to decide another person’s immigration status through threats or force.
Immigration status is determined through the applicable legal framework and official procedures. Where a person is suspected of violating immigration law, the matter must be handled by authorised officials in accordance with the law.
The government’s challenge is to demonstrate that immigration rules are being administered effectively while ensuring that public frustration does not translate into attacks on people or property.
What Happened During Thursday’s Unrest?
The protests escalated on Thursday, 8 October, in Durban and Soweto after tensions grew over the processing of asylum applications.
Police reported that 14 vehicles were torched in Durban and 10 in Soweto. Foreign-owned shops were also looted, and parts of Durban’s central business district experienced disruption.
The incidents followed growing anger over the Constitutional Court’s July judgment concerning procedural barriers that had prevented some people from having their asylum applications considered.
Large numbers of people gathered at refugee reception facilities after the Department of Home Affairs issued instructions intended to implement the judgment. The sudden increase in demand placed substantial pressure on reception offices.
Protesters opposed the processing of applications and called for stronger action against irregular immigration. During the unrest, violence and property destruction overshadowed the debate over the legal and administrative issues.
Police reported that three foreign nationals were arrested in KwaZulu-Natal in connection with an alleged assault on a protester. Authorities have treated the allegation as a criminal matter, and the arrests do not establish guilt.
The incidents illustrate why individual allegations must be investigated separately from broader arguments about immigration policy.
Where an assault or other crime is alleged, investigators must establish the circumstances, gather evidence and allow the criminal justice process to proceed. Nationality alone does not determine whether a person is guilty of an offence.
Likewise, the actions of particular protesters cannot automatically be attributed to everyone who holds concerns about immigration.
The government’s response has therefore involved both public-order operations and efforts to clarify the legal position surrounding asylum applications.
Home Affairs Withdraws Its Asylum Directive
The security response has taken place alongside a major administrative development: the Department of Home Affairs withdrew a directive issued on 28 September regarding the intake of asylum applications.
The department announced the withdrawal on Friday, 9 October, after acknowledging that the directive’s implementation had overwhelmed refugee reception offices within days and created risks for officials and public safety.
Home Affairs said the instruction had been introduced as an operational attempt to support implementation of the Constitutional Court’s judgment. It also said the directive had been issued by the director-general without the knowledge of, or consultation with, the minister or other political office-bearers.
The department rejected claims that the directive had been politically motivated. It said it would begin a fresh process to determine an operationally appropriate and sustainable way to comply with the court order.
The withdrawal does not overturn the Constitutional Court’s judgment. The legal obligation to comply with the ruling remains, and the department must determine how to implement it in a way that is consistent with the law and practical administrative requirements.
The government’s immediate difficulty is that refugee reception offices were not prepared for the volume of people who came forward after the directive was issued.
When demand exceeds available capacity, queues can grow rapidly and officials may struggle to process applications while maintaining safe and orderly operations.
However, operational pressure does not automatically remove an asylum seeker’s right to have a claim considered under the applicable legal framework.
The next stage will require clear instructions for reception offices, sufficient administrative capacity and accurate public information about how applications should be handled.
The Constitutional Court Ruling Does Not Automatically Grant Refugee Status
A key part of the government’s public response has been to correct claims about the meaning of the Constitutional Court’s judgment.
The July ruling in the Scalabrini Centre of Cape Town matter addressed procedural barriers that could prevent some asylum seekers from having their claims assessed on their merits.
The ruling does not mean that every person who applies for asylum automatically receives refugee status, permanent residence or citizenship.
An asylum application must still be considered through the formal refugee status determination process, and applicants must meet the relevant legal requirements to qualify for protection.
The judgment concerns access to the process and the ability to have claims considered. It should not be confused with an automatic decision that an applicant qualifies for protection.
The government has said misinformation about the ruling has contributed to confusion and heightened tensions. That makes accurate communication particularly important at a time when public anger is high.
Authorities need to explain what the court decided, what it did not decide and how the asylum system will operate while Home Affairs develops its revised approach.
The public also needs to understand the difference between an asylum seeker, a recognised refugee, a permanent resident, a citizen and a person who is unlawfully present in the country. These categories have different legal meanings and should not be treated as interchangeable.
People with concerns about immigration administration can raise them through lawful political, legal and public channels. However, the legal status of an individual must be determined through authorised processes rather than assumptions based on nationality or appearance.
Premier Warns About The Impact On Jobs And Investment
KwaZulu-Natal Premier Thamsanqa Ntuli’s participation in the assessment comes as the province faces the economic consequences of unrest in a major commercial centre.
Violence in the Durban CBD can disrupt trading, damage business premises and discourage customers from entering affected areas. When shops close because of safety concerns, workers may lose income and businesses can experience immediate financial losses.
The effects can extend beyond businesses directly targeted during the demonstrations. Transport operators, suppliers, customers and other traders may also be affected if roads are blocked or normal commercial activity is interrupted.
Ntuli has warned that violence could threaten jobs and investment. His concern reflects the economic importance of maintaining a stable operating environment for businesses and workers.
Durban is a major port and commercial hub, with extensive connections to retail, logistics, tourism, manufacturing and other economic activities. Prolonged disruption in its central business district can therefore have consequences beyond the streets where demonstrations take place.
