Four years after their initial asylum bids were rejected, two Burundian nationals applied again in 2018, pointing to the political violence that had convulsed their country during the 2015 presidential election crisis. South Africa’s Constitutional Court has now closed that door, ruling that foreign nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected cannot simply reapply without a proper legislative framework permitting them to do so.
The court’s reasoning was direct. Allowing unlimited reapplication attempts would create what the justices described as a “never-ending cycle,” obstructing deportations and generating substantial administrative burden. The two Burundians had argued that changed circumstances at home warranted a fresh look at their cases. When then-President Pierre Nkurunziza announced his intention to seek a third term, unrest swept through Burundi, leaving at least 70 people dead. The Supreme Court of Appeal initially sided with the applicants. The Constitutional Court, functioning as the country’s final court of appeal, reversed that decision in a majority judgment.
Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber called the outcome a “major victory” against what he characterized as “abuse” of the refugee system. Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Schreiber said his department had led the argument against the lower court’s position, warning that the earlier ruling would have allowed individuals to take “multiple bites at the cherry” and “constantly abuse the system” through repeated submissions. Schreiber, who represents the Democratic Alliance, the coalition’s second-largest party under President Cyril Ramaphosa, framed the ruling as essential for building a more “effective and fair system to manage refugees and asylum seekers.”
By contrast, the judgment lands at a moment of acute social tension around migration across South Africa. In recent weeks, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in major cities demanding mass deportations of undocumented migrants. Several African governments have raised formal complaints with the African Union and issued warnings to their citizens about potential violence on South African soil.
President Ramaphosa addressed the unrest this week, describing those behind the attacks as “opportunists” who had orchestrated the violence. In an open letter, he wrote: “The recent violent protests and criminal acts directed at foreign nationals in parts of our country do not represent the views of South Africa’s people nor reflect our government’s policy.”
The scale of migration into South Africa gives the ruling practical weight beyond its legal significance. The UN refugee agency recorded more than 167,000 refugees and asylum seekers in the country in 2025, with most originating from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, South Sudan, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe. The broader migrant population stands at approximately 2.4 million, just under 4 percent of the total population according to official statistics (unofficial estimates are believed to run considerably higher). As Africa’s most industrialized economy, South Africa continues to draw workers and migrants from across the continent.
What remains unresolved is the legislative framework the court identified as a prerequisite for any future reapplication pathway. Whether Parliament moves to draft such a framework, and how it might balance humanitarian obligations against the administrative pressures the court cited, will determine whether this ruling closes the door permanently or simply demands a more deliberate hand to open it.