Tuesday 30 August 2011

Tried to compliment Home Affairs but....

A reader from Durbanville says :

I gave my feedback online but of course it doesn't send the message ... Typical! Even if you want to say something positive it's such a huge effort!

So I suggested she contact the Customer Service Centre.  This was the correspondence:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Hennie (Manager at the Customer Service Centre)

I got your e-mail adress from xxx and wanted to let you know about my experiences with contacting Home Affairs. I desperately tried to say a simple "Thank you" to Home Affairs but ...

- The Bellville Home Affairs phone number doesn't seem to work - or at least not from my landline number. I can do other phone calls, so I don't think it's a problem with my phone.

- I then filled in the feedback form on Home Affairs website. I tried twice but it wasn't sent.

- I found another link on the website to be used if any problems with the internet site occur (Internal.Communications@dha.gov.za). The e-mail also came back undelivered.

- I then called the Home Affairs 0800-number and spoke to someone who gave me the general Customer Service Centre's e-mail adress. The consultant couldn't give me an e-mail address of the Bellville office or a different number I could try. I told the consultant that I wanted to give positive feedback and I must admit that I thought she would be happy to hear about it. But she couldn't seem to bother less.

I'm used to having a difficult time getting things sorted out when complaining about a service but I find it really amusing that even if I want to say something positive it is almost impossible to get it done.

Below please find my message which I tried to send via your website.

Kind regards

Ms X

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Message that Ms X tried to submit on the Home Affairs Website)

Dear Madam/Sir
I fill in this form to thank you for my yesterday's experience at Home Affairs Office Bellville, Western Cape. No long queues, efficient service. I went to collect my ID and was so happy when I left the office five minutes later. I had various serious problems in the past 7 years when dealing with Home Affairs (e.g., very long queues when applying for the ID, wrong information, lost applications etc) but was really, really satisfied with the service this time.
Thank you!
Kind regards,

Ms X

*********************************************************************
Mr Meyer Responded as follows:


Sent: DD, MM, 2011 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Feedback form on the website

Ms X

Good morning!

Thanks for your mail below. It is really ironic (and very embarrassing for us :-( ) that you were not able to send a compliment. I suppose that undoes the positive experience you had!

I can only apologise and will certainly take up the matter with the webmaster, the call centre and the manager of the Belville office of Home Affairs.

Thank you very much for the compliment! Despite the negative experiences that you have had to endure, it is really our intention to improve services to the public.

Kind regards


Hennie Meyer
----------------------------------
Deputy Director: Customer Service Centre
Department of Home Affairs
012-810 8008
hennie.meyer@dha.gov.za







Monday 29 August 2011

The Minister should come clean on R4.1 billion contract


Annette Lovemore, Shadow Minister of Home Affairs
9 December 2010
The Democratic Alliance has submitted applications, in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, for copies of two reports on investigations into the Department of Home Affairs’ controversial “Who Am I Online” project.

Both reports detail investigations commissioned in 2008 by former Minister of Home Affairs, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, into the awarding of a multibillion rand tender for electronic systems to GijimaAst.

The first report, by the Office of the Auditor-General, was apparently delivered to the Ministry of Home Affairs in February 2009, but has never been made public. This is despite calls for disclosure of the contents of the report by the DA, the ID and by the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs.

The second report is by academic Harvey Wainer, and was, we are told, delivered to Minister Dlamini-Zuma in 2009. It, too, has never been made public.

In 2008, the Department of Home Affairs signed a contract with GijimaAst, valued at R1.9 billion, to implement the “Who Am I Online” system. GijimaAst is owned by billionaire Robert Gumede, a known friend and backer of President Zuma. The project was aimed at replacing the department's outdated systems with electronic processing, and formed part of modernising the Department by, inter alia, eliminating manual and paper-based systems used to issue visas, passports and identity documents.

Costs for the project spiralled exponentially during its short life, eventually reaching a total of R4.5 billion.

The Department has already paid GijimaAst R391 million. The company thus contends that it is still owed approximately R4.1 billion.

On 13 April 2010, Home Affairs sent a letter to GijimaAst cancelling the deal, telling parliament, at the time, that "the supplier for the 'Who am I Online' project had failed to perform and deliver in accordance with the contract". However, Home Affairs informed the company that the contract had never been valid and was unenforceable. This implies that the Department paid the company hundreds of millions of rand without a valid or legally binding contract being in place.
GijimaAst  is threatening legal action to recover these costs. Taking into account that the entire budget for the Department’s functioning for 2010/11 is R5.7 billion, a successful court challenge could well bring the Department to a standstill. (It is rather alarming to note that the pending legal claims against the Department total R6.8 billion – well in excess of the total annual budget.)

The South Africa state has already paid almost R400 million and will potentially fund an additional R4.1 billion for a project that:
(a) was awarded under circumstances that have been the subject of two forensic audits, the results of which have never been made known; and
(b)    has not delivered any measurable results.

The DA will continue to utilise all tools at its disposal, including the current applications for information, and, in the new year, requesting a presentation by the Minister on the subject, to uncover the true facts behind the awarding of this contract and its subsequent cancellation, not to mention who will be held responsible for the expenditure, over 18 months, on  a contract that was never considered valid.
http://www.da.org.za/newsroom.htm?action=view-news-item&id=8992

Saturday 27 August 2011

Home Affairs Arrests



Home Affairs officials arrested for fraud, corruption
Compiled by the Government Communication and Information System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretoria - The Department of Home Affairs is cracking down on fraud and corruption within its ranks, arresting 12 of its employees in the past two weeks. With the help of the Hawks, the department's Anti-Corruption Unit has arrested officials at the OR Tambo Airport, Durban, Grahamstown and Mount Frere, said department's director-general Mkuseli Apleni.
"Three immigration officers at the OR Tambo Airport were arrested for facilitating the illegal entry and stay of foreign immigrants in South Africa, while the fourth allegedly took a bribe of R1 000 from a foreign national to facilitate illegal entry into South Africa without the necessary yellow fever certificate," he said.
In Mount Frere, two officials were arrested after allegedly issuing a marriage certificate to a deceased person. This was allegedly done in order to claim on an insurance policy, Apleni said.
In Durban, five of the department's employees and a local priest were arrested for allegedly registering hundreds of fraudulent marriages involving foreign nationals and South African citizens. An official in Grahamstown was arrested on similar allegations.
The Hawks and the Anti-Corruption Unit are now analysing all the marriages registered by these officials in order to determine how many fraudulent marriages they had facilitated.
"The arrests of these officials in Johannesburg, Mount Frere, Durban and Grahamstown again send a positive message that the government will leave no stone unturned to ensure those involved in such criminal activities face the full might of the law," Apleni said.
The complicity of some South African citizens in the arranged fraudulent marriages in order to help foreign nationals enter and stay in the country illegally was a serious concern, he added.
Apleni warned that those implicated in such acts would be brought to justice.
The department was also finalising arrangements to host a national anti-corruption summit. The summit, which is to take place later this year, will include the participation of government, business, labour and non-government organisations.
"We believe the summit will help give impetus to existing efforts by the department and law enforcement agencies to rid our society of the cancer of fraud and corruption," said Apleni.
Reported by: South African Government News Service
http://imcosa.co.za/en/news/144-home-affairs-arrests.html

Friday 26 August 2011

Home Affairs sued for unlawful detention

In the matter between

ESTHU MARKOS FIKRE............................................................APPLICANT

and

MINISTER OF <<HOME AFFAIRS>>...............................................FIRST RESPONDENT

THE DIRECTOR- GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF <<HOME AFFAIRS>>..................................SECOND RESPONDENT

SUMMARY

Refugee – detention – review of in terms of s 29(1) of Act 130 of 1998 – nature of review proceedings – sui generis procedure – neither separate application nor akin to automatic review in terms of s 302 of Act 51 of 1977.
‘Reasonable and justifiable’ grounds for extending detention – absence of – no justification shown for extension sought - immediate release ordered.

