.

The White Paper opens by bemoaning legal precedents that refugees have secured from our courts – in particular the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal – and attributes them to South Africa’s unreserved ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention (‘Refugee Convention’) and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘Refugee Protocol’). [...] To exit the Refugee Convention and the Refugee Protocol, South Africa would simply have to denounce them in terms of Articles 44 and 9 respectively, by notifying the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 2.2.2. [...] In particular, the DHA lists the following legal principles as apparently fixable errors in South Africa’s refugee case law: 1 Article 44 of the Refugee Convention states that denunciation ‘shall take effect one year from the date upon which the notification to do so is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations’. [...] She applied for asylum and to the Bill of Rights.17 The SCA held so because the was issued with a permit under section 22(1) of the right to work is a component of the right to dignity – Refugee Act, but it was subject to the conditions which is held by citizens and non-citizens alike.18 that she and her son be prevented from working or Notably, the SCA held that the right to dignity does not stud. [...] She won at the High Court and the would be contrary to the right to dignity to force them Minister of Home Affairs then appealed to the SCA.16 into a life of crime or dependence on charity while the state discharged its duties in terms of the Refugee Act.20 Somali Association of South Africa and This case was precipitated by ‘Operation Hardstick’, The SCA followed its dictum in Watchenuka and held.