Businesses need confidence that employees and customers can travel safely and that property will be protected. Workers need to know that they can reach their workplaces without facing threats or violence.
The government’s challenge is to restore public order while addressing the policy concerns that contributed to the demonstrations.
That requires both immediate security measures and longer-term engagement on immigration administration, employment pressures, public services and enforcement.
The economic consequences of violence also underline why the protection of property is a public responsibility. Criminal acts can harm local communities regardless of the nationality of the person who owns a business or vehicle.
Investigations Into Arson And Other Offences
Police have said that those responsible for torching vehicles and committing acts of violence will be investigated and, where sufficient evidence exists, brought before the courts.
Acting National Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Puleng Dimpane warned that the right to protest does not provide permission to commit crimes. She said public-order deployments had been reinforced and that intelligence gathering would be strengthened to help identify emerging threats.
The investigation of arson and looting requires authorities to establish what happened at each location, identify suspects and collect evidence that can support criminal proceedings.
Investigators may need to examine witness accounts, available video footage, damaged property and other evidence to determine the circumstances of individual incidents.
The arrests reported in KwaZulu-Natal relate to an alleged assault and should not be treated as proof that the accused are guilty. Any criminal charges must be dealt with through the justice system.
Similarly, investigations into the destruction of vehicles and business property must identify the people responsible rather than relying on collective accusations against entire communities.
The police have also warned that unlawful conduct will be addressed regardless of who is involved. That principle applies to protesters, foreign nationals and any other individuals suspected of committing offences.
For affected residents and business owners, the progress of investigations will be important in establishing accountability and confidence that attacks will not be ignored.
The authorities will also need to communicate developments carefully so that unverified allegations do not inflame tensions or place innocent people at risk.
The Challenge Of Protecting Foreign Nationals
The unrest has renewed concern about the safety of foreign nationals in South Africa, particularly people whose businesses or homes may be exposed to threats during anti-immigration demonstrations.
Foreign nationals living in the country have different legal circumstances. Some hold valid visas, some are permanent residents or recognised refugees, and others may be seeking asylum or resolving immigration matters.
It is therefore inaccurate to assume that all foreign nationals are undocumented or that a person’s nationality establishes their immigration status.
The police and other authorities have a responsibility to protect people from violence and to investigate allegations of criminal conduct. That responsibility does not depend on whether a person is a South African citizen or a foreign national.
At the same time, immigration laws must be administered through the proper institutions. Enforcement decisions, deportation processes and the assessment of asylum claims are responsibilities of the state, not private groups.
When people are threatened, assaulted or forced from businesses and homes because of their perceived nationality or immigration status, the consequences extend beyond the immediate victims. Such incidents can create fear, disrupt livelihoods and weaken confidence in the rule of law.
The government must therefore ensure that public-order operations protect everyone affected by the unrest, while allowing peaceful demonstrations to take place within legal limits.
The protection of foreign nationals does not prevent the government from enforcing immigration laws. Both objectives can be pursued through lawful procedures.
What Happens Next In Durban?
Authorities are continuing to monitor developments and maintain a police presence in areas affected by the protests.
The immediate priority is to prevent further violence, protect businesses and residents, and ensure that people can move through the city centre safely.
Police have said additional personnel are being deployed where needed, while intelligence officers are assessing the situation and identifying potential threats.
The provincial and national government will also need to address the administrative uncertainty created by Home Affairs’ withdrawal of its directive.
A revised approach must explain how the department intends to comply with the Constitutional Court’s judgment while managing demand at refugee reception offices. The department has not yet provided a complete replacement procedure in its withdrawal announcement.
Clear guidance will be important for asylum applicants, reception office staff and members of the public who have questions about the process.
The government will also need to continue explaining the difference between applying for asylum and being granted refugee status, particularly while misinformation circulates about the judgment.
For businesses affected by the unrest, a return to normal operations will depend on whether security conditions stabilise and whether employees and customers feel safe returning to the area.
The police response can help contain immediate threats, but lasting stability will also depend on the ability of government institutions to address immigration concerns through effective administration, lawful enforcement and public communication.
A Test Of Public Order And Immigration Governance
The visit by Cachalia and Ntuli highlights the government’s attempt to respond to violent protests while managing a complex dispute over asylum administration.
Police have reinforced deployments, senior officials have assessed the affected areas, and investigations are under way into arson, looting and alleged assault. Home Affairs has withdrawn its directive and committed to developing a new operational approach to comply with the Constitutional Court’s judgment.
These developments address different parts of the same crisis. Police operations focus on immediate safety and criminal conduct, while Home Affairs must resolve the administrative challenges surrounding asylum applications.
Neither task can be completed by violence or intimidation. Immigration concerns require lawful government action, and criminal allegations require evidence and due process.
For Durban, the immediate measure of progress will be whether residents, workers and businesses can return to normal activities without fear of further unrest. For the national government, the longer-term challenge is to demonstrate that immigration rules can be enforced effectively while constitutional obligations are respected.
The coming days will be important as authorities continue monitoring the situation and Home Affairs works on its replacement arrangements. Further clarity from government, consistent law enforcement and accurate public information will be essential to reducing uncertainty and preventing additional violence.
JD GLOBAL MEDIA
Comments
Post a Comment