More News Articles

On 3 November 2025, the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court (Johannesburg) ordered the City of Johannesburg to urgently and speedily engage with the South African Informal Traders Forum (SAITF), following its unlawful and forcible removal of traders over the previous few weeks, regarding the registration of traders, their verification, and the allocation of trading spaces in the inner city. This process is currently underway, and the Court ordered its completion by 18 November 2025.

Between 2 and 8 October 2025, the MMCs for the City, the Executive Mayor, officers of the JMPD, Johannesburg Property Company (JPC), members of the South African Police Service (SAPS), Gauteng Crime Prevention Wardens (CPW), and members of the South African National Taxi Council (SANTACO) forcibly evicted informal traders and confiscated their stock and goods from their trading sites at Noord Street, King George Street, Klein Street, Wanderers Plein, De Villiers Street and Rissik Street. These forced evictions were carried out without lawful authority (which would be in the form of a court order), without prior notice, and in violation of the Businesses Act, the City’s informal trading by-laws, and the traders’ constitutional rights. The City has since unilaterally declared De Villiers Street as a non-trading area.

The Court-ordered mediation process must address the dispute between SAITF and the City that may arise out of the verification and allocation process. Importantly for traders, the Court also ordered a review, should aspects of the dispute be unresolved after mediation. This means that the parties may return to court within twenty days after mediation, by 8 December 2025.

Statistics South Africa finds that informal traders make up 48% of South Africa’s vibrant informal sector, which accounted for 19,5% of total employment in 2024. Nearly 60% of women informal workers cite unemployment as the main driver for joining the informal economy, which is the second-largest source of employment after the formal sector. The informal sector and trade, in particular, make up a significant part of South Africa’s economy and provide a crucial lifeline for low-income households. Given South Africa’s economic projections, this is unlikely to change anytime soon. The National Development Plan, for example, sees the informal sector creating between 1.2 and 2 million new jobs by 2030, affirming the important role played by the informal trade sector. In addition, food traders are key to urban food systems, and research has illustrated how 85% of households in Johannesburg and 66% in Cape Town relied on the informal market for access to food, in addition to accessing supermarkets.

SERI’s director of Litigation, Nkosinathi Sithole, had this to say about the matter: “SERI is committed, alongside SAITF, to supporting traders in the process of registration, verification, and allocation. SERI remains committed to protecting the rights of all people to make a living free from harm or harassment. Our clients welcome the option of a return to court, if necessary.”

Contact details:

• Edward Molopi, SERI senior communications and advocacy officer: Edward[at]seri-sa.org / 082 590 9638.

>> Download the statement here. 

On Tuesday, the Johannesburg High Court handed down a judgment in the Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia & Others v Operation Dudula & Others, affirming the constitutional rights and dignity of all people living in South Africa and directly confronting unlawful acts of vigilantism and xenophobia. In his judgment, Judge Adams affirms that “human dignity has no nationality.”

This matter was brought on behalf of Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX), the South African Informal Traders Forum (SAITF), the Inner City Federation (ICF) and Abahlali BaseMjondolo, who all sought relief against Operation Dudula and certain of its office-bearers for xenophobic and racist speech and conduct, as well as relevant organs of state for failing to discharge their duties in relation to Operation Dudula’s unlawful conduct. The hearing of the main matter was held on 10 and 11 June 2025. 

In its judgment, the Court declared that Operation Dudula’s conduct is unlawful. This means that Operation Dudula and its members, Zandile Dabula, Dan Radebe and all other leaders of Operation Dudula can no longer assault, harass or intimidate people whom they might think are foreign nationals by demanding that they produce their passports and identification documents, as this power is limited to immigration officers and the police. 

The court also interdicted and restrained Operation Dudula from:

• making public statements that constitute hate speech on the grounds of nationality, social origin or ethnicity at public gatherings, on social media platforms or in any other way;
• interfering with access of foreign nationals to health care services and centres such as clinics and hospitals 
• interfering with access to schools, disrupting school operations, intimidating and harassing learners, teachers and parents
• unlawfully evicting people from their homes
• unlawfully removing foreign nationals from trading stalls and interfering with the employment of foreign nationals in shops and places of business 
• instigating and inciting other people through social media to perform these prohibited acts. 

The Court has interdicted Operation Dudula and its affiliates from continuing these acts, finding that such conduct violates fundamental rights, including the rights to equality, dignity, privacy, freedom and security of the person. The court also ordered Operation Dudula to communicate the outcome not only to all its office bearers but also to its members. 

Furthermore, the court declared that only an immigration officer or a police officer has the power to demand that someone produce their passport or other identity documents and can only do so in public places. No warrantless searches may occur at home, school, work or business. They may not detain, arrest or intimidate minors, except as an option of last resort. 

The Court also affirmed the duty of the state to take steps to prevent xenophobic harassment and violence, recognising the constitutional obligation of public authorities to protect all who live in South Africa. The court ordered the government to take reasonable steps to implement the National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, (the National Plan) including establishing an early warning and rapid response mechanism and making disaggregated data available regarding threats of xenophobic hate speech and hate, including the prosecution and conviction of persons who commit these offences.