___________________________________________________________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________________________________________________________
VAN OOSTEN J
[1] This is a review of the applicant’s detention under the provisions of s 29 (1) of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998 (the Act). The applicant is an Ethiopian citizen, who fled from Ethiopia owing to fears of persecution by reason of his political opinion. He applied for political asylum in 2006, which was rejected in 2009. He was arrested on and has been in detention since 10 September 2010. He is presently being held at Lindela Holding Facility in Krugersdorp. On 8 March 2011 the applicant launched an urgent application to this court for his release from detention. It was enrolled for hearing on 15 March 2011 before Mbha J who postponed the application to 18 March 2011 and directed time limits for the filing of further affidavits. Those were filed and the application came up for hearing before Spilg J. Two further adjournments of the matter followed in terms of orders granting certain interim relief and facilitating further procedural steps. The last order was made on 11 May 2011 in terms of which Spilg J directed that the detention of the applicant be reviewed under the provisions of s 29 (1) of the Act by a judge of the South Gauteng High Court designated by the Judge President. The learned judge further directed time limits within which the parties were to file supplementary affidavits. Supplementary affidavits by the applicant and on behalf of the respondents were subsequently filed. On 1 June 2011 I was appointed to review the applicant’s detention by the Judge President of this division pursuant to the order of Spilg J. In collaboration with the parties the review was enrolled for hearing on 6 June 2011. Having heard argument I ordered the immediate release of the applicant in terms of the order at the end of this judgment. What follows are my reasons for the order.
[2] Before considering the merits of the review it is apposite to reflect briefly on the nature of the review procedure which is an aspect that has given rise to considerable confusion. There are to date no cases in which the nature of the procedure has been considered. The procedure is novel in its nature and as it derives its existence from the provisions of s 29 (1) of the Act, I deem it appropriate to quote them in full:
29 Restriction of detention
(1) No person may be detained in terms of this Act for a longer period than is reasonable and justifiable and any detention exceeding 30 days must be reviewed immediately by a judge of the High Court of the provincial division in whose area of jurisdiction the person is detained, designated by the Judge President of that division for that purpose and such detention must be reviewed in this manner immediately after the expiry of every subsequent period of 30 days.’
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the review provided for is akin inter alia to an automatic review in terms of s 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which is determined by the reviewing judge in chambers. I do not agree. Section 29 (1) of the Act provides for a sui generis procedure which is a review of the detention of the refugee for a further period and therefore cannot be classified as a review of either the prior proceedings or the judgment in terms of which the review was ordered. In essence the purpose of the s 29 (1) is plainly to ensure judicial oversight as to the refugee’s detention and the continuation thereof. The review consequently does not constitute an application on its own: in the present matter supplementary affidavits were filed and the matter simply proceeded before me as the judge designated by the Judge President for in effect, the determination of one single issue only which is whether the applicant’s detention should be extended.
[3] This brings me to the supplementary affidavits filed for purposes of the review and the question arising for determination whether “reasonable and justifiable” reasons exist for an extension of the applicant’s detention for a further period of 30 days or less (Cf De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) para [23]). It is salutary to bear in mind that as Van Reenen J held in Kiliko and Others v Minister of <<Home Affairs>> and Others 2006 (4) SA 114 (C) para [28]:
The State, under international law, is obliged to respect the basic rights of any foreigner who has entered its territory, and any such person is under the South African Constitution, entitled to all the fundamental rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights, save those expressly restricted to South African citizens.’
[4] The salient background facts relevant to the present review are briefly the following. The applicant applied for asylum on 21 August 2006 and he was issued with a permit in terms of s 22 of the Act. On 9 January 2009 his asylum application was rejected by a Refugee Status Determination Officer. The applicant took no further steps either to appeal or review the decision and he was eventually on 10 September 2010, arrested as an illegal foreigner. On 3 March 2011 the applicant lodged an application for condonation for the late noting of an appeal against the rejection of his asylum application, with the Refugee Appeal Board. The condonation application Spilg J held (see para 82 of the judgment) “resurrected the Applicant’s rights under the Refugees Act not to be deported until the exhaustion of all his appeal and review remedies” on the basis that “an application for condonation for the late filing of an appeal is expressly recognised in Rule 6 of the Refugee Appeal Board Rules of 2003”. Although I have difficulty in aligning myself with the finding and reasoning of the learned judge I am for purposes of this review, bound by it as I am not sitting as a court of appeal or review on the correctness of the judgment. The finding however, is pivotal to the present review: the respondents seek an extension for a further period of 30 days in order to enable the Refugee Appeal Board to determine the applicant’s condonation application.
[5] The respondents have put preciously little before me in order to enable me to exercise my discretion. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the Deputy Director: Directorate-Deportation Department of <<Home Affairs>> who is also the head of Lindela where the applicant is currently detained, states that his attempt on 11 May 2011 to ascertain the status of the applicant’s application for condonation was met by a promise made by the chairperson of the Refugee Appeal Board to investigate this aspect and to revert to him on the outcome thereof. Nothing has been put before me concerning either the outcome of the proposed enquiry or for that matter, the status of the condonation application at this stage, almost a month later.
[6] In a nutshell this court is now urged to extend the applicant’s detention on the simple basis that the condonation application is pending but with no indication whatsoever as to when it will likely be finalised. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs when regard is had to the long chequered history of this matter and especially where the freedom of an asylum seeker is at stake (Cf Arse v Minister of <<Home Affairs>> and Others 2010 (7) BCLR 640 (SCA) para [10]). Counsel for the respondents correctly submitted that the respondents cannot be blamed for the absence of this information as the Refugee Appeal Board is an autonomous Board created by statute (s 12 of the Act) and therefore not falling under the control of the respondents. But, as counsel for the applicant rightly retorted, nothing prevents the respondents from their side exerting some form of pressure on the Board to expedite matters. Be that as it may, I am unable at this stage to find that any reason exists for extending the applicant’s detention. For these reasons the applicants’ continued detention cannot be justified and I ordered his immediate release.
[7] It remains to mention two further aspects: counsel for the applicant correctly submitted that the applicant’s release should be accompanied by the issuing to him of an interim refugee permit in terms of s 22 of the Act as a safeguard to protect him and others from being exposed to the usual dire consequences that may flow from refugee status without a permit. Finally, as to costs, the award thereof at this stage will be premature as the eventual outcome of the condonation application may well have a material bearing on the decision concerning liability for costs.
[8] In the result I make the following order:
1. The applicant must be released forthwith.
2. The respondents are ordered to immediately re-issue the applicant with an asylum seeker’s permit in accordance with section 22 of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998, such permit to be valid until the applicant’s application for condonation has been finalised.
3. The costs are reserved.



