The South African government has ruled out compensating foreign nationals for property acquired illegally, as migrant representative organisations push for urgent talks with authorities over growing concerns surrounding the return of undocumented migrants and the loss of their belongings.
Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni said only legally owned and registered property is recognised under South African law, warning that informal structures and illegally occupied land do not qualify for compensation.
Her remarks come amid calls by migrant organisations for the government to grant undocumented migrants a temporary amnesty until December 31, 2026, allowing them to return to their home countries with dignity and sufficient time to dispose of their assets and settle their affairs.
Speaking during a recent media briefing, Ntshavheni said South Africa has established legal systems for registering property ownership and businesses.
On this topic
“If you own property in South Africa, it is registered. If it is a house, it is registered with the Deeds Registry. If you own a car, it is registered in the National Traffic Information System (NaTIS). If you own a business, it is registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC),” she said.
Watch: https://x.com/Newzroom405/status/2072993109428813980/video/1
Ntshavheni dismissed suggestions that the government should compensate people for property in informal settlements.
“Squatter camps and informal settlements are never properties because they are illegal. You are already violating our law if you are going to tell us about a shack in some informal settlement,” she said.
She added the South African government had approved measures to prevent the re-establishment of informal settlements following evictions carried out in accordance with court rulings.
“So there’s no compensation that will come from the government,” the minister said.
Ntshavheni noted individuals with legally registered movable or immovable property remain free to dispose of those assets through the property market.
“Those who leave their properties, if they are properly legally registered in the country, they can dispose of the properties in the property market in South Africa, whether it’s movable or immovable,” she said.
She also challenged those alleging they had abandoned drug houses to identify their locations.
“We would be interested to know where the drug dens of Nigerians are so that we can clean the drugs in South Africa quite easily,” Ntshavheni stated.
Despite criticism from some quarters on that position, Ntshavheni reinforced her position in a post on X, saying: “I didn’t stutter. Any form of property obtained illegally won’t be compensated for.”
The South African government’s position has heightened concerns among migrant communities, many of whom said they stand to lose homes, businesses and personal belongings accumulated over years of living and working in South Africa.
Chairperson of the Zimbabwe Community in South Africa, Ngqabutho Nicholas Mabhena, said the organisation had requested a meeting with the Department of Home Affairs to discuss the implications of the host government’s position.
However, they were still waiting for a response.
“We are waiting for a meeting to engage with the government. We have requested a meeting to raise some of these issues, but we have not yet been given a date. We want to meet the Director-General of Home Affairs over these issues.”
The Zimbabwe Community in South Africa is advocating for a temporary amnesty for undocumented migrants until the end of the year, arguing that such a measure would enable affected migrants to leave voluntarily while allowing employers sufficient time to comply with labour and immigration requirements.
Mabhena has previously argued that an orderly transition would reduce humanitarian challenges while preventing migrants from abandoning assets and livelihoods built over many years.
Dr Vusumuzi Sibanda, Chairperson of the African Diaspora Global Network, said Ntshavheni’s comments appeared aimed at distancing the government from potential liability for losses suffered by migrants.
“She is speaking from an angle of trying to avoid responsibility so that she doesn’t give the impression that the government will take responsibility,” he said.
Dr Sibanda noted, however, migrants with legally registered property still retained rights under South Africa’s market system.
“If somebody has property that is legally registered in their name and they have title deeds and all the necessary documents, they can sell it on the market,” he said,
Dr Sibanda said the situation was significantly different for migrants who had acquired assets informally or whose properties were not legally registered.
“If you had property that is not under your name, you can’t even sell it and you can’t recover anything from it,” he said.
He added owners of legally registered property who believed the South African state had failed to protect them from violence or unlawful displacement could pursue legal remedies.
“If they believe the government has not done enough to protect them, they can also sue the government,” summed Dr Sibanda.
The debate comes against the backdrop of mounting anti-immigrant sentiment in South Africa, where foreign nationals have increasingly been blamed for unemployment, crime and pressure on public services.
Thousands of Zimbabweans, many of whom crossed the border over the past two decades in search of employment and better economic opportunities, now face difficult decisions as immigration enforcement tightens and hostility towards undocumented migrants intensifies.
This uncertainty for migrants extends beyond their immigration status to whether they will be able to recover the investments they made while living in South Africa.
Leave a Reply