SERI Director of Litigation, Nkosinathi Sithole, commenting on this judgment, said:
“This judgment sends a strong and unequivocal message that scapegoating migrants, inciting xenophobia, and taking unlawful action under the guise of ‘community protection’ have no place in our democracy. We commend our clients and partners who have stood firm for years to assert that the rule of law must always prevail.”

We call on government institutions, law-enforcement agencies, and political leaders to implement this judgment fully, to protect affected communities, and to reject rhetoric that fuels division and violence. Inclusive, lawful, and humane approaches are required to address South Africa’s socio-economic challenges.

Contact details:

• Edward Molopi, SERI senior communications and advocacy officer: Edward[at]seri-sa.org / 082 590 9638.

>> Download the statement here. 

On 4 November 2025, the High Court in Johannesburg will hand down its judgment in Part B of the matter Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia and Others v Operation Dudula and Others. This case, brought on behalf of Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX), the South African Informal Traders Forum (SAITF), the Inner City Federation (ICF), and Abahlali BaseMjondolo, challenges the xenophobic and racist speech and conduct of Operation Dudula and certain of its office-bearers. The applicants are also seeking relief from relevant organs of state for failing to discharge their duties to combat xenophobia and Operation Dudula’s unlawful conduct.

The litigation was launched in a two-part application in May 2023 with Part A having been heard in February 2024 and Part B heard in June 2025. Part A of the application sought an initial special order to protect the identities of approximately 40 deponents who have provided supporting and confirmatory affidavits in their capacity as people who either personally witnessed or experienced the unlawful and violent conduct of Operation Dudula. In February 2024, the High granted an order in Part A that prohibits the publication of unredacted court papers that would reveal the identities of deponents who deposed on behalf of the applicants.

Part B of the litigation specifically addresses the unlawful conduct of Operation Dudula and its members, seeking an order that prohibits various actions, including harassment and intimidation of individuals. Operation Dudula has harassed and intimidated people by demanding to verify identity documents, forcing businesses to close, preventing informal traders from operating, evicting people from their homes without a court order, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the police or the military, denying people access to health care or education by removing students and teachers from schools based on nationality – all this with no authority and in deliberate violation of the rights of people. Operation Dudula elected not to participate in this case. 

Part B also seeks orders against various organs of state. Among these is an order that requires the Government to fully implement its National Action Plan to Combat Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (NAP). In addition, applicants are seeking an order that interdicts the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the Department of Home Affairs from colluding with Operation Dudula or conducting dragnet raids targeting whole communities at Operation Dudula’s instigation, and requiring the SAPS to investigate the crimes committed by Operation Dudula.

Contact details:

• Edward Molopi, SERI senior communications and advocacy officer: Edward[at]seri-sa.org / 082 590 9638.

>> Download the full statement here. 

Today, 16 October 2025, marks World Food Day. To commemorate the day, Netwerk24 has published an op-ed written by SERI's Dr Yvonne Erasmus entitled, Hoe hanteer ons honger in ’n land van oorvloed? (Hunger in the land of plenty: How do we move forward?). The op-ed has been published in Afrikaans.

In the op-ed, Erasmus reflects on the paradox of South Africa's abundant food supply alongside vast food insecurity. She argues that while addressing food insecurity is complex due to the multiple causes of the problem, it is vital that the Department of Agriculture, together with other government stakeholders such as the Departments of Health and Social Development, uphold and advance the right to food as enshrined in the Constitution. The country's draft National Food and Nutrition Security Plan (NFNSP), led by the Department of Agriculture provides these stakeholders with an important opportunity to prioritise the crisis of hunger through its offering of a coherent roadmap along with measurable objectives.

She also writes that:

"Alhoewel dit nie grondwetlik gebonde is nie, moet supermarkte as pligdraers van die reg op voedsel beskou word. As 'n onderneming wins maak uit iets wat noodsaaklik is vir menslike oorlewing, kan meer gedoen word om voedsel bekostigbaar te maak vir diegene wat dit die nodigste het, soos om pryse te verlaag of 'n voedsame mandjie kos te subsidieer. Supermarkte kan ook deursigtiger wees oor hoe noodsaaklike voedselpryse vasgestel word sodat dit maklik deur eksterne rolspelers gemonitor kan word en supermarkte aanspreeklik gehou kan word. Laastens is werkgewers van huiswerkers en plaaswerkers, benewens regtehouers, waarskynlik ook pligdraers. So 'n verantwoordelikheid vereis dat billike lone betaal word, dat mense toegelaat word om hul eie kos te kweek, en wanneer kos voorsien word, dat dit voldoende is wat gehalte en hoeveelheid betref."

"Although not constitutionally bound, supermarkets should be considered duty-bearers of the right to food. If a business is built on profiting from something that is essential to human survival, more can be done to make food affordable for those most in need, such as lowering prices or subsidising a nutritious basket of food. Retailers can also be more transparent about how essential food prices are set so that these can easily be monitored by external actors and retailers can be hold to account. Finally, employers of domestic workers and farm workers are, in addition to being rights-holders, arguably also duty-bearers. Such a responsibility requires that fair wages are paid, that people are allowed to grow their own food, and then when food is provided, it is sufficient both in quality and quantity."

 This op-ed draws on SERI's research report entitled ‘Food for Thought: Reflections on Food (In)Security. Laws, Experiences, Interventions’.

• Read the full op-ed here.
• Download the Food (In)Security report here.
• Download the Food (In)Security executive summary here.