_________________________
FHD VAN OOSTEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT ADV S BUDLENDER
ADV (MS) I DE VOS

APPLICANT’S ATTORNEYS LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS


COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ADV (MS) N MANAKA

RESPONDENTS’ ATTORNEYS THE STATE ATTORNEY

DATE OF HEARING AND ORDER 6 JUNE 2011
DATE OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 9 JUNE 2011

http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZAGPJHC/2011/52.html&query=%22Home%20Affairs%22

Thursday 25 August 2011

Home Affairs denies stampede



Two migrants were allegedly killed and several injured at a refugee centre in Pretoria earlier this week during a stampede, according to witnesses.
But police and home affairs officials deny a stampede took place or that anyone was killed or hurt. Witnesses at the Marabastad centre on Monday said they saw a woman and child being trampled as people in the queue flooded towards the centre when the gates opened that morning. They claimed that the two died in the crush.
"There was no stampede and no one died," said home affairs department spokesperson Manusha Pillai, adding: "If anyone died, it's not home affairs' fault."
The Mail & Guardian was told of the stampede by Lawyers for Human Rights spokesperson Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh and the director of the Zimbabwe Exiles Forum, Gabriel Shumba, who had heard about it from people in the queue.
There was apparently another stampede three weeks ago at the same centre, highlighting the growing desperation of refugees. Home affairs confirmed the incident in early July, saying 14 people were injured, four whom were hospitalised.
Ramjathan-Keogh said the stampede was a direct consequence of the closing of the Crown Mines centre, the only one in Johannesburg. Businesses filed a court complaint that shut Crown Mines' doors in May. Migrants normally serviced in Johannesburg must now go to Pretoria.
A Zimbabwean who did not want to be named told the M&G he saw the stampede.
"I saw a mother and child trampled," he said. "There was a big, big crowd, about 6 000. There's no procedure, it's totally orderless."
Police tried to manage the queues, Shumba said, but ultimately they scared the migrants, who thought they were trying to chase and arrest them.
At least three police were present, the Zimbabwean witness said, adding that a home affairs official came to the site in a police car and made an announcement to the crowd by megaphone.
"After the stampede, I left," he said. "Conditions there are inhumane."
Demand at centres is growing as migrants try to obtain refugee status before the close of the Zimbabwe Documentation Project, a special-permit initiative expected to end in one to two months' time.
Some fear that mass deportations will follow the deadline. For most Zimbabweans, refugee status represents the last chance of acquiring legal status, according to Braam Hanekom, director of People Against Suffering, Oppression and Poverty (Passop).
Gauteng police spokesperson Colonel Lungelo Dlamini said he knew nothing about the stampede, which did not concern the police because "a stampede is not a crime".
The Zimbabwean who witnessed the incident was waiting to renew his refugee status, which he has to do every six months to avoid deportation or a fine of R1 000 for a late renewal.
He said there were about 35 queues outside the offices, with women, men and mothers with child­ren separating themselves into different lines.
A Passop report in May on Cape Town's refugee centre said that in a period of two weeks more than 1 600 people were turned away. The reasons included a lack of supplies at the centre, employees not turning up for work, applicants without visas and queues being too long.
There was also a shortage of toilets. The Pretoria centre had six filthy portable toilets inside its gates, too few for 6 000 people, according to the Zimbabwean. In addition, there was no drinking water, no shade and no comfortable places to sleep.
"No one has time to travel to get food," he said. "You don't come there for food , you want your freedom."
Shumba said it was critical to open another centre and that priority in queues should be given to the disabled and women with children.
Other refugee centres, such as those in Cape Town and Durban, could also be closed because of complaints from neighbouring businesses.
But homes affairs deputy director general Jackson McKay said no other centres would be opened and the department would close existing centres if the courts ordered it to.
An amendment to the Immigration Act is currently before Parliament which will provide for jail sentences of up to four years for undocumented migrants and those caught aiding or employing them.
KATHLEEN CHAYKOWSKI JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - Aug 05 2011 12:56 - Mail and Guardian

