Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia and Others v Operation Dudula and Others (2023/044685) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1102 (4 November 2025)

Case Note

Kopanang Africa against Xenophobia and Others v Operation Dudula and Others (2023-044685) [2025] ZAGPJHC --- (4 November 2025)

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for the rights of non-nationals in South Africa and the broader constitutional obligations of public authorities. It addresses the intersection of immigration law, human rights, and the responsibilities of state agencies in combating xenophobia and unlawful conduct. The court's decision reinforces the principles of legality, accountability, and human dignity as enshrined in the Constitution, shedding light on the limits of state action and the rights of individuals, particularly in contexts of racial discrimination and xenophobia.

Cases Cited

1. Residents of Industry House v Minister of Police [2021] ZACC 37; 2023 (3) SA 329 (CC).
2. Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd and Another [2022] ZACC 7.
3. Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and Another [1999] ZACC 16; 2000 (1) SA 409 (CC).
4. Dawood and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2000] ZACC 8.
5. AK v Minister of Police 2023 (2) SA 321 (CC).
6. Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2017] UCC 22.

Legislation Cited

• Immigration Act 13 of 2002.
• Regulation of Gatherings Act 205 of 1993.
• Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.
• Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.
• Children’s Act 38 of 2005.

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rule of Court 67A.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The applicants sought interdictory and declaratory relief against Operation Dudula and various state departments, alleging that the actions of Operation Dudula constituted unlawful conduct aimed at foreign nationals, infringing upon their constitutional rights. The court granted some relief, declaring that only police and immigration officials have the lawful authority to demand identification documents and interdicting Operation Dudula from engaging in actions that amount to harassment, intimidation, and hate speech. However, claims regarding the Government's collusion with Operation Dudula and the South African Police Service's failure to fulfil its constitutional duties were largely dismissed due to lack of credible evidence.

Key Issues

The case revolved around several key legal issues: 1. The scope of powers conferred on immigration officers and police under section 41 of the Immigration Act. 2. The extent to which state agencies are required to combat acts of xenophobia and protect the rights of foreign nationals. 3. The allegations against Operation Dudula regarding unlawful conduct, hate speech, and harassment of foreign nationals.

Held

The court held that: 1. Only immigration officers and police officers have the power to demand identification from individuals. 2. Operation Dudula was interdicted from engaging in conduct that amounted to intimidation, harassment, and hate speech against foreign nationals. 3. Claims that state agencies were complicit with Operation Dudula were not substantiated by credible evidence and were thus dismissed.

THE FACTS

The applicants, comprising various civil society organizations, sought relief against Operation Dudula, a group that aggressively advocates against foreign nationals in South Africa, alleging persistent violations of human rights including harassment, intimidation, and unlawful evictions. The first respondent, Operation Dudula, has engaged in hostile activities targeting foreign nationals, including threats and violence against individuals in residential areas and targeting businesses seen as owned by non-South African citizens. The government, represented by multiple respondents including SAPS (South African Police Service) and DHA (Department of Home Affairs), was named amid allegations of failing to act against the unlawful conduct perpetrated by Operation Dudula.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions for the court were whether: 1. Operation Dudula's actions constituted impermissible conduct infringing the rights of individuals, particularly foreign nationals. 2. The powers under the Immigration Act's section 41 were being applied correctly and constitutionally by the police and immigration officers in relation to demands for identification. 3. The state had any collusion or failure in its duty to combat xenophobia and adequately protect individuals from unlawful actions caused by Operation Dudula.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis hinged on the understanding of constitutional protections against xenophobia and discrimination as outlined in the Bill of Rights. The court reinforced that the rights to dignity and privacy extend to all individuals regardless of their immigration status, thereby negating any justification for unlawful searches or demands for identification outside the purview of police powers. The evidential burden placed upon the applicants was significant, particularly in proving claims of collusion or tacit support by state agencies. The court highlighted a lack of credible evidence linking the actions of the SAPS and DHA to any illicit support for Operation Dudula, emphasizing the importance of factual substantiation in legal claims.

REMEDY

The court granted specific relief that included: 1. A declaration of the exclusive authority of police officers and immigration officials to demand identification. 2. An interdict against Operation Dudula restraining them from unlawful conduct including harassment and intimidation based on nationality. 3. The government was directed to effectively implement the National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, ensuring measures are put in place for monitoring xenophobic violence.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles articulated by the court include: 1. The right to dignity and privacy is inalienable and does not hinge on citizenship or documentation status. 2. The necessity for state agencies to act within the bounds of their legal authority while ensuring the protection of all individuals from harm, particularly in the context of hate speech and discrimination. 3. Any notion of public order must conform with constitutional mandates, rejecting self-help that violates the law and due process.

Overall, the ruling illustrates the court's commitment to uphold constitutional rights and integrity in governance, particularly regarding issues surrounding xenophobia and illegal conduct by private citizens and entities.