http://imcosa.co.za/en/news/146-home-affairs-denies-stampede.html

Wednesday 24 August 2011

Divorce, the Foreign Spouse and Home Affairs

The expat’s right of residence in SA, based on the spousal relationship, is a very delicate creature. In terms of Home Affairs’ practice, as soon as the relationship ends, the temporary residence permit is deemed to end
Source: Chris Watters, Bedfordview
Those amongst us who studied Latin may recall the story that, many years ago, a young Trojan warned the elders of his community to be cautious about people who left gifts strewn around deserted Mediterranean beaches. Foreign nationals who are the spouses of South African citizens [or persons who have permanent residence] would do well to be guided by such advice. It’s not that Mediterranean nationals are to be avoided in spousal relationships but that the estranged South African spouse could well be bringing news that is every bit as tragic as the Trojan Horse turned out to be for some people in Troy.
In terms of the Immigration Act, the spouse of a SA citizen (which term includes a person who has obtained permanent residence in South Africa) qualifies to be granted temporary residence - and more particularly for a temporary relative’s permit. This category of temporary residence permits is usually issued for a year at a time and are subject to the spousal relationship surviving. If the foreign spouse wishes to be employed, the usual requirements for such authorisation - such as that the post has been duly advertised - fall away.
For purposes of the Immigration Act, the term “spouse” includes anyone who is in a bona fide, permanent, cohabitive relationship that is monogamous. To be a qualifying “spouse,” the expat does not need to be married to the SA partner. 
The only benefit or advantage that exists in being formally married - again, for purposes of the Immigration Act - is that it will often be easier to satisfy the Department of Home Affairs that such spousal relationship does in fact exist.
And if/when the relationship or marriage is five years old or more, the expat spouse also qualifies to apply for permanent residence. If permanent residence is granted, that status is granted on condition that the relationship must survive a further three years.
On the face of it, one can see why then some people, who want to settle in SA, will resort to all manner of devices to secure a spousal relationship.  
But the expat’s right of residence in SA, based on the spousal relationship, is a very delicate creature. In terms of Home Affairs’ practice, as soon as the relationship ends, the permit is deemed to end. And so it happens, not infrequently, that one of the first things the SA spouse will do once either party has walked out, is she or he will phone Home Affairs to report that the relationship has ended and to seek their support to have the expat spouse removed from South Africa. The Department’s officials tend to react to such advisories with alacrity which can lead to the expat spouse first being detained pending their deportation.
In the case of married couples, the fact that the marriage persists (for now) may be irrelevant. What matters is whether the couple are still living together in a bona fide relationship. So all too often, the expat can become liable to arrest, detention and eventual removal, according to the Department, long before the marriage is formally ended by divorce. 
A very sensitive problem that has not been addressed by the Immigration Act [and has not yet been considered by the courts] is what happens if the separation has been forced by an abusive SA spouse. This could leave the abused expat spouse facing the tragic dichotomy of either being removed from the country or being forced to return to the situation of abuse. And that vulnerability could as easily extend to the expat spouse fears attending custody or maintenance hearings to avoid arrest and detention by Home Affairs’ officials some of whom see it as their duty to support the SA spouse, right or wrong.    In one matter, the previous Minister of Home Affairs admitted that she saw this as her duty even though, in that matter, it was the expat spouse who ended up needing a protection order.   And it has also been argued in custody battles that the expat spouse should not get custody precisely because they are either vulnerable to removal and/or they no longer have a right of residence.
A further challenge for the Immigration Act arises when the couple disagree on whether the relationship has in fact ended irrespective of whether the couple are married or not. What is the status of the relationship, for purposes of immigration enforcement, if one of the parties sees the separation as being a trial separation or he or she is committed to trying to save the marriage through counselling or trying to mend the relationship themselves. In practice, officials of the Department of Home Affairs tend to react to the perspective or assessment of the SA spouse. As a long line of authority has held or implied that deportation requires that an official must take a decision to deport - which implies that there be some form of hearing to deport a person - the same ‘limitation’ applies to any decision to detain the expat spouse pending such deportation. 
The Immigration Act is however clear on one thing: in this context Home Affairs may only detain a person to establish either who he or she is and/or their residence status [which is limited to a 48-hour period], or in order to deport the expat who has no right to remain in the country.  
The Department does not have the authority to detain a person solely because he or she is in the country without a valid permit.   In addition, in Ulde v Minister of Home Affairs 2009(4) SA 522 (SCA) the SCA held, at paragraph [7], that the Department’s power to detain must be exercised “in favorem libertate.”
Another challenge for the Immigration Act and for estranged expat spouses, is what happens if children are involved - particularly if the child is a SA citizen. The child has a constitutional right to family life and to parental care - irrespective of its nationality. Whilst one would expect that the Department should be slow to remove the expat spouse [unless that was in the best interests of the child], there is the threat of removal that unfairly impacts on the expat spouse. 
The Immigration Act does not have a category of temporary residence permit that directly permits the expat spouse to be in the Republic to “accompany” his or her child or children. The closest the Act comes to achieving this is the relative’s permit. But this category of temporary residence permit is issued to “a foreigner who is a member of the immediate family of a citizen.”  It has been argued that it is straining the language of the Act considerably to hold that the child’s mother is a member of the child’s family. 
In addition, the Regulations to the Act require that to qualify for a relative’s permit, the SAC has to have disposable income of not less than R5000,00 per month to support the foreign relative! Whereas such prescribed requirements can be waived by the Department’s Head Office [which waivers rarely take less than six weeks to get, if approved] if there is “good cause”, section 18(2) of the Act says that “the holder of a relative’s permit may not conduct work.”  This requirement cannot be waived by the Department. This means that the expat spouse would be unable to provide for him- or herself and their dependants which must surely be unconstitutional.
This is not to say that the expat spouse is without remedies as he or she moves through the dissolution of a spousal relationship. There are protections but these are largely to be found rather in the Bill of Rights than in the Immigration Act - which Act badly needs to be amended in this regard. Perhaps the promised national debate on morality will also address the needs of the vulnerable expat spouse such that they can be protected against their Trojan Horses.
http://www.roylaw.co.za/home/article/divorce-the-foreign-spouse-and-home-affairs/pageid/immigration-law

Probleme? Rufen Sie den Generaldirektor auf seinem Handy an

German version of "Problems? Phone the DG on his cellphone."

Der Generaldirektor (DG) von Home Affairs bittet die Personen, deren Anfragen nicht zufriedenstellend behandelt werden, ihn auf seinem Handy anzurufen - die Nummer findet man auf der Internetseite von Home Affairs. Er bot dies in einer Besprechung im Parlament am 15. März 2011 an als Reaktion auf eine Frage der DA-Schattenministerin für Home Affairs, Annette Lovemore.

*************************Den GD anzurufen, sollte der letzte Ausweg sein. Bevor Sie den GD anrufen ...

sorgen Sie dafür, dass Sie Aufzeichnungen über Telefonate, e-Mails und Namen der Personen, mit denen Sie gesprochen haben, nachweisen können.

1. Legen Sie eine Beschwerde beim Kunden-Center (CSC) unter 0800 20 44 76 ein oder e-mailen Sie an csc@dha.gov.za. Lassen Sie sich eine Referenznummer geben.
2. Wenn Sie innerhalb von 3 Tagen keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, kontaktieren Sie den CSC-Manager hennie.meyer@dha.gov.za.
3. Wenn Sie innerhalb von 3 Tagen keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, fragen Sie nach einer Kontaktperson bei der "Operational Response Unit" und kontaktieren Sie diese.
4. Wenn Sie (innerhalb von 5 Tagen - ich denke, das ist die Bearbeitungszeit) keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, fragen Sie nach dem zuständigen "Chief Director" für Ihren Fall und seine Kontaktdaten. Kontaktieren Sie den "Chief Director".

Die "Chief Directors" in Sachen Immigration (Asyl, Genehmigungen, etc.) sind:
Deputy Director General: Immigration Services - J McKay
Chief Director Foreign Office Co-ordination and Support - N Mnyaka
Chief Director Port Control – J. Mamabolo
Chief Director Permits – M. Radebe
Chief Director Inspectorate – M. Matthews
Chief Director Asylum Seekers Management – L. Kgasi

Die Chief Directors in Sachen Bürgerservice (IDs, Pässe, Geburtsurkunden, etc) sind:
Deputy Director General: Civic Services - V Mkhize
Chief Director: Civic channel management - M. Moloi
Chief Director: Back office ID processing - T Sigama - (Acting)
Chief Director: Back office status services - N. Ramashia
Chief Director: Civic services support – nicht besetzt

Die Chief Directors in Sachen Korruptionsprävention und Sicherheit sind:
Deputy Director-General: Counter Corruption and Security - C Khwela - (Acting)
Chief Director: Investigation - C Khwela
Chief Director: Security Services - S Hancock

(Alle Namen der hochgestellten Beamten sind auf der Internetseite von Home Affairs zu finden. Das Organigramm von Home Affairs finden Sie auf diesem Blog.)

5. Wenn Sie innerhalb von 3 Tagen keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, kontaktieren Sie den zuständigen Deputy Director General für Ihren Fall.

6. Wenn Sie innerhalb von 3 Tagen keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, e-mailen Sie dem Director General Mr Mkuseli Apleni eine Zusammenfassung Ihres Falles (Mkuseli.apleni@dha.gov.za) mit folgenden Informationen:
·         Welches Dokument Sie beantragt haben.
·         Wann Sie beantragt haben.
·         Das Büro, in dem Sie den Antrag gestellt haben.
·         Ihre Referenznummer für den Antrag und die Referenznummer der Beschwerde beim CSC.
·         Namen des Chief Director und Deputy Director General, den Sie kontaktiert hatten, bevor Sie den GD kontaktiert haben.
·         Welches Ergebnis Sie brauchen und bis wann.

7. Wenn Sie innerhalb von 3 Tagen keine zufriedenstellende Rückmeldung erhalten, rufen Sie den GD auf seiner Handynummer an: 0824497535. 

*********Sorgen Sie dafür, dass Sie Ihren Fall und Ihr Anliegen innerhalb von 2 Minuten erklären können, da der GD ein sehr beschäftigter und hochrangiger Beamter ist.************

Nach meiner Erfahrung antwortet er persönlich sein Telefon, wenn man ihn zwischen 7:15 und 8:00 Uhr anruft, danach ist er in Besprechungen.

******Bitte rufen Sie den GD nur an, wenn Sie alle anderen Möglichkeiten ausgeschöpft haben.****************

8. Wenn das Anrufen des GDs nicht klappt, faxen Sie dem Minister unter 0128107307 oder 0124326637 (lassen Sie sich diese Nummern vom CSC bestätigen). Oder kontaktieren Sie die/den Assistentin/Assistenten des Ministers, um sich die Nummern bestätigen zu lassen.

9. Wenn der Kontakt mit dem Minister nicht klappt, legen Sie eine Beschwerde beim Public Protector ein. 

Nach meiner Erfahrung hilft ein Anruf beim GD wirklich, wenn alles andere nichts bringt.

Außerdem sind nach meiner Erfahrung höhergestellte Beamte von Home Affairs durchaus willig, direkt mit dem Normalverbraucher zu kommunizieren. Wenn Sie selbst diese Personen kontaktieren, zeigt dies, wie sehr Ihnen die Sache am Herzen liegt.

Zusammenfassend die verschiedenen Verfahrensschritte:

1. Kunden-Center (CSC)>>>2. CSC Manager>>>3. Operational Response Unit>>>4. Chief Director>>>5. Deputy Director General (DDG)>>>6. Director General (GD)>>>7. Director General's cellphone>>>8. Minister>>>9. Public Protector


Haftungssauschluss: Dies ist keine offzielle Verfahrensprozedur von Home Affairs. Dies sind die Schritte, die ich unternommen habe und am erfolgreichsten waren. Kontaktieren Sie das Kunden-Center von Home Affairs, um Informationen über die offizielle Vorgehensweise bei Beschwerden zu erhalten. Im Zweifelsfall gilt die englische Version dieses Textes.

Translation by a good friend.

Problemas: llamar a la Dirección General

Spanish version of "Problems? Phone the DG on his cellphone".

El Director General de Interior invita a los miembros del público que está teniendo problemas que no están siendo adecuadamente resueltos a llamarlo por teléfono en su teléfono celular, el número se encuentra en la página web del ministerio del interior. Lo dijo en una conferencia en el Parlamento el 15 de marzo de 2011 en respuesta a una pregunta formulada por el Ministro del Interior de la oposición DA, Annette Lovemore.

************* Llamar a la Dirección General es el último recurso. Antes de llamar a la Dirección General...
Asegúrese de llevar un registro de cuando llamó por teléfono / e-mail y con quien habló.

1 - presentar una queja ante el Servicio al Cliente (CSC) 0800 20 44 76 o e-mail csc@dha.gov.za. Asegúrese de que usted obtenga un número de referencia
2 - Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria dentro de 3 días, comuníquese con el gerente de CSC hennie.meyer@dha.gov.za
3 - Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria a los de 3 días, pídale a una persona de contacto en la unidad de respuesta operativa. Póngase en contacto con ellos.
4 - Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria (dentro de 5 días, creo que es su tiempo de respuesta) pregunte cuál es el director jefe relevante para su caso y obtener sus datos de contacto.
Póngase en contacto con el director en jefe.

Los directores principales de la inmigración (asilo, permisos, etc) son los siguientes:
Director General Adjunto: Servicios de Inmigración - J McKay
Jefe Director de la Oficina de Relaciones Exteriores de Coordinación y Apoyo - N Mnyaka
Jefe Director del Puerto de control - J. Mamabolo
Jefe Director Permisos - M. Radebe
Jefe Director de Inspección - M. Matthews
Jefe Director: Solicitantes de asilo - L. Kgasi

Los directores en jefe de los servicios civiles (identificaciones, pasaportes, certificados de nacimiento, etc) son
Director General Adjunto: Servicios Civiles - V Mkhize
Jefe Director: gestión de procedimientos civiles - M. Moloi
Jefe Director: Back office de procesos ID - T Sigama - (interino)
Jefe Director: Servicios de Administración  - N. Ramashia
Jefe Director: servicios de apoyo civil - Vacante

Los directores principales de lucha contra la corrupción y la seguridad son
Director General Adjunto: Anti-Corrupción y la Seguridad: C Khwela - (interino)
Jefe Director: Investigación-C Khwela
Jefe Director: Servicios de seguridad - S Hancock
(Todos los nombres de los funcionarios clave están en la web de los asuntos de interior. La estructura/organigrama de los asuntos de interior está también en este blog)
5 - Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria en de 3 días econtacte con el Director General Adjunto relevante para su caso.
6 - Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria dentro de 3 días, e-mail al Director General Sr. Mkuseli Apleni un resumen de su problema (Mkuseli.apleni @ dha.gov.za)
· ¿Qué documento solicitó
· Cuando aplicó
· La oficina de presentación de su solicitud
· El número de referencia para la aplicación y el número de la queja de referencia CSC
· ¿Qué director general y subdirector general contactó usted antes de que usted se pusiera en contacto con la Dirección General.
· ¿Qué resultados que necesita y cuándo.
7-Si usted no recibe respuesta satisfactoria dentro de 5 días llame al Director General en su celular 0824497535.

********* Asegúrese de que puede resumir su caso y el resultado deseado en 2 minutos debido el Director General es un funcionario muy ocupados e importante.************

En mi experiencia, él responde su propio teléfono móvil, si llama entre las 7.15 y las 8 am. Después empieza sus reuniones.

****** Por favor, recuerde que para llamar a la Dirección General debe haber agotado todas las otras posibilidades para resolver su asunto .****************

8-Si llamando a la Dirección General no funciona, llame al ministro fax 0128107307 o 0124326637 (confirmar estos números con el CSC antes de enviar el fax). O póngase en contacto con la secretaria del ministro para confirmar el número de fax.
9-Si en contacto con el ministro no funciona, entonces presentar una queja ante el Defensor del Pueblo.
En mi experiencia, llamar a la Dirección General funciona de hecho, cuando todo lo demás falla.

Además en mi experiencia los altos funcionarios del Interior parecen muy dispuestos a tratar directamente con los miembros del público. Ponerse en contacto usted mismo muestra lo importante que la cuestión es para usted.

Resumen del procedimiento de quejas
1.Customer Service Centre (CSC)>>> 2.CSC Manager>>> 3. Unidad de Respuesta Operacional>>> 4. Director Chief>>> 5.Deputy Director General (DDG)>>> 6.Director General (DG ) móvil>>> 7.Director General>>> 8.Ministro>>> 9.Defensor del Pueblo

Descargo de responsabilidad: no se trata de un procedimiento de quejas oficial. Este es el procedimiento que he seguido y que fue el más efectivo. Para obtener una explicación del procedimiento de queja oficial, contacte con el servicio al público de Home Affairs. En caso de duda, la versión en Inglés de este texto es válida.

Translation provided by a good friend.

Tuesday 23 August 2011

The dea(r)th of privacy rights — Home Affairs and the banks

by Chris Watters
Coming from the culture we do, where we lived with, and many by and large accepted the validity of, an all-seeing, all-knowing, ‘big brother' government, South Africans appear to have a schizophrenic attitude towards privacy rights. The high point of our demand for privacy probably occurs when we get those mid-dinner time phone calls from someone trying to sell us a free-ish holiday in Mauritius or those unsolicited text messages advertising some never to be repeated deal of a lifetime (at least not until the next day). It's probably only at that point that some will get steamed and wonder where these agencies got our details from. On the other hand, as part of our break from our twisted past, section 14 of the Bill of Rights has enshrined the right of "everyone" to privacy. And the Promotion of Access to Information Act [‘PAIA'] is tasked with finding a happy median between the demand for transparent governance and that right to privacy.

So it came with some surprise (or perhaps not) to see Home Affairs and the SA Banking Risk Information Centre applauding each other for the ‘strategic partnership' they had concluded recently. The stated aim of this partnership is to allow SA's banks to conduct online fingerprint verification of bank clients. This will be done by Home Affairs giving the banks "real time access" to Home Affairs' HANIS database of our fingerprints. Not the fingerprints of some criminal scum-bucket from some far flung failed state who is visiting South Africa, it is noted - because the fingerprints of casual visitors, irrespective of who they are or where they are from, do not get captured on the Home Affairs' database.

And the problem? Well, for starters, our fingerprints qualify as our "personal information" in terms of section 1 of PAIA. And section 34(1) of PAIA requires a public body to refuse any request for the disclosure of personal information "if its disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information." But if the public body's information officer is contemplating the request, he or she is required to notify the third party "to whom ... the record [sought] relates...". And time frames are set out to allow for this and for appeals to take place if the third party objects to the intended disclosure.

So Home Affairs cannot lawfully allow the banks - or anyone for that matter - ‘real time access' to our fingerprints. Its not the Department's information to disclose as and when it suits them or the banks!

But, and here is where our ‘big brother' past creeps in, one can almost immediately hear the cry from Home Affairs or the banks of ‘what is objectionable about this unless we are guilty of something'and ‘what do we have to hide?'

The answer was set out very succinctly in a recent judgment of the Pretoria High Court by Bertelsmann J in Makhanya v Vodacom Service Provider [2010 (3) SA 79 GNP] where, citing authority in the US Supreme Court, he described the right to privacy as "the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

But, of course, we do not need to look to US authority to object to the banks fishing about our records at Home Affairs. The answer lies ultimately here at our back door - the Bill of Rights and PAIA say that such a disclosure would be unlawful. In PAIA, Parliament has set out a procedure to be followed if Home Affairs wants our permission to make these disclosures. The inquiry may have an entirely legitimate function and purpose and we may well have no objection. But PAIA requires that we should be asked first. And section 7 of the Bill of Rights demands that the state must "respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights" - not ignore them whenever it is deemed convenient or ‘reasonable' by some unknown bureaucrat. And apparently implied in this ‘strategic partnership' is that all such requests received from the banks, will be deemed reasonable - as least as far as their joint media release is concerned.

Ultimately, it boils down to whether or not, in implementing this strategic partnership, the banks and Home Affairs have any regard for our dignity, do they really respect their clients?


Chris Watters

  http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/the-dearth-of-privacy-rights-home-affairs-and-the-banks-2010-06-07

Monday 22 August 2011

Emigration from South Africa: Sound bites and other silliness

By Chris Watters
It is well-known, except perhaps to one or other Government spokesperson, that South Africa is plagued by a skills shortage and endemic un- or under-employment. At the same time one of the many other tragedies of South African society is that it is a country where more than a few people feel driven to leave the country. It is an open secret that more people emigrate from SA than immigrate to SA.

We only have to take a quick look at the criteria for emigration to the ‘major’ destinations (US, UK, Canada and Australia) to see that the people who leave and emigrate legally are going to be people with money, tertiary qualifications and proven entrepreneurial skills.

This target group would ordinarily play a significant role in South Africa in terms of job creation, widening the tax base and improving our economic efficiencies and competitiveness. And, onc cannot forget that emigrating is generally considered one of the most stressful things you can do in your lifetime; packing up and trying to re-establish your life in another country and culture. What drives people to do this? There can be any number of factors. But in recent years it is clear that there is increasing uncertainty as to the future direction and security of the country. As one couple said to me very recently – rightly or wrongly – “we don’t want to wake up to find ourselves and our children caught up in a civil war.” And you can ask the various Embassies – this is not a colour issue.

But if weekend media reports are to be believed, instead of trying to address the source of these fears the way the ANC has reportedly sought to respond prudently to the challenges posed by the recent local election results, the response to people fearing that they have no choice but to leave, has been little short of “good riddance to bad rubbish.”

This response stands in stark contrast to the analysis of the country‘s challenges tabled in the recently-released National Planning Commission’s Diagnostic Overview. Indeed, also at the weekend, Joel Netshitenzhe was quoted in the Sunday Independent, as saying that “a revolutionary phrase at the wrong time can defeat revolution” – in summarising his critique of other recent sound bites that could have done little to allay the fears of those people who are considering emigration.

So why are some senior political figures driven to this knee jerk equivalent of “well, sod off then”? How can this possibly help to offer the disenchanted youth a credible and sustainable stake in the economy when all we are doing is driving away some of the very people we need, to head off the potential conflict with the youth?

And it is not just emigration that is affected by these unfortunate sound bites. When people are looking to relocate from other countries with their skills or their retirement funds, they are not going to place themselves and their families at risk by heading to a destination that some feel is becoming a tinder box, once again, as a result of unchecked public statements of equally public figures.

The motivations for, and challenges of, emigration and immigration need to be better understood. They need to be responded to maturely and not with silly, irresponsible sound bites. South Africa is not in a position to play ‘footsie footsie’ about its economic recovery and job creation initiatives – and the very people who can help make that happen.

http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/emigration-from-south-africa-sound-bites-and-other-silliness-2011-06-28

Sunday 21 August 2011

Home Affairs and its backlogs – More of the Emperors' clothes?

****If you are having problems that are not being adequately addressed, phone the Home Affairs DG on his cellphone.  Read more here.****

Article by Chris Watters
George Eliot is accredited with posing the question: ‘What do we live for, if it is not to make life less difficult to each other.’ It appears that someone at Home Affairs missed the ‘George Eliot Day’ during their studies.

Amidst considerable fanfare it was announced very recently that the backlog for permit applications had been cleared, a story that the media carried repeatedly, to the considerable delight of many a frustrated expat waiting for his or permit. When more than one attorney subsequently pointed out to the Department that this was not exactly correct, officials directed their attention, ironically, to the ‘small print’ of the full media release.

And there buried in the detail was the advisory that people should not start hassling the Department for their permits before 20 April, to allow the Department time to get the permits from Pretoria to Johannesburg and for administrative matters to be attended to. Quite aside from what is it that takes three weeks to get done once the application has been adjudicated, and how long it takes a courier to get from Pretoria to Johannesburg even in rush hour traffic, surely Home Affairs could have timed their announcement better or even just corrected those apparently misleading media reports?

But that small print tells a very different story. Firstly, as far as the client base is concerned, the backlog has not been cleared. It makes no difference to the customer that his or her permit has been “adjudicated” somewhere in Pretoria if it is not in his or her passport. And secondly, advising people not to contact the call centre before then implies that there will in fact be applications that will not have been finalised by that date.

That expectations are going to be frustrated is in fact inevitable. The story is told, for example, that during March, Head Office officials descended on the Johannesburg Regional Office and collected many applications that had been lying there without being sent on to Pretoria. These were removed without allocating ‘track and trace’ numbers to the individual files. As a result attorneys cannot track their clients’ applications. And attorneys active in the field report that they are still being called and told to send duplicates of their applications because the paperwork has been lost by the Department. In one matter where the attorney was trying to track his client’s file, there was an exchange with the call centre that could have been scripted by Franz Kafka. Head Office had already twice asked for a copy of the application to be faxed through to them, which had been done. Then whilst trying to track its further progress, the attorney was told that Johannesburg had not however recorded that the file had left Johannesburg and, until Johannesburg did so, the file was not in Pretoria even if it was in Pretoria and the call centre would not answer questions about the application until that happened!

But there is another side, and very cynical component, to this so-called purging of the backlog. Under pressure to clear the backlog, attorneys are reporting that little short of shocking and irrational decisions are being taken with applications being refused for farcical and arbitrary reasons. That way, even if the application then has to return to the Department by way of an appeal, it is no longer part of the backlog.

The same thing happened several years ago when there was a huge backlog in permanent residence applications and also when there was a back-up in refugee applications. This is not clearing the backlog. It merely creates a new one and people are still kept waiting much to the increasing frustration of the customer and other interested parties such as employers.

It’s possibly too much to hope that the Minister or the Director General reads George Eliot during their spare time.

As a footnote, it was noteworthy that the Department of Home Affairs was not asked to comment on the arrival of Radovan Krejcir’s mother at OR Tambo last week. According to media reports, an ‘anonymous’ security official claimed that airport officials had been “duped” by Mrs Krejcirova having had the gall to arrive on her own passport and without a disguise (presumably her Klingon costume was at the drycleaners). In doing so it was claimed that security officials, with all their training for and experience of the soccer world cup etc, had apparently been sold a dummy – perhaps one of the oldest tricks in the book, whether its chess pieces, football players or contraband you are moving! Personally, I think someone forgot to take his anti-paranaoia medication last week.
http://www.polity.org.za/print-version/home-affairs-and-its-backlogs-more-of-the-emperors-clothes-2011-04-11

Saturday 20 August 2011

SA a magnet for international crime syndicates

Local News | Cape Town
‘SA a magnet for international crime syndicates’
Catherine Rice | 8 Hour(s) Ago

The Home Affairs Department on Tuesday said South Africa has become a major target and home for a range of international syndicates dealing in drugs, arms, human trafficking and prostitution.
Officials from both the Home Affairs and the Labour Departments briefed Members of Parliament (MPs) on foreign nationals in the South African labour market.
One of the major challenges is securing borders and other points of entry.
Home Affairs Deputy Director-General Jackie McKay said the amended Immigration Act seeks to address the presence of foreign nationals in the local labour market.
He said globally there are increasing numbers of desperate refugees and South Africa is one of the preferred destinations.
McKay added that a lack of integration of systems means people are able to operate under different names and enjoy multiple benefits under assumed identities.
This major weakness makes it difficult to track the presence of foreign nationals in the country.
(Edited by Lindiwe Mlandu)

 http://www.eyewitnessnews.co.za/Story.aspx?Id=72160

Friday 19 August 2011

SA issues over 65 000 work permits

Compiled by the Government Communication and Information System
Date: 16 Aug 2011
Title: SA issues over 65 000 work permits

Cape Town - The Department of Home Affairs' issuing of works permits to Zimbabwean nationals, under its recent Zimbabwe Dispensation Project, has inflated the number of work permits issued by the department to foreigners, with over 65 000 issued in the first quarter of this fiscal year.

Briefing a joint meeting for the National Assembly's labour and home affairs portfolio committees, the Department of Home Affairs Deputy Director-General of Immigration, Jackie McKay, said 59 363 of the permits issued between April and June this year were part of the department's Zimbabwe Dispensation Project, which came to an end last month.

In the last financial year, 135 000 work permits were issued to foreign nationals.

The remainder of permits issued during this time were: 672 corporate work permits, 699 exceptional skills permits, 3 202 general work permits, 1 252 permits that fall under the quota system and 1 719 work permits in terms of the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the Immigration Act (which provides for intra-company transfers).

McKay said the challenge his department faced with low-skilled work seekers was that many were opportunists that applied for asylum-seeker permits, as it didn't cost anything and allowed one to work in the country legally.

However, he said the department is looking at overhauling the entire asylum-seeker process and had appointed more members to the department's standing committee on refugees to ensure that work in this area went ahead.

He was quick to point out that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees regularly commended the country for its good treatment of refugees.

In answer to DA member Ian Ollis, on why so many work permits were issued to low-skilled workers rather than to those that were highly skilled, McKay said a study needed to be undertaken on migration trends to better understand the kind of foreign work seekers entering South Africa.

McKay said most unskilled work seekers came to South Africa through Mozambique and Zimbabwe - often arriving in neighbouring countries before crossing South Africa's porous borders.

McKay referred all questions that MPs had on the country's porous borders to the Department of Defence, which oversees border security.

According to figures from the Africa Centre for Migration and Society's Forced Migration Studies Programme, there are about 1.6 million to two million foreigners (3-4% percent of the population) living in South Africa, with about 1 million to 1.5 million of these being Zimbabweans.

McKay also pointed out that the Department of Home Affairs' lack of integration of systems often meant that individuals could be resident in different regimes within the department's databases, sometimes under different names enjoying multiple benefits under assumed identities.

He attributed this to the fact that the department didn't take biometric information from foreign work seekers and it only did so for those seeking asylum.

But he questioned whether making finger-printing of foreign workers mandatory would be a good idea, as it could make South Africa a less favourable destination for foreign workers, he said.

Turning to the amendments to the Immigration Act, MacKay said these are largely aimed at revising provisions relating to visas for temporary stays; introduction of permits for low-skilled and unskilled immigrants; revising provisions relating to permanent residence and to allow for advanced processing of travellers as was undertaken during last World Cup.

The amendment calls for temporary residence permits to in the future be referred to as "visas", but that the term "permanent residence permits" would remain.

"The reason for this is that the word permit is interpreted generally - even by our courts - as denoting 'long-term' stay in South Africa, where as the word 'visa' internationally denotes that you visit the country for a temporary, or short period only," he said.

The amendment also calls for a new permit, called the critical skills permit, to replace the existing exceptional skills and quota work permits. The department would then be required to publish a list of critical skills that the department needs.

He said the department is drafting an immigration review policy and would be holding consultations with other departments and hold public hearings.

It is hoped that these discussions would lead to further amendments of the Immigration Act, he said.

The Department of Labour's Deputy Director-General of Public Employment Services,
Sam Morotoba, said the country's labour laws don't discriminate against any migrant workers, but pointed out that the country didn't have regulations addressing specifically migrants.

Morotoba said the department had received legal advice that at present, companies could still easily challenge the department in court over the legality of a permit.

He said Section 9 of the proposed Employment Services Bill - which is presently at Nedlac - would provide a better legal basis for the department on addressing migrants.

The bill proposes that employers must first advertise a position locally and consider those applicants that the department has provided them for through the Employment Services Portal (which the bill has mooted) and then back this up with the relevant evidence presented to the department, if they wish to take on foreign workers.

Meanwhile, a study by Parliament's research unit, made available to committee members today, pointed out that a number of studies showed the benefits of labour migration - with one study revealing that in 1990, more than a third of engineers and other IT professionals living in the US were born elsewhere. - BuaNews
http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/11/11081615051002

Thursday 18 August 2011

Complaint statistics to Home Affairs call centre

****if you have problems that are not being adequately address, contact the Home Affairs DG on his cell.  Read more here. ****

 

Home Affairs: Is the turnaround strategy working?

Annette Lovemore, Shadow Minister of Home Affairs
14 August 2011
In 2008, the Department of Home Affairs introduced a turnaround strategy to remedy the numerous problems that characterise its service delivery. The Department utilised 142 consultants to effect this strategy, at a cost of R899.2 million. The Democratic Alliance (DA) has been informed, unofficially, that the total cost of the strategy has been in the region of R3.2 billion.

In some instances, the turnaround strategy has proved to be relatively successful. However, the DA is concerned that dysfunctionality is still prevalent. The Public Service Commission recently presented its research into service delivery by the Department to the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. The Commission found that the number of clients who felt that they experienced no problems with Home Affairs’ service has substantially decreased (from 78.1% in 2006/07 to 57.1% in 2009/10).

Of the 42.9% of clients who experienced problems, only 12.5 % lodged complaints. (The majority felt that it was not worthwhile to complain, or did not know how to lodge a complaint.)

The Department’s Customer Service Centre (CSC) received 1 074 528 calls between April and November 2009 (the last period for which accurate statistics are available). If this represents the full 12.5% of those who experienced problems, the implication is that approximately 11.4 million people experienced service delivery problems during 2009.

If the Public Service Commission’s research is accurate, and the level of satisfaction has dropped, the current figure is likely to be even higher than this.

The DA is concerned, not only about the apparent decline in satisfaction with service delivery, but about the increase in particular problems being dealt with by the CSC.

The following information, with respect to the nature of calls fielded by the CSC staff, was supplied in a reply received this week to a question posed by the DA to the Minister:


                                                                   2008/09            2009/10             2010/11

Identity Documents: Duplication               9 056                32 377               35 091

Birth Certificates Application Status         31 461               81 590              10 5417

Death Certificates Application Status        2 217                6 637                8 920

Marriage Certificates Application Status    6 108               15 924               17 638

Rectification: Personal Details                    18                    631                   4 479

Work Permits                                              4                    167                    20 868



These numbers are alarming, and deserving of serious attention by the Minister.

The Home Affairs Portfolio Committee will be interacting closely with the Department and its provincial management teams regarding their performance in the upcoming parliamentary sessions, and the DA will utilise these opportunities to interrogate the efficacy of the turnaround strategy, and whether its high cost is justified. With the information currently available, it does not appear as if South Africans have received a return on the investment of public funds in the Department of Home Affairs.

http://da.org.za/newsroom.htm?action=view-news-item&id=9663

Wednesday 17 August 2011

Problems? Phone the DG on his Cellphone



Read this in French, German, Spanish

The Director General of Home Affairs invites members of the public who are having problems that are not being adequately addressed to phone him on his cellphone, the number is on the home affairs website.  He said this in a briefing to parliament on 15 March 2011 in response to a question by the DA Shadow Minister for Home Affairs, Annette Lovemore.

*************Phoning the DG is a last resort.  Before you phone the DG...

Ensure that you keep records of when you phoned/e-mailed and who you spoke to.

1 – file a complaint with the customer service centre (CSC) 0800 20 44 76 or e-mail csc@dha.gov.za  Ensure that you get a reference number

2 – If you don’t get satisfactory feedback within 3 days, contact the CSC manager hennie.meyer@dha.gov.za

3 – If you don’t get satisfactory feedback within 3 days, ask for a contact person at the operational response unit.  Contact them.

4 – If you don’t get satisfactory feedback (within 5 days, I think that is their turnaround time) ask which is the relevant chief director for your case and get their contact details.  


Contact the chief director.  The chief directors for immigration (asylum, permits etc) are:
  • Deputy Director General: Immigration Services - J McKay
  • Chief Director Foreign Office Co-ordination and Support - N Mnyaka
  • Chief Director Port Control – J. Mamabolo
  • Chief Director Permits – M. Radebe
  • Chief Director Inspectorate – M. Matthews
  • Chief Director: Asylum Seekers Management – L. Kgasi

  • Deputy Director General: Civic Services - V Mkhize
  • Chief Director: Civic channel management - M. Moloi
  • Chief Director: Back office ID processing - T Sigama - (Acting)
  • Chief Director: Back office status services - N. Ramashia
  • Chief Director: Civic services support – Vacant

The chief directors for counter corruption and security are

(All the names of key officials are on the home affairs website.  The home affairs organogram/structure is also on this blog)

5 - If you don’t get satisfactory feedback within 3 days contact the relevant deputy director general for your case.

6 - If you don’t get satisfactory feedback within 3 days, e-mail the Director General Mr Mkuseli Apleni a summary of your problem  (Mkuseli.apleni@dha.gov.za)
·         What document you applied for
·         When you applied
·         The office you submitted your application
·         Your reference numbers for the application and the CSC complaint reference number
·         Which chief director and deputy director general you contacted before you contacted the DG.
·         What outcome you need and when.

7-If you don’t get satisfactory feedback within 5 days phone the DG on his cell 0824497535 .  

*********Ensure that you can summarise your case and desired outcome in 2 minutes because the DG is a very busy and senior official.************

In my experience, he does answer his cellphone himself, if you phone him between 7.15 and 8am.  After that he’s in meetings.

******Please remember that to phone the DG you must have exhausted all other possibilities for resolving your matter.****************

8-If phoning the DG doesn’t work, fax the minister 0128107307 or 0124326637 (confirm these numbers with the CSC before sending the fax).  Or contact the minister's PA to confirm the fax number.

9-If contacting the minister doesn't work, then file a complaint with the public protector.  

In my experience, phoning the DG does indeed work when all else fails. 

Also from my experience, senior Home Affairs officials seem very willing to deal directly with members of the public.  Contacting them yourself shows how much the matter means to you.

Summary 

1.Customer Service Centre (CSC)>>>2.CSC Manager>>>3.Operational Response Unit>>>4.Chief Director>>>5.Deputy Director General (DDG)>>>6.Director General(DG)>>>7.Director General's cellphone>>>8.Minister>>>9.Public Protector

Disclaimer: this is not an official home affairs complaints procedure.  This is the procedure that I followed that was the most effective.  For an explanation of the official complaints procedure, contact the Home Affairs customer service centre.

****Check whether there is a different official in a